inal environmental impact report west os ngeles community plan … · 2011. 4. 22. ·...

Environmental Review Section

City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

WEST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY PLAN AREA

YULA Boys High School Expansion

SCH No. 2008051066 Case No. ENV-2008-1799-EIR

Council District No. 5

THIS DOCUMENT COMPRISES THE INITIAL STUDY ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Project Address: 9760 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90035

Project Description: The project substantially implements the campus expansion authorized by the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issued in 1999 (Case

Number ZA-1999-279-CU-ZV-PA1), (and accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration, MND-99-0151), while requesting amendments

to specific permit conditions. Among the specific amendments requested is the alteration of the enrollment composition, including an

increase in the number of high school students, while retaining the total enrollment cap established by the 1999 CUP. The applicant also

requests amendments to specific operating conditions in order to provide increased flexibility for typical high school activities. The project

also includes a reduction of the site to eliminate approximately 7,153 square feet on the second and third floors of the project site known as

the “West Wing.” The West Wing will be the subject of separate applications filed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The project proposes a

subterranean parking garage that would provide 100 parking spaces, and a total of approximately 19,953 square feet of new construction.

The project Applicant is requesting the following discretionary approvals: Site Plan Review Findings pursuant to LAMC Section 16.05-E;

Conditional Use Permit/Modification; Parking Variance/Modification; and Haul Route(s) approval, as necessary.

APPLICANT: YULA Boys High School

PREPARED BY:

CAJA Environmental Services

April 2011

YULA BOYS HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

PREPARED FOR: The City of Los Angeles

Department of City Planning Environmental Review Unit

200 North Spring Street, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601

APPLICANT: YULA Boys High School 9760 West Pico Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90035

PREPARED BY: CAJA Environmental Services

11990 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90049

April 2011

This document is prepared on paper with 100% recycled content.

YULA Boys High School Expansion Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

I. INTRODUCTION

1. LOCATION......................................................................................................................I-1

2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................I-1

3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .....................................................................I-2

4. USE OF THIS DOCUMENT ...........................................................................................I-4

II. LIST OF COMMENTERS .......................................................................................................... II-1

III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS................................................................................................... III-1

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... III-1

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR ........................................................ III-1

3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE RECIRCULATED

TRAFFIC CHAPTER .............................................................................................. III-277

IV. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS ........................................................................................IV-1

1. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DEIR ..................................................IV-1

2. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE RECIRCULATED

TRAFFIC CHAPTER ................................................................................................IV-32

V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ..............................................................................V-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A-1: Bracketed Comment Letters and Attachments on the Draft EIR

APPENDIX A-2: Bracketed Comment Letters on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter

APPENDIX B: Traffic Data

APPENDIX C: Air Quality Data

APPENDIX D: Noise Data

City of Los Angeles April 2011

YULA Boys High School Expansion Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Page ii

APPENDIX E: Proposed CUP Conditions

YULA Boys High School Expansion I. Introduction Final Environmental Impact Report Page I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with Sections 15088, 15089, and 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Los Angeles has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the YULA Boys High School Expansion project (herein referred to as “project” or “proposed project”). This Final EIR includes the following sections: 1) Introduction; 2) List of Commenters; 3) Response to Comments; 4) Corrections and Additions; and 5) Mitigation Monitoring Program. Comment letters on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) are provided in Appendix A-1, Bracketed Comment Letters and Attachments on the Draft EIR. Comment letters on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are provided in Appendix A-2, Bracketed Comment Letters on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter.

1. LOCATION

The project site is located within the West Los Angeles community in the City of Los Angeles (the “City”). Regional access to the project site is provided by the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10), located approximately 2.0 miles south of the project site and the San Diego Freeway (I-405), located approximately 2.5 miles west of the project site. In addition, a network of major roadways, including Pico Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard, provide local and regional access to the project site. The project site is located approximately nine miles west of downtown Los Angeles.

The project site is located at 9760 West Pico Boulevard on the southwest corner of West Pico Boulevard and Castello Avenue. The approximately 59,300 square feet (approximately 1.3 acres) quadrilateral-shaped project site is comprised of a single parcel. The project site is generally bounded by West Pico Boulevard to the north, Castillo Avenue to the east, single family residences to the south, and the Museum of Tolerance bounded by Roxbury Drive to the west.

2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The project substantially implements the campus expansion authorized by the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issued in 1999 (Case Number ZA-1999-279-CU-ZV-PA1) (and accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration, MND-99-0151), while requesting amendments to specific permit conditions. The Applicant is proposed to: (1) complete build-out of the campus with modification of the full build-out plans approved pursuant to the 1999 CUP; (2) increase permitted enrollment for the Judaic boys high school while decreasing permitted enrollment for adult education programs; and (3) modify the specific permit conditions of the 1999 CUP, including but not limited to, increased flexibility as to the number and nature of events conducted at the project site, extended evening hours for various activities, extended use of the facilities by YULA Girls High School, and extended use of the facilities for orthodox religious services.

The Applicant’s project would maintain the maximum permitted enrollment (450 students) authorized by the 1999 CUP, but alter the composition of permitted enrollment to a maximum of 350 high school students (100 more high school students than permitted by the 1999 CUP) and 100 JSI/YOLA University students (100 less adult education students permitted by the 1999 CUP).



Although the 1999 CUP authorizes a total of 47,100 square feet of education facilities upon build-out, the project would result in a total build-out of 45,000 square feet, including approximately 19,953 square feet of new construction. The project proposes a subterranean parking garage that would provide 100 parking spaces. Additionally, there would be no change in the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac improvement currently required as a condition of the 1999 CUP improvements and it would be constructed as part of, but prior to, construction of the project. The project also includes a reduction of the site to eliminate approximately 7,153 square feet on the second and third floors of the project site known as the “West Wing.”

The project Applicant is requesting the following discretionary approvals: Site Plan Review Findings pursuant to LAMC Section 16.05-E; Conditional Use Permit/Modification; Parking Variance/Modification; and Haul route(s) approval, as necessary.

Environmental impacts as a result of construction on the project site were analyzed in the Draft EIR.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (Section 15202(a) of the CEQA Guidelines). However, it does encourage “wide public involvement, formal and informal... in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues…” (Section 15201 of the CEQA Guidelines).

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City prepared a preliminary Initial Study that concluded that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and an EIR would be required. The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the proposed project to the State Clearinghouse, and interested agencies and persons on May 14, 2008 for a 30-day review period with the comment period ending June 13, 2008. Comments received on the NOP were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR.

Draft EIR

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, a Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR was distributed to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals for a 45-day public review period from February 26, 2009 through April 13, 2009. The Draft EIR was also circulated to state agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The NOA was published in the Los Angeles Times and copies of the Draft EIR were available for review at the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Central Library, Robertson Branch Library, West Los Angeles Branch Library, and via internet at www.lacity.org/PLN. The purpose of the review period is to provide interested public agencies, groups and individuals the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR and to submit testimony on the possible environmental effects of the proposed project.

http://www.lacity.org/PLN



Recirculated Traffic Chapter

In response to the questions and comments received during the circulation period for the Draft EIR, additional traffic analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project. The additional traffic analysis included the study of traffic generation from the existing school, revaluation of projected traffic based upon the actual traffic generation of the existing school, and recommended new mitigation. As requested by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), the additional traffic analysis included analysis of potential traffic impacts of both the Proposed Project and the ‘Without Cul-de-Sac’ scenario (to update the previous analysis included as Appendix E to the Traffic Study in the Draft EIR). After reviewing this additional traffic analysis, LADOT determined that the new analysis and mitigation recommendations should supersede the previous traffic analysis and mitigation recommendations presented in the Draft EIR.

Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after notice is given as to the availability of the Draft EIR for public review, but before certification. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(c) provides that, if the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, only the chapters or portions of the EIR that have been modified need be recirculated.

To allow the public opportunity to comment upon the revised traffic analysis and mitigation recommendations summarized above, it was determined that the Traffic/Transportation/Parking chapter of the Draft EIR should be revised to present the revised traffic analysis and mitigation recommendations and that such revised Traffic/Transportation/Parking chapter should be recirculated ("Recirculated Traffic Chapter"). The Recirculated Traffic Chapter was circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. No other chapters of the Draft EIR were recirculated and no changes to the Proposed Project as described in the Draft EIR were evaluated in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter.

Final EIR

This document, together with the Draft EIR and Recirculated Traffic Chapter, makes up the Final EIR as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 as follows:

The Final EIR shall consist of:

a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.

b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.

c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.



d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.

e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

As Lead Agency under CEQA, the City must provide each public agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of its responses to comments at least ten days before certifying the Final EIR. In addition, the Lead Agency may also provide an opportunity for members of the public to review the Final EIR before certification, although this is not a requirement of CEQA.

4. USE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The Final EIR allows the public and Lead Agency to review revisions to the Draft EIR, comments, and responses to comments before approval of a project. This Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR and Recirculated Traffic Chapter, incorporated by reference) will serve as the environmental document used by the City when considering approval of a project. After completing the Final EIR and before approving a project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

• The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

• The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and

• The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

In addition, if an EIR that has been certified for a project identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the Lead Agency must adopt findings of fact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a]). For each significant impact, the Lead Agency must make one of the following findings.

• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

• Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

• Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.



Each finding must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. In addition, the Lead Agency must adopt, in conjunction with the findings, a program for reporting or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[d]). These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This program is referred to as the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).

In addition, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant and unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the EIR, the agency must state in writing its reasons for supporting the approved action (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]). This statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial information in the record, including the EIR.

Based on the analysis included in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the Draft EIR and Section II (Analysis) of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the proposed project would result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts with respect to cumulative aesthetic impacts to visual character and with respect to temporary construction noise and vibration. Due to these findings the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations if it was to approve the project. The statement of overriding considerations would not be a substitute for the findings of fact described above.

These certifications, the findings of fact, and the statement of overriding considerations are included in a separate findings document prepared by the City. The Draft EIR (incorporated by reference), Recirculated Traffic Chapter (incorporated by reference), Final EIR, findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations are submitted to the Lead Agency for consideration of the project.



This page intentionally left blank.

YULA Boys High School Expansion II. List of Commenters Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-1

II. LIST OF COMMENTERS

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR

The following organizations/persons provided written comments on the Draft EIR to the Los Angeles Department of City Planning during the formal 45-day public review period from February 26, 2009 through April 13, 2009:

City of Los Angeles Officials, Agencies & Departments

1. Brent Lorscheider, Acting Division Manager (Comment Lorscheider BOS-1) Bureau of Sanitation Wastewater Engineering Services Division City of Los Angeles 2714 Media Center Drive Los Angeles, CA 90065

2. Dennis Hunter, Assistant Deputy Director (Comment Hunter LA County-1 through -3) Land Development Division County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803

3. Edward Guerrero Jr, Transportation Engineer (Comment Guerrero LADOT-1 through -2) Department of Transportation City of Los Angeles 100 South Main Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

4. Terry Roberts, Director (Comment Roberts SCH-1) State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044



Private Individuals

5. Daniel J. Fink, M.D. (Comment Fink-1 through Fink-256) (Comment Fink 2-1) Homeowners Opposed to Museum Expansion 9736 Saturn Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

6. Susan Gans (Comment Gans-1 and Gans 2-1 through -119) Homeowners Opposed to Museum Expansion P.O. Box 35402 Los Angeles, CA 90035

7. Susan Berk (Comments Berk-1 through -4) 9190 Olympic Blvd., #275 Beverly Hills, CA 90212

8. Sydney Cetner (Comment Cetner-1 through -7) 1439 Castello Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90035

9. Jean & Fred Colton (Comment Colton-1 through -11 and Colton 2-1 through 2-11) 1461 S. Castello Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90035

10. Gerald and Sylvia Crasnick (Comment Crasnick-1 through -11) 1450 Roxbury Drive Los Angeles, CA 90035

11. Scott Diamond (Comment Diamond-1 through -9) Beverlywood Homes Association Los Angeles, CA 90035

12. Lillian & William Engel (Comment Engel-1 through -3) 9736 Alcott Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

13. Philip S. Gomperts (Comment Gromperts-1 through -9) 315 N. Swall Drive, #302 Beverly Hills, CA 90211

14. Rita Grant-Miller (Comment Grant-Miller-1 through -3) 9735 Saturn St. Los Angeles, CA 90035



15. Selda & Victor Hollander (Comment Hollander-1 through -11) [email protected]

16. Harry and Sharon Lerman (Comment Lerman-1 through -8) 9743 Cashio St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

17. Tatayana and Victor Rubin (Comment Rubin-1 through -6 and Rubin 2-1 through 2-11)

18. Ira Speir (Comment Speir-1 through -5) 9722 Saturn St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

19. Marilyn Stern (Comment Stern-1 through -10) 9757 Cashio Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

20. Joyce Snyder/Matthew L. Keys (Comment Snyder-Keys-1 through -3) 1495 Roxbury Drive Los Angeles, CA 90035-2814

21. Ivan Varadi (Comment Varadi-1 through -11) 9713 Saturn St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

22. Richard K. & Bozena H. Vitolo (Comment Vitolo-1 through -3) 9728 Horner St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

23. Edward Wizelman (Comment Wizelman-1) 9700 Saturn Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

24. Johnny Yamtov (Comment Yamtov-1 through -7) 1428 S Roxbury Dr Los Angeles, CA 90035

25. Greg Yaris (Comment Yaris-1 through -4) 478 Daniels Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90212

mailto:[email protected]



COMMENTS ON THE RECIRCULATED TRAFFIC CHAPTER

The following organizations/persons provided written comments on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter to the Los Angeles Department of City Planning during the formal 45-day public review period from May 17, 2010 through July 1, 2010:

Private Individuals

26. Daniel J. Fink, M.D. (Comment Fink 1-1 through Fink 1-26) (Comment Fink 2-1 through 2-6) 607 Walden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210

27. Susan Gans (Comment Gans-1 through Gans-43) 9751 Saturn Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

YULA Boys High School Expansion III. Responses to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Page III-1

III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

This section contains written responses to each of the comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period as well as responses to each of the comments on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter received during the separate public review period for the latter document. The responses to comments on the Draft EIR are arranged by: 1) Master Responses (responses that address certain common issues raised in the comment letters); 2) Responses to Public Agency Comments; and 3) Responses to Public Comments. Responses to comments on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are all under the “Responses to Public Comments” category. All the comment letters are included in Appendix A-1, Bracketed Comment Letters and Attachments on the Draft EIR, and Appendix A-2, Bracketed Comment Letters on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, to this document. Each letter is identified by the last name of the commenter, and each comment is delineated and numbered by comment. The text of the individual comments is included below and is followed by a response to the comments in corresponding order to Appendices A-1 and A-2. Corrections and additions resulting from comments on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Traffic Chapter are presented in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR.

Note that Chapter IV.G (Traffic/Transportation/Parking) in the originally published Draft EIR was superseded and replaced by the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, which circulated for public and agency comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. Accordingly, where a comment references Chapter IV.G of the Draft EIR or information contained therein, the response will refer to the appropriate section of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, Section II. Similarly, the mitigation measures set forth in Chapter IV.G of the Draft EIR have been renumbered and modified in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. References to Traffic/Transportation/Parking mitigation measures will be to those set forth in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter.

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR

MASTER RESPONSES

The following are master responses to certain comments related to commonly occurring issues raised in the comment letters:

1. Recirculation of the Draft EIR

Some of the comments assert that the Draft EIR is inadequate for not appropriately addressing impacts of the project and should be revised and recirculated. The determination of whether recirculation of an EIR is required rests with the lead agency for a project. The Lead Agency in this case, the City of Los Angeles, determined that the Draft EIR was sufficient with the exception of the Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter, as discussed below. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5



outlines the circumstances under which an EIR may be required to be recirculated. Generally, Section 15088.5 indicates that an EIR need only be recirculated when "significant" new information has been added to the EIR that was previously circulated, and that failure to recirculate with the new information would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a project and/or its significant effects. Recirculation is not required when new information merely clarifies or amplifies information already provided. In response to questions and comments regarding the Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter of the Draft EIR, additional traffic analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project and a revised Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter was circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. Comment letters on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter were received and responses to these comments are provided in Section III.3 of this Final EIR. Other than the information provided in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, no additional impacts beyond those already identified in the Draft EIR have been identified by the comments, there is no significant new information within the meaning of Section 15088.5, and there is no substantial evidence that the Draft EIR or the Recirculated Traffic Chapter is otherwise inadequate, and therefore, the factors requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR under Section 15088.5 have not been met.

2. Segmentation/Relationship between the Yeshiva and the Museum

Various commenters have argued that a single EIR must be prepared for the YULA Boys High School project and the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project, and that the Draft EIR for the YULA Boys High School project improperly “piecemeals” the environmental effects of what should be considered a single project.

As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Museum of Tolerance is a separate organization from YULA Boys High School. The project site, including the modern orthodox Judaic high school, adult education programs, and religious sanctuary, was previously operated by YOLA. Recently, however, YOLA disengaged itself from operation of the modern orthodox Judaic high school and the project site. On July 24, 2007 YULA Boys High School, a California 501(c)(3) corporation (Number C3009860), was formed to operate the modern orthodox Judaic high school and project site, and on July 1, 2008 YULA Boys High School took possession of the project site under a 99-year lease from YOLA. At the end of the 99-year lease, YULA Boys High School will become the owner of the leased premises. The lease from YOLA does not include the 7,153 square feet on the second and third floors of building area known as the West Wing that were part of the school's 1999 CUP premises, and YULA Boys High School is no longer in possession of such area.

YULA Boys High School is pursuing modification of its 1999 CUP with respect to the premises it exclusively occupies. Because the second and third floors of the West Wing are not part of the YULA Boys High School leasehold, the modification deletes such area from the premises covered by the CUP. Since its separation from YOLA, the second and third floors of the so-called West Wing have not been occupied or in the possession of YULA Boys High School. The proposed modification retains overall enrollment levels permitted by the 1999 CUP (increasing the high school component while decreasing the adult education component), reduces the overall square footage to be operated by YULA Boys High



School from that previously approved under the 1999 CUP pursuant to a modified plan for building out the campus, and proposes various modifications in the operating conditions for the high school. The project is in furtherance of YULA’s own institutional objectives, which, as discussed in the Draft EIR are to:

• Respond to community needs for modern orthodox Judaic boys high school capacity by completing build-out, and increasing permitted enrollment of the boys high school;

• Amend operating conditions to clarify and streamline operating restrictions, as well as allow more flexible use of the facilities for modern orthodox Judaic high school purposes;

• Modify approved phase two design to provide an updated and more secure facility design, with underground parking, while adding square footage to compensate for the elimination of the West Wing as part of the project site;

• In light of the proposed increased use of the facility for modern orthodox Judaic high school purposes, reduce, but continue, evening-hour adult education programs conducted at the facility;

• Expand permitted use of the existing orthodox sanctuary during evening hours, holidays, and weekends; and

• Mitigate potential environmental effects to the extent feasible.

The Museum of Tolerance is implementing an independent expansion program described in the Conditional Use Permit for that project (CPC-86-015) and the Environmental Impact Report for that project (ENV-2007-2476-EIR). The Museum of Tolerance’s expansion program includes incorporation of the second and third floor of the West Wing into the premises covered by permits for the Museum of Tolerance.

Notwithstanding these facts, because they are located in proximity to one another and therefore are “related” projects as meant by CEQA the Draft EIR analyzes the potential cumulative impacts of the construction and operation of YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project (including, without limitation, with respect to traffic, aesthetics, land use, noise and etc.). Specifically, the Museum of Tolerance Expansion Project is described and analyzed as Related Project No. 53. Thus, the combined impacts of construction and operation of YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance are analyzed and accounted for in the Draft EIR.

“Piecemealing” or “improper segmentation” occurs under CEQA when a single project is divided into pieces in order to avoid the preparation of an EIR, or in order to reduce what would otherwise be considered a significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. Because (1) YULA Boys High School is an independent organization implementing a project on leased premises that are separate from those of the Museum of Tolerance; (2) an EIR has been prepared for the YULA Boys High School project, and (3) the combined impacts of construction and operation of YULA Boys High School and the



Museum of Tolerance are analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR, neither “piecemealing” nor “improper segmentation” have occurred.

3. Parking

As part of the 1999 CUP, a parking variance was approved that required a total of 85 on-site parking spaces upon the completion of Phase II, various parking regulations to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood from parking impacts, as well as conditions requiring the provision of off-site/off-street parking for Special Events. These requirements pertaining to parking were intended to address the enrollment levels and various educational and religious programs and activities conducted at the school premises.

Proposed Conditions 18 through 20 (which are substantially similar to Conditions 22 through 24 of the 1999 CUP) provide general parking regulations for the Project Site. They provide that:

a. The applicant shall provide on-site parking free of charge to students, faculty and employees and to other visitors to the YULA Facilities. No parking spaces on the subject property shall be allocated or permitted to be used by any third party or by any staff or visitors to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Moriah Films or the Museum of Tolerance. All YULA students, faculty, employees and visitors shall be required to park on the subject premises, except as provided in accordance with Condition 21.

b. Each student, faculty member and employee who parks on the subject premises shall be issued, on an annual basis, an individually numbered parking permit which shall be prominently displayed on the dashboard or rear view mirror of the car. JSI and YOLA University students shall be issued a permit on a quarterly basis as necessary. The purpose of this allocation of permits shall be to ensure that there is adequate parking available for everyone desiring and eligible to park at the YULA Facilities. In addition, the YULA Boys High School administration shall maintain a list of license plate numbers of all families of YULA Boys High School students. If a family has more than one car, the license plate numbers of all the cars within a household shall be provided. License plates numbers shall also be maintained for YULA students and faculty and other employees of YULA. The applicant shall maintain a record of all parking permits issued. Such a record shall be made available upon request to the Zoning Administrator, the Council Office, the Community Relations Committee and representatives of the Roxbury- Beverwil Homeowners' Association.

c. Parking on residential streets by YULA students, parents, faculty and employees shall be prohibited. The applicant shall inform students, parents, faculty and employees of all regulations concerning restriction on parking and loading and unloading of students. The applicant shall maintain a progressive disciplinary system of enforcement. If any condition is violated, YULA will assess the violator a fine of $50.00 for the first offense, $100.00 for the second offense. A third offense shall also result in the temporary



suspension of the involved student(s) from YULA. Security guard(s) shall be responsible for reporting to the YULA Liaison, the license number of any car belonging to a student, family, faculty member or employee seen parking on a residential street or seen loading or unloading students off-site.

As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter on pages II-43-II-46, surveys of nearby residential streets while the high school was in session demonstrated that substantial daytime parking was available on Castello Avenue, Alcott Street, Saturn Street and Cashio Street; which in turn suggests that the parking controls imposed in connection with the 1999 CUP are effective control measures.

The applicant proposes to modify the enrollment mix as well as the approved building plans for Phase II. While maintaining overall enrollment levels consistent with the 1999 CUP (450 total students permitted), the applicant proposes that permitted high school enrollment be increased from 250 to 350, and that permitted adult education enrollment be decreased from 200 to 100 adult education students. The applicant also proposes to increase the amount of on-site parking provided upon the completion of Phase II from 85 on-site surface and semi-subterranean spaces as required by the 1999 CUP to 100 on-site parking spaces in a subterranean parking structure.

As indicated in Table II-17 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, as revised in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR, it is anticipated that the 100 spaces to be provided upon the completion of Phase II would be allocated as follows: approximately 50 spaces would be allocated to faculty and staff; 35 spaces would be allocated towards student parking (and no more than 35 daytime parking passes would be issued for student cars per academic period), and approximately 9-15 spaces would be available for visitors and other purposes. Thus these 100 spaces, combined with the various parking related conditions proposed by the applicant, will adequately protect the neighborhood from potential parking impacts from the daytime operations of the high school upon completion of Phase II.

During evening hours the high school is not in regular session and the full high school enrollment will not be present. The hours for evening programs are staggered so that the various evening programs do not generally overlap with one another. Enrichment programs in which YULA Boys and Girls High School students participate must end by 8 p.m. and generally conclude earlier. Jewish Studies Institute (adult education) programs take place between the hours of 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Evening modern orthodox religious services on weekdays where worshippers may drive begin no earlier than 10 p.m. The total enrollment in the Jewish Studies Institute/YOLA University (adult education) is limited to 100 persons, and the number of persons participating in programs and services on any given evening will vary from day to day. The gymnasium is not expected to be used during evening hours for games or events on most days. For all these reasons 100 spaces, combined with the various parking related conditions proposed by the applicant, will adequately protect the neighborhood from potential parking impacts from the evening operations of the high school.



As discussed in the Draft EIR, during the Sabbath and on Religious Holidays, the High School is not in session and worshippers at the Beit Midrash would walk to services. Thus, such services would not result in potential parking impacts.

As in the case of the 1999 CUP, it is anticipated that there will be events where foreseeable parking demand is anticipated to exceed on-site parking supply. These events are addressed by proposed Condition 21.

Special events that may generate parking demand in excess of on-site parking supply were regulated under the 1999 CUP by Condition 25. The applicant has retained these regulations, with certain proposed modifications, as Condition 21, which provides that:

“If any type of event at YULA is expected to attract more vehicles than the available number of parking spaces on-site including the accounting of vehicles parked on-site belonging to students, faculty and employees, the applicant shall provide free and conveniently accessible parking through the use of one or more of the following measures, as appropriate: a) a complimentary valet service: b) a stacking system using tandem parking on-site; c) the use of parking at another location within 750 feet of the subject premises; and/or d) an off-site shuttle system. If a shuttle system is used, shuttle vehicles shall be of a capacity which will facilitate the transportation of persons to and from YULA so that time waiting for such shuttles is minimized and the use of shuttles is maximized. Signs shall be posted in highly visible locations, and security guard(s) and/or parking attendant(s) shall be located at the entrance to the YULA parking lot, to direct vehicles to the designated parking areas(s) and to admonish drivers not to park in the residential areas. YULA shall institute a program by which parking is assigned to students, parents, visitors, faculty and employees at a specific location on-site or off-site, prior to an event which is expected to exceed on-site parking capacity. Such a program shall be designed to avoid traffic congestion and circulation problems associated with drivers arriving at a parking location and being turned away due to the capacity of such parking area having been reached. YULA will use reasonable efforts to coordinate the scheduling of Special Events with the Museum of Tolerance's Special Events so that parking impacs to residential neighborhoods from YULA Special Events are avoided.”

Various off-street parking facilities near the project site are available to be used in conjunction with Special Events. For example, Special Event parking in the past has been provided at the surface parking lot located at 9740 Pico Boulevard, which is located across the street from the project site, in the immediately adjacent block (kitty-corner from the project site). While the 100 spaces proposed by the project are anticipated to meet day-to-day needs of the project upon completion of phase two and full enrollment, the provision of off-street special event parking is anticipated to avoid potential parking impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood for events where foreseeable parking demand is anticipated to exceed on-site parking supply.



Table II-17 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter has been revised from Table IV.G-17 of the Draft EIR to reflect that this table does not forecast projected parking demand, but rather approximate parking allocations. The heading of Table II-17 has been further revised in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR to reflect the nature of the information provided therein. The 100 spaces proposed by the project, combined with the various parking regulations proposed by the applicant, including but not limited to Conditions 18 through 21, will adequately protect the neighborhood from potential parking impacts from the education and religious activities at the Project site.

4. Environmental Baseline

The project site has operated as a modern orthodox Judaic high school, adult education center, and religious sanctuary under various Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). The most recent, and existing, CUP for the project site was issued in 1999 under Case Number ZA-1999-279-CU-ZV-PA1, and associated site plan consistency determinations issued in 2000 and 2001 (collectively, the "1999 CUP"). The 1999 CUP provided for the continuing operation of a modern orthodox Judaic high school, religious education center, and religious sanctuary and for a campus expansion, to be constructed in two phases, of 47,100 square feet of facilities. The 1999 CUP included the construction of a cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue, south of the current school driveway, to be completed as part of the second of the two proposed phases (referred to as a traffic diverter in the 1999 CUP). The 1999 CUP was approved after the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND-99-0151) (the "MND"). In addition to the modern orthodox Judaic high school, the project site is also utilized by the adult-education programs Jewish Studies Institute (JSI) of Yeshiva of Los Angeles (YOLA) and YOLA University. The facilities are also used by the Yeshiva University of Los Angeles Girls High School (YULA Girls High School), as well as students, families, faculty, neighbors and others for Orthodox Jewish prayer and services. Use of the religious sanctuary by persons not affiliated with the school is permitted only on evenings, holidays, and Saturdays.

The 1999 CUP authorizes a total of 47,100 square feet upon build-out of the entire facility (phase one and phase two). The 1999 CUP provided for a total of 36,300 square feet of facilities as part of phase one. The project site is currently improved with an approximately 32,200 square foot building; approximately 4,100 square feet less than authorized by the 1999 CUP for phase one. However, because the lease to the Applicant does not include the 7,153 square feet of the West Wing, the Applicant is currently operating 25,047 square feet.

Phase two of the build-out authorized by the 1999 CUP includes a 10,500 square foot expansion to the existing facilities, including a new gymnasium and library, and a Beit Midrash addition (religious study hall). The 1999 CUP permits a total enrollment of 450 students, comprised of a maximum of 30 YOLA University students, 250 YULA Boys High School students, and 170 JSI students. The 1999 CUP also provides for use of the facilities for prayer and religious services by individuals not affiliated with the high school.

As described in Section II (Project Description) of the Draft EIR, the Applicant is proposing: (1) a complete build-out of the campus with 45,000 square feet of facilities, including modification of the full



build-out plans approved pursuant to the 1999 CUP; (2) modify the enrollment limits by increasing permitted enrollment for the Judaic boys high school while decreasing permitted enrollment for adult education programs; and (3) modify the specific permit conditions of the 1999 CUP, including but not limited to, increased flexibility as to the number and nature of events conducted at the project site, extended evening hours for various activities, extended use of the facilities by YULA Girls High School, and extended use of the facilities for orthodox religious services. Additionally, there would be no change in the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac improvement currently required as a condition of the 1999 CUP improvements and it would be constructed as part of, but prior to, construction of the project. The applicant is proposing to remove the condition requiring the partial closure of Roxbury Drive.

CEQA provides that when an existing project has been the subject of an earlier final CEQA review, and modifications to the approved project are proposed, subsequent CEQA analysis for the project should focus on the difference between the approved project and the modifications proposed. See Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467, 1484 (1991) (lead agency "properly considered only the incremental differences between the original project and the modification when evaluating whether the modifications to the original proposal would result in any significant environmental impacts."). As the previously approved project was subject to final CEQA review, the Applicant has a vested right to complete build-out of the approved project, and the existing facilities constructed to date are being actively operated under the conditions of the 1999 CUP and MND, this Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impact of the differences between the approved project under the 1999 CUP and MND and the modifications proposed by the Applicant.

While the 1999 CUP was the subject of an approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (rather than an EIR), the Applicant has volunteered to process a Draft EIR. As indicated in the draft Initial Study prepared for the project, the scope of the Draft EIR will not include issues where the proposed modifications have no potential to create new significant environmental impacts, or where mitigation measures already adopted in connection with the MND and or the 1999 CUP continue to be adequate for the project with the proposed modifications.

For purposes of this EIR, the environmental baseline is considered to be circumstances in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was distributed for public review. Although concerns have been expressed regarding the operation of the existing YULA Boys School, it is not the job of the EIR for the proposed project to mitigate or otherwise address these issues. Rather, the EIR must only provide mitigation for all significant impacts associated with the proposed project, which, in this case, consists of modifications to the previously approved 1999 CUP and project as defined in the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration.



RESPONSES TO PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS

1. COMMENT LETTER LORSCHEIDER BOS

Brent Lorscheider, Acting Division Manager Bureau of Sanitation Wastewater Engineering Services Division City of Los Angeles 2714 Media Center Drive Los Angeles, CA 90065

Comment Lorscheider BOS-1

This is in response to your February 26, 2009 letter requesting wastewater service information for the proposed project. The Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division (WESD), has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the potential impacts to the wastewater system for the proposed project.

Projected Wastewater Discharges for the Proposed Project:

Type Description Average Daily Flow per

Type Description

(GPD/UNIT)

Proposed No. of

Units

Average Daily Flow

(GPD)

Proposed High School Students 12 GPD/STUDENT 350 STUDENTS 4,200

University Students 18 GPD/STUDENT 100 STUDENTS 1,800Gymnasium 250 GPD/1000 SQ. FT 7,500 SQ. FT 1,875

Library/Computer Room 80 GDP/SQ.FT 1,500 SQ FT 120Total 7,995

SEWER AVAILABILITY

The sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed project includes the existing 8-inch line in Pico Blvd, 8-inch on Roxbury Drive, and 8-inch on Castello Avenue. All three existing 8-inch pipe feeds into a 12-inch line on Castello Ave., and continues into Beverwil Dr. The sewage flow then feeds into a 15-inch line on Castle Heights Ave and then a 15-inch line on Cattaraugus Ave., before splitting into a 15-inch line in Canfield Ave. and a 10-inch line in Cattaraugus Ave. The current flow level (d/D) in the 8-inch and 12-inch and 10-inch lines cannot be determined at this time as gauging is needed. Based on our existing gauging information, the current flow level (d/D) and the design capacities at d/D of 50% in the sewer system are as follows:



Pipe in Diameter (in) Pipe Location Current Gauging d/D (%)

50% Design Capacity

8 Pico Blvd * 229,323 GDP 8 Roxbury Drive * 261,468 GPD 8 Castello Ave. * 797,700 GDP

12 Castello Ave * 676,120 GDP 15 Castle Heights Ave. * 1.10 MGD 15 Cattaraugus Ave. 26 1.94 MGD 15 Canfield Ave. * 1.50 MGD 10 Cattaraugus Ave. * 415,790 GDP

* No gauging available

Based on the estimated flows, it appears the sewer system might be able to accommodate the total flow for your proposed project. Further detailed gauging and evaluation will be needed as part of the permit process to identify a sewer connection point. If the public sewer has insufficient capacity then the developer will be required to build sewer lines to a point in the sewer line with sufficient capacity. A final approval for sewer capacity and connection permit will be made at the time. Ultimately, this sewage flow will be conveyed to the Hyperion Treatment Plant, which has sufficient capacity for the project.

If you have any questions, please call Abdul Danishwar of my staff at (323) 342-6220.

Response Lorscheider BOS-1

This comment inaccurately characterizes the size of the proposed gymnasium as 7,500 square feet when the proposed size of the gymnasium is 9,100 square feet. However, the EIR analyzed the proposed 9,100 square foot gymnasium and the difference in square footage is not anticipated to change the conclusions of the commenter. This comment restates information that the Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division provided in its letter dated July 12, 2007 (included in Appendix F of the Draft EIR) but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



2. COMMENT LETTER HUNTER LA COUNTY

Dennis Hunter, Assistant Deputy Director Land Development Division County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803

Comment Hunter LA County-1

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Completion of/Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject property. The project will maintain the maximum permitted enrollment of 450 students. A total build out of 45,000-square-feet including 19,953-square-feet of new construction. A subterranean parking garage that would provide 100 parking spaces.

The following comments are for your consideration and relate to the environmental document only:

Response to Comment Hunter LA County-1

This comment states that the commentor received the Notice of Completion and summarizes the proposed project. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.


Solid Waste

• Current estimates indicate that daily solid waste generation in Los Angeles County will exceed the available daily disposal capacity in the near future. The construction and demolition of the proposed project will increase the generation of solid waste and negatively impact the Solid Waste Management infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed environmental document should identify what measures will be implemented to mitigate the impact. Mitigation measure may include the recycling of construction and demolition debris and the development of infrastructure in the project to facilitate recycling.


Construction of the project does not include any demolition. The project is substantially consistent with the development and enrollment levels authorized by the 1999 CUP and analyzed in the MND for the 1999 CUP. As such, no new impact would occur. Mitigation Measure A-31 in Section IV.A, Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant, of the Draft EIR at Page IV.A-22 provides for recycling bins.




For questions regarding the environmental comments above, please contact Mr. Corey Mayne at (626) 458-3524.

If you have any other questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Toan Duong at (626) 458-4921.


This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



3. COMMENT LETTER GUERRERO LADOT

Edward Guerrero Jr, Transportation Engineer Department of Transportation City of Los Angeles 100 South Main Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

Comment Guerrero LADOT-1

Pursuant to the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan Ordinance No. 171,492 (WLA TIMP), the Department of Transportation (DOT) has completed the traffic impact assessment of the proposed enrollment modification and religious service expansion project of the YULA Boys High School located at 9760 West Pico Boulevard. This traffic assessment is based on a traffic study prepared by Crain & Associates received by DOT on January 23, 2009 with subsequent revisions received through February 2009. After a careful review of the pertinent data, DOT has determined that the traffic study adequately describes the project-related impacts of the proposed development.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is currently occupied by the YULA Boys High School, which, aside from high school classes, also provides for adult-education programs and religious services. The proposed project consists of modifications of the school enrollment by increasing the high school enrollment cap from 200 to 350 students and reducing the adult-education class enrollment cap from 200 to 100 students, with the restriction that the adult-education classes will start no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. Along with this enrollment modification, the religious services will be expanded to accommodate a maximum of 100 attendees from the current maximum occupancy of 25 persons, while maintaining the restriction that the religious services start no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. The project also proposes the installation of a Cu-de-Sac along Castello Avenue south of the project driveway to prevent cut-through traffic into the residential neighborhood south of the project site. The project is anticipated to be completed and fully occupied by the year 2012.

Response to Comment Guerrero LADOT-1

This comment states that the commentor has reviewed the traffic impact assessment for the proposed project and summarizes the proposed project. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.




DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

The project is expected to create a net increase of 257 in daily trips, an increase of 62 net new a.m. peak hour trips, and an increase of 21 net new p.m. peak hour trips. The trip generation estimates are based on rates from Appendix “A” of the WLA TIMP and formulas published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. The attached table, Attachment A, lists the trip generation results.

DOT has determined that the proposed project will not have significant traffic impacts at any of the intersections studied. Attachment B summarizes the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios and level of service (LOS) at the study intersections. Attachment C summarizes the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes of the street segment studied. An alternative analysis scenario without the implementation of the Cul-de-Sac has also been reviewed and DOT has determined that the proposed project will not have significant traffic impacts at any of the intersections studied under this alternative analysis scenario.

DOT recommends that the following project requirements be adopted as conditions of project approval. These requirements must be completed and/or guaranteed before the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project.

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

A. Application Fee

Pursuant to Section 4.D of the WLA TIMP, the applicant shall submit $500.00 for the application/review fee. This fee was submitted on January 23, 2009.

B. Covenant and Agreement

Pursuant to Section 4.B of the WLA TIMP, the owner(s) of the property must sign and record a Covenant and Agreement prior to issuance of any building permit, acknowledging the contents and limitation of the Specific Plan in a form designed to run with the land.

C. Highway Dedication and Physical Street Improvements

Pursuant to Section 4.E.2 of the WLA TIMP, and in order to mitigate potential access and circulation impacts, the applicant may be required to make highway dedications and improvements. The applicant shall consult the Bureau of Engineering for any additional highway dedication or street widening requirements.

These requirements must be guaranteed before the issuance of any building permit through the B-permit process of the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works. They must be



constructed and completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy to the satisfaction of DOT and the Bureau of Engineering.


This comment presents the findings and project requirements to be adopted as conditions of project approval. These measures were included in the Draft EIR and were revised and included in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (see Response to Comment Guerrero LADOT-8). In regard to requirement A, as noted above, the applicant paid the application/review fee on January 23, 2009. In regard to requirement B and C above, the applicant would comply with Section 4.B and 4.E.2 of the WLA TIMP as applicable.


D. Site Access and Internal Circulation

This determination does not include approval of the project’s driveways, internal circulation and parking scheme. Adverse traffic impacts could occur due to access and circulation issues. The applicant is advised to consult with DOT for driveway locations and specifications prior to the commencement of any architectural plans, as they may affect building design. Final DOT approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits. This should be accomplished by submitting detailed site/driveway plans, at a scale of at least 1” = 40’, separately to DOT’s WLA/Coastal Development Review Section at 7166 West Manchester Avenue, Los Angeles 90045 as soon as possible but prior to submittal of building plans for plan check to the Department of Building and Safety.

In order to minimize and prevent last minute building design changes, it is highly imperative that the applicant, prior to the commencement of building or parking layout design efforts, contact DOT for driveway width and internal circulation requirements. This would ensure that such traffic flow considerations are designed and incorporated into the building and parking layout plans to avoid any unnecessary time delays and potential costs associated with late design changes.


The applicant will obtain final DOT approval prior to the issuance of building permits with respect to site access and internal circulation. Additionally, the applicant will contact DOT for driveway width and internal circulation requirements prior to the commencement of final building or parking layout design efforts.




E. Traffic Monitoring Report and Traffic Management Plan

DOT recommends that the school be required to compile a traffic monitoring report (TMR) to survey the actual on-site traffic conditions of the proposed project. The TMR should document that the school is in substantial compliance with the traffic study trip projections for both the morning and afternoon peak hours, which corresponds to a trip cap of 144 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 49 trips during the p.m. peak hour, for the school at full occupancy.

The measurements of actual trips shall cover the morning peak hour that includes the school’s starting time, Tuesday through Friday (excluding school holidays), over a one-week period when the school is in general session. Prior notification of when the monitoring will be conducted should not be provided to the school but shall be provided to DOT at least one month in advance. The monitoring shall take place at the school driveway off Castello Avenue, at the school’s expense.

The TMR should be produced annually for a minimum of three (3) years following the school’s first year of full enrollment, in which time the review must show compliance for the entire 3-year period. Should the review show that the school is not within substantial compliance, the school will have one (1) year to correct its deficiency. If the school cannot achieve compliance within the corrective year, then a new three (3) year review period will commence and the school shall submit a traffic management plan (TMP) to DOT that outlines the course of action the school will take in order to achieve compliance. If the school cannot achieve compliance after implementation of the TMP, then a reduction in the school’s enrollment should be considered.

The TMR, and TMP if necessary, should be prepared by a Certified Traffic Engineer and submitted to DOT for review within thirty days following the completion of each monitoring action.

Pursuant to Section 8.A of the WLA TIMP, an applicant or any other interested person adversely affected by the proposed Project who disputes any determination made by DOT pursuant to this Ordinance may appeal to the General Manager of DOT. This appeal must be filed within a 15 day period following the applicant’s receipt date of this letter of determination. The appeal shall set forth specifically the basis of the appeal and the reasons why the determination should be reversed or modified.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Hui Huang of my staff or me at (213) 485-1062.


In regard to requirement E above, as discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, in accordance with subsequent correspondence from LADOT dated December 17, 2009, a modified trip cap and monitoring plan has been added as Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 as provided in Section IV, Corrections and



Additions, and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR. The provision of a traffic and parking management plan to the LADOT is required by Condition 27 of the 1999 CUP, is retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 23, as revised, and by Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13.


Pursuant to the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan Ordinance No. 171,492 (WLA TIMP), the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a traffic impact assessment on February 26, 2009 for the proposed enrollment modification and religious service expansion project of the YULA Boys High School located at 9760 West Pico Boulevard. In this traffic assessment, DOT determined the proposed project would not create significant traffic impacts at any of the study intersections. On July 1, 2009, DOT received a supplemental traffic impact analysis prepared by Crain & Associates, with subsequent revisions thru December 2009, that analyzed changes in the trip rates of the High School component of the project as a result of new vehicle trip counts recently taken at the existing site. After a careful review of the pertinent data, DOT has determined that the traffic study adequately describes the project-related impacts of the proposed development.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is currently occupied by the YULA Boys High School, which, aside from high school classes, also provides for adult-education programs and religious services. The proposed project consists of modifications of the school enrollment by increasing the high school enrollment cap from 200 to 350 students and reducing the adult-education class enrollment cap from 200 to 100 students, with the restriction that the adult-education classes will start no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. Along with this enrollment modification, the religious services will be expanded to accommodate a maximum of 100 attendees from the current maximum occupancy of 25 persons, while maintaining the restriction that the religious services start no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. The project also proposes the installation of a Cu-de-Sac along Castello Avenue south of the project driveway to prevent cut-through traffic into the residential neighborhood south of the project site. The project is anticipated to be completed and fully occupied by the year 2012.


This comment states that the commentor has reviewed the revised traffic impact assessment for the proposed project and summarizes the proposed project. The revised traffic impact assessment identified new impacts that were not discussed in the Draft EIR. As a result, the Recirculated Traffic Chapter was circulated for public review and comment as described above in the Introduction to this section.




DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

The project is expected to create a net increase of 820 in daily trips, an increase of 164 net new a.m. peak hour trips, and an increase of 99 net new p.m. peak hour trips. The trip generation estimates are based on existing site vehicle counts and formulas published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. The attached table, Attachment A, lists the trip generation results.

DOT has determined that the proposed project will result in significant traffic impacts at the following three (3) intersections, as shown in the summary of volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios and level of service (LOS) at the study intersections (Attachment B):

1. Pico Boulevard and Castello Avenue

2. Pico Boulevard and Beverwil Drive

3. Pico Boulevard and Beverly Drive

These intersections were not previously identified as significantly impacted in the February 26, 2009 traffic impact assessment. To mitigate the newly found significant impacts, the applicant proposes to reduce, thru the implementation of a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program, the project site net trips to a level equivalent to the trip generation shown on the February 26, 2009 traffic assessment.


This comment accurately describes the conclusions of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and proposed TDM program. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.


An alternative analysis scenario without the implementation of the Cul-de-Sac was also reviewed for impact. The three significant traffic impacts stated above were also found in the alternative analysis scenario and, likewise, the proposed TDM program would mitigate the project impacts to a less than significant level. However, the residential impact analysis revealed a significant impact at the following location, as shown in the summary of average daily traffic (ADT) volumes of the street segment studied (Attachment C):

1. Castello Avenue, between Pico Boulevard and Cashio Street

This street segment was also not previously identified as significantly impacted in the February 26, 2009 traffic impact assessment. To mitigate the newly found significant impact, the applicant proposes that the Castello Cul-de-Sac be implemented. The Cul-de-Sac feature along with the TDM program will reduce



the street segment project impact to a less than significant level. Should the Castello Cul-de-Sac not be implemented, this street segment impact would remain significant and unavoidable.


This comment accurately describes the conclusions of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and proposed Castello Cul-de-Sac. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.


DOT recommends that the following project requirements be adopted as conditions of project approval. These requirements must be completed and/or guaranteed before the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project.

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

A. Application Fee

Pursuant to Section 4.D of the WLA TIMP, the applicant shall submit $500.00 for the application/review fee. This fee was submitted on January 23, 2009.

B. Covenant and Agreement

Pursuant to Section 4.B of the WLA TIMP, the owner(s) of the property must sign and record a Covenant and Agreement prior to issuance of any building permit, acknowledging the contents and limitation of the Specific Plan in a form designed to run with the land.

C. Highway Dedication and Physical Street Improvements

Pursuant to Section 4.E.2 of the WLA TIMP, and in order to mitigate potential access and circulation impacts, the applicant may be required to make highway dedications and improvements. The applicant shall consult the Bureau of Engineering for any additional highway dedication or street widening requirements.

These requirements must be guaranteed before the issuance of any building permit through the B-permit process of the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works. They must be constructed and completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy to the satisfaction of DOT and the Bureau of Engineering.


This comment presents the findings and project requirements to be adopted as conditions of project approval. These measures were included in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. In regard to requirement A,



as noted above, the applicant paid the application/review fee on January 23, 2009. In regard to requirement B and C above, the applicant would comply with Section 4.B and 4.E.2 of the WLA TIMP as applicable.


D. Traffic Monitoring Report and Traffic Management Plan

DOT recommends that the school be required to compile a traffic monitoring report (TMR) to survey the actual on-site traffic conditions of the proposed project. The TMR should document that the school is in substantial compliance with the traffic study trip projections for both the morning and afternoon peak hours, which corresponds to a trip cap of 281 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 153 trips during the p.m. peak hour, for the school at full occupancy.

The measurements of actual trips shall cover the morning peak hour that includes the school’s starting time, Tuesday through Friday (excluding school holidays), over a one-week period when the school is in general session. Prior notification of when the monitoring will be conducted should not be provided to the school but shall be provided to DOT at least one month in advance. The monitoring shall take place at the school driveway off Castello Avenue, at the school’s expense.

The TMR should be produced annually for a minimum of three (3) years following the school’s first year of full enrollment, in which time the review must show compliance for the entire 3-year period. Should the review show that the school is not within substantial compliance, the school will have one (1) year to correct its deficiency. If the school cannot achieve compliance within the corrective year, then a new three (3) year review period will commence and the school shall submit a traffic management plan (TMP) to DOT that outlines the course of action the school will take in order to achieve compliance. If the school cannot achieve compliance after implementation of the TMP, then a reduction in the school’s enrollment should be considered.

The TMR, and TMP if necessary, should be prepared by a Certified Traffic Engineer and submitted to DOT for review within thirty days following the completion of each monitoring action.


In regard to requirement D above, as discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, in accordance with correspondence from LADOT dated December 17, 2009, a modified trip cap and monitoring plan has been added as Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR.




E. Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM)

In order to insure that the project applicant appropriately addresses community concerns regarding project traffic and it’s effect on the neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the project, the applicant shall bear the full responsibility for facilitating, developing, and implementing all appropriate and supported NTM measures that may be needed in accordance with the DOT’s NTM guidelines, and subject to City approval.

In the execution of the NTM action by the applicant, the applicant shall closely consult with the office of Council District 5, the community, DOT, the Department of Public Works, and other affected City agencies. The applicant shall follow DOT’s NTM guidelines and satisfy City requirements in order to obtain approval for the NTM measures.


The provision of a traffic and parking management plan to the LADOT is required by Condition 27 of the 1999 CUP, is retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 23, as revised, and by Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR.


F. Site Access and Internal Circulation

This determination does not include approval of the project’s driveways, internal circulation and parking scheme. Adverse traffic impacts could occur due to access and circulation issues. The applicant is advised to consult with DOT for driveway locations and specifications prior to the commencement of any architectural plans, as they may affect building design. Final DOT approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits. This should be accomplished by submitting detailed site/driveway plans, at a scale of at least 1” = 40’, separately to DOT’s WLA/Coastal Development Review Section at 7166 West Manchester Avenue, Los Angeles 90045 as soon as possible but prior to submittal of building plans for plan check to the Department of Building and Safety.

In order to minimize and prevent last minute building design changes, it is highly imperative that the applicant, prior to the commencement of building or parking layout design efforts, contact DOT for driveway width and internal circulation requirements. This would ensure that such traffic flow considerations are designed and incorporated into the building and parking layout plans to avoid any unnecessary time delays and potential costs associated with late design changes.



Pursuant to Section 8.A of the WLA TIMP, an applicant or any other interested person adversely affected by the proposed Project who disputes any determination made by DOT pursuant to this Ordinance may appeal to the General Manager of DOT. This appeal must be filed within a 15 day period following the applicant’s receipt date of this letter of determination. The appeal shall set forth specifically the basis of the appeal and the reasons why the determination should be reversed or modified.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Hui Huang of my staff or me at (213) 485-1062.


The applicant will obtain final DOT approval prior to the issuance of building permits with respect to site access and internal circulation. Additionally, the applicant will contact DOT for driveway width and internal circulation requirements prior to the commencement of final building or parking layout design efforts. The provision of a traffic and parking management plan to the LADOT is required by Condition 27 of the 1999 CUP, is retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 23, as revised, and by Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR.



4. COMMENT LETTER ROBERTS SCH

Terry Roberts, Director State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044

Comment Roberts SCH-1

The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on April 13, 2009, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.

Response to Comment Roberts SCH-1

This comment is a standard response from the State Clearinghouse stating the Draft EIR was sent to agencies for review and acknowledges that the Draft EIR was in compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements, and is not a comment on the Draft EIR. Thus, no further response is required.



RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS

5. COMMENT LETTER FINK

Daniel Fink, M.D Co-Chair, H.O.M.E. 9736 Saturn Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Fink-1

I am writing to state our opposition to the proposed expansion of the YULA Boys High School (sometimes referred to herein as the “yeshiva” or “YULA” or “BHS” or “the Applicant”) as detailed in its Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) released February 26, 2009. We urge that the City exercise its authority to reject this project. In addition, since many of these remarks also pertain to the above-referenced Museum of Tolerance (“Museum”) expansion and related cases, each of which has an open administrative record pending appeal to and/or a decision by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, Los Angeles City Council, or other administrative body, please include a copy of this letter in the files for each of the above-referenced cases.

Response to Comment Fink-1

This comment expresses the commenter’s opposition to the proposed project, requests the City to reject the project, and requests that a copy of the comment letter be included in the administrative record for the Museum of Tolerance project, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. This comment letter has been added to both case files. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-2

Please note that Susan Gans is also submitting a separate comment letter on behalf of H.O.M.E. It was impossible to consolidate our comments in a single letter due to the time constraints referred to in the next paragraph. Both comment letters must be reviewed carefully by the Deputy Advisory Agency. In the event that there are any inconsistencies between these letters, the comments that are more conservative (i.e., more protective of the Applicant’s residential neighbors) shall govern.


This comment refers to a comment letter prepared by a separate commenter, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is



not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-3

We apologize in advance for any errors in this Comment Letter and reserve the right to make any additions and corrections necessary. The virtually simultaneous expansion projects of the Museum of Tolerance (referred to herein as the “Museum” or “MOT” or “Related Project 53”). and the Yeshiva, with the deadlines for an appeal of Case VTT-66144 for the Museum expansion and public comment on the Applicant’s DEIR both falling on Monday, April 13, 2009, have not allowed us to devote the needed time and attention to this document. We again note that we who are trying to protect our community undertake these activities in whatever free time we have or whatever time we can carve out from our busy lives. Meanwhile, those who collect handsome fees to write these inaccurate and deceitful documents, or who have the resources to make generous contributions to elected officials’ political campaigns (like the Nagel family now running the Yeshiva, which made a campaign contribution of $5,000 in June 2008 to Councilmember Weiss, after the Applicant’s Initial Study was released, perhaps to get the special treatment that has been afforded the Applicant) or their pet causes, undertake these activities as part of their normal responsibilities. We note that the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission is investigating whether undue political influence has been exerted to stop or interfere with City employees, especially those in the Department of Building and Safety, from performing their mandated duties. Any consideration of this Project should most appropriately be delayed until these investigations have been concluded.


The Draft EIR was circulated for public review during a 45-day review period that began on February 26, 2009 and ended on April 13, 2009 in compliance with CEQA and City of Los Angeles requirements. In addition to the scoping period in which comments on the proposed project were accepted and the comment period on the Draft EIR, the public has the opportunity to provide additional comments at future public hearings pertaining to the project.

This comment includes statements regarding the commenter’s review of the Draft EIR and references the City Ethics Commission’s review of the Municipal Lobbying Ordinance, which was concluded in September 2009, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-4

At the very least, the Applicant’s current DEIR is grossly inadequate. The City must recirculate the DEIR after the needed information is added to make it legally adequate. It will not be possible to rely upon the



response to comments to cure the draft’s inadequacies because the DEIR is seriously deficient in several respects. The DEIR will require substantial new information to cure the deficiencies, and that new information in turn must be subject to public comment to meet the legal requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Part of this inadequacy comes from reliance on a 10 year old Mitigated Negative Declaration. Part of this inadequacy comes from omissions in the DEIR, e.g., any consideration of the closure of southbound traffic on Roxbury Drive, which is specifically required by Condition 75 of the yeshiva’s existing 1999 Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Case No. ZA 99-0279(CUZ)(ZV) (the “1999 CUP”). And part of this inadequacy comes from the inappropriate piecemealing or segmentation of this proposed Project from that of its interconnected and adjoining neighbor, the Museum of Tolerance, so that the City and the public are being deprived of the opportunity to determine the cumulative impacts of these virtually simultaneous expansion projects. The piecemealing issue has already been dealt with in comment letters on the expansion project of the adjoining and connected Museum of Tolerance (CEQA Case No. ENV-2007-2476-EIR), and all comments on the Museum’s DEIR, FEIR, and Revised FEIR, as well as public comments on Case No. CPC-2007-2622-GPA-ZX-HD-AZD-SPR-PUB-PA1 and those written and spoken comments are incorporated herein by reference as well.

The purpose of an EIR is to provide the public with detailed information about a project before it is approved. CEQA guidelines state, “When significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR but before certification, the EIR must be recirculated for public review . . . .” Any recirculated DEIR should either be redlined or incorporate another convenient method to compare the recirculated DEIR to the original.


The commenter describes the Draft EIR as being “the Applicant’s DEIR” when it is properly the City’s Draft EIR. With respect to the commenter’s statements regarding “piecemealing” and “segmentation,” see Master Response 2. With respect to the commenter’s statements about recirculation, see Master Response 1.

With respect to comments related to prior environmental review for the project, a Draft EIR has been properly prepared for the project. As noted in Section I, Introduction, of the Draft EIR, CEQA provides that when an existing project has been the subject of an earlier final CEQA review, and modifications to the approved project are proposed, subsequent CEQA analysis for the project should focus on the difference between the approved project and the modifications proposed. See Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467, 1484 (1991) (lead agency "properly considered only the incremental differences between the original project and the modification when evaluating whether the modifications to the original proposal would result in any significant environmental impacts."). As the previously approved project was subject to final CEQA review, the Applicant has a vested right to complete build-out of the approved project, and the existing facilities constructed to date are being actively operated under the conditions of the 1999 CUP and MND, this Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impact of the differences between the approved project under the 1999 CUP and MND and the



modifications proposed by the Applicant. The project evaluated in the 1999 MND thus represents the environmental baseline considered in the Draft EIR.

The 1999 CUP required the partial closure of Roxbury Drive south of the alley south of Pico Boulevard as a project condition (Condition 76), however, this condition was not imposed to mitigate any traffic impacts created by the high school or its proposed expansion as described in the 1999 CUP. The applicant has been informed that the community no longer desires such modification to Roxbury, and therefore the applicant is requesting that this condition be removed (this is not to be confused with the proposed Castello Avenue cul-de-sac, which represents required mitigation for a significant project traffic impact). The Draft EIR analyzes the impact of completing and operating Phase II as proposed by the applicant without the partial closure of Roxbury Drive. As indicated in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, traffic impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant regardless of whether the partial closure on Roxbury Drive is implemented. See Response to Comment Fink-1-2 in Section III.3 of this Final EIR.

Comment Fink-5

I want to emphasize that in general we support education, and especially Jewish education.

I myself am Jewish, and I was taught in cheder and Talmud Torah by Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who fled Hitler in 1937, officiated at my bar mitzvah in 1962, and marched with Martin Luther King in Washington, D.C. in 1963. I support a variety of other Jewish charities and organizations. My children attended Jewish religious schools, as well as a private elementary and secondary school. I am familiar from these perspectives with the issues concerning both Jewish education and the relationships between private schools and their neighbors. But this project, as described in the DEIR, raises extremely serious concerns about appropriate land use in the City of Los Angeles, and significant adverse unmitigated impacts on our neighborhood, and this is the focus of our comments and of our opposition to the inappropriate expansion currently proposed.


This comment expresses the commenter’s opposition to the proposed project, the commenter’s support of education and Jewish education, and provides information about the commenter’s background. Additionally, this comment indicates that the project raises concerns about appropriate land use in the City and indicates that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, as disclosed in the Draft EIR, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. It should be noted that the Draft EIR, in Section IV.D, Land Use Planning (at page IV.D-26), determined that project impacts on land use in the City would be less than significant. The comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Fink-6

The DEIR is legally inadequate and a revised DEIR must be prepared and circulated.


This comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-7

The MOT proposal was improperly segmented (“piecemealed”) from the expansion proposal of Related Project 53, the Museum of Tolerance expansion, CEQA Case No. 2007-1799- EIR). The impacts of these two expansion projects must be evaluated in one Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the following obvious reasons: 1) Both the MOT and BHS occupy adjoining properties. The MOT occupies the northwest corner of the block bordered by Roxbury Drive on the west, Castello Avenue on the east, Pico Blvd. on the north, and Cashio Street on the south. The BHS occupies the northeast corner of this block, and they share a common property line running approximately 270 feet from north to south. 2) The two institutions are physically connected by a bridge that was built under the yeshiva’s 1999 Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”), Case No. ZA 99-0279(CUZ)(ZV). 3) The two institutions operate joint museum and educational programs under this CUP. 4) Both institutions were led by the same person, Marvin Hier, for at least 20 years if not longer. 5) Both institutions shared a common board until recently.


Generally, with regard to comments related to piecemealing and segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

As discussed in Master Response 2, because they are located in proximity to one another and therefore are “related” projects as meant by CEQA, the Draft EIR analyzes the potential cumulative impacts of the construction and operation of YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project (including, without limitation, with respect to traffic, aesthetics, land use, noise and etc.). Specifically, the Museum of Tolerance Expansion Project is described and analyzed as Related Project No. 53. Thus, the combined impacts of construction and operation of YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance are analyzed and accounted for in the Draft EIR.



Comment Fink-8

6) Marvin Hier worships in the illegally operating Jewish church (synagogue) on the yeshiva’s premises, and led a illegal outdoor celebration there in August 2008. 7) The yeshiva and the Applicant recently engaged in what appears to be a sham transaction, in which control of the yeshiva was transferred from Marvin Hier to Heshy Glass and David Nagel. This transaction may have occurred in a misguided attempt by the Applicant to “piecemeal” its land development activities to escape appropriate regulatory and legal scrutiny.


The comment refers to historic relationships between the high school and the Museum of Tolerance. However, it acknowledges that these relationships were terminated when YULA Boys High School was separated from YOLA. The comment provides no evidence that the separation of YULA Boys High School from YOLA was a “sham” transaction. Issues involving alleged illegal activities occurring on the property should be taken up with the enforcement agency, the Department of Building and Safety, and do not affect the environmental impact assessment of the proposed project as no compliance orders are in effect.

Generally, with regard to comments related to piecemealing and segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Fink-9

8) It is clear that religious ceremonies ((e.g., weddings and bar mitzvahs) held in the yeshiva’s proposed-to-be expanded synagogue will then be celebrated at parties in the Museum’s commercial banquet facility and catering hall (i.e., the proposed “cultural center”.


The 1999 CUP permits adult education to be conducted at the high school and currently permits religious services to be conducted at the high school. The 1999 CUP currently prohibits weddings and bar or bat mitzvahs. YULA Boys High School is proposing certain modifications to the site plan approved under the 1999 CUP with respect to build-out of facilities that will limit the potential for nuisances related to the use of outdoor areas. These modifications will maintain the plan for the fully enclosed gymnasium, will eliminate the approved surface parking lot, and will enclose remaining outdoor areas in the interior of the campus with a one-story classroom building. Mitigation Measures E-17 and E-18 in the Draft EIR would prohibit audible amplified signals or music beyond the boundaries of the project site and prohibit loud unamplified music outdoors on the site.

The applicant has requested modification of these conditions to reduce permitted adult education enrollment, to increase permitted attendance at religious services, and to permit religious services for wedding and bar or bat mitzvah events. The applicant is not requesting receptions other than Kiddush,



the serving of refreshments following religious services. The comment provides no substantial evidence for its claim that religious ceremonies “will then be celebrated at parties in the Museum’s commercial banquet facility and catering hall”, and such a statement is too speculative to take into consideration. Whether to permit the requested modifications is within the discretion of the decision-maker. The Draft EIR adequately analyzes the impacts of the modifications requested by the applicant, including the potential cumulative impacts of the YULA Boys High School project and the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project.

Comment Fink-10

9) The traffic impacts of both projects on Pico Blvd. traffic and at traffic at the major intersections and on local streets studied in the Museum’s and the Applicant’s traffic studies clearly must be considered together and not in isolation. 10) The yeshiva’s expansion is conditioned upon two street closures- the closure of southbound lanes of Roxbury Drive just south of the driveway entrance to the Washington Mutual Bank parking lot (at the southwest corner of Pico Blvd. and Roxbury Drive), and the creation of a cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue just south of the driveway entrance to the yeshiva’s parking lot. The impacts of these street closures must be considered jointly with the impacts of both projects. 11) Most tellingly, the proposed project cedes approximately 7,000 square feet of dedicated student educational space from the yeshiva (which the MOT has been unlawfully occupying for several years) to the Museum (under a complex air rights transaction, currently the subject of the separate Case No. VTT-66144) , and in turn then wants to add 9,500 square feet of space to the 10,500 square feet already approved for its expansion project. These projects cannot legally be considered separately in a piecemeal fashion and

must be considered together in one EIR.


As discussed in the Draft EIR, the “West Wing” is no longer within the leased premises or occupied by YULA Boys High School, and is proposed to be deleted from the premises covered by the 1999 CUP. As described in the Draft EIR, when build-out of YULA Boys High School is completed pursuant to the modifications proposed by the applicant, the facilities occupied by the high school will total approximately 45,000 square feet, which is 2,100 square feet less than the 47,100 square feet of facilities authorized by the 1999 CUP. The future use of the West Wing is addressed in the applications for the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project and its EIR. As discussed earlier, the Draft EIR analyzes the potential cumulative impacts of the construction and operation of YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project (including, without limitation, the proposed use of the West Wing by the Museum of Tolerance).

With regard to comments related to the Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4.

With regard to installation of the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac referenced by the commenter, installation of the cul-de-sac was considered in the traffic analysis for the project and does not create significant impacts. The applicant assumes that the cul-de-sac would be constructed before the proposed project and



has not requested any substantive modifications to the 1999 CUP conditions as they relate to the cul-de-sac (referred to as the "traffic diverter" in the 1999 CUP). As illustrated in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the modifications to Condition 75 in the 1999 CUP only include minor wording changes and the requirements of this condition are retained as proposed Condition 60. While the applicant proposes to construct the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac as provided in the 1999 CUP, for informational purposes the traffic analysis also analyzed the project without the cul-de-sac (see Exhibit C of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter). As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter at pages II-48 to II-50, the elimination of the cul-de-sac would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the residential street segment of Castello Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Cashio Street. Thus, the cul-de-sac is necessary in order to avoid potential impacts.

The applicant is proposing to eliminate the partial closure of Roxbury Drive south of the alley south of Pico Boulevard as a project condition as it is not necessary to mitigate traffic impacts and is no longer desired by the community.

Comment Fink-11

The DEIR understates or denies many adverse impacts as a result of this improper segmentation/piecemealing. Even if considered by itself, the proposed project will severely impact the quality of life in the yeshiva’s adjoining and surrounding residential neighborhood. But even if the proposed museum project and the proposed yeshiva project could somehow be regarded as separate projects for CEQA purposes, their cumulative impacts will be tremendous. At a minimum, the Museum project is so closely related to the yeshiva project that it should be discussed in detail under “related projects”, and the cumulative impact analysis for each impact should reflect both developments. Shockingly, the DEIR lists 61 related projects but ignores “the elephant in the room.” The DEIR treats the proposed Museum expansion as simply one of these 61 related projects. This is highly improper because the two adjoining developments would together choke traffic on Pico Blvd. and with the required street closures would severely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. This by itself is a fatal flaw.


The Draft EIR discusses Related Project 53 discussed in sufficient detail to assess its impacts in combination with the project, and the commenter does not identify any particular deficiency in such analysis. With regard to comments related to piecemealing, segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Fink-12

We note for the record that Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green, on Page 35 of the 1999 CUP, stated:



“Another improvement which is required also as a part of Phase II is the construction of a partial closure of Roxbury Drive southerly of the alley south of Pico Boulevard. This improvement seeks to mitigate impacts which currently exist and which are also more directly associated with the activities of the Museum of Tolerance but which nevertheless cumulatively impact the surrounding residential streets.”


With regard to comments related to the partial closure of Roxbury Drive, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4.

Comment Fink-13

The close relationship and cumulative impacts of the Applicant and the Museum were recognized in the 1999 CUP. The simultaneous expansion plans of these two adjoining, related, and interconnected institutions can only legitimately be studied in a single EIR.


With regard to comments related to segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Fink-14

The DEIR is legally inadequate because it does not respond to several important concerns raised in comment letters about the Initial Study and the resubmitted Initial Study. Among the issues specifically raised in my letter of June 9, 2008 are questions about terror threats; the relationship(s) between and among the Applicant and the Museum and their staff, boards, and financial supporters; political campaign and financial relationships among the Applicant and City, State, and federal elected and appointed officials; the mitigation measures which the Applicant states it will continue, but then proceeds to propose to entirely abrogate in its proposed modifications to the conditions of the 1999 CUP; and an explanation of why the Applicant has violated its existing CUP, and why the City has not enforced the CUP nor responded to citizen complaints about these violations. These issues must be addressed in

the revised and recirculated DEIR.


The purpose of NOP comments is to help establish the scope of analysis in the Draft EIR and to identify potential environmental impacts and ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts of the proposed project through mitigation and/or alternatives. The NOP comments were taken into consideration in the preparation of the Draft EIR. NOP comment letters are not comments on the Draft EIR, and responses to these comments in the Final EIR are not required under CEQA.

In regard to the comments about the Draft EIR’s adequacy with regards to potential terrorist threats to the YULA Boys High School, the purpose of CEQA analysis is to identify potential environmental impacts



rather than security issues per se. The CEQA analysis for this project is not whether there is a potential security threat to the YULA Boys School itself, but rather whether the proposed Project would create an increased risk that would result in a significant impact. With respect to public services, such as police and fire department services, CEQA requires analysis of whether a project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities, or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.

The Draft EIR discusses security for the high school, including security improvements that will result from the modifications to the approved build-out plan proposed by the applicant. The Draft EIR also addresses potential cumulative impacts associated with the adjacent Museum of Tolerance project. The Draft EIR concludes that the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities, or need for new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios.

A key principle of CEQA is that an EIR need not analyze potential impacts that are too speculative to determine. If the lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the lead agency may note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.) When the potential impact of future development is nonspecific and uncertain, an EIR need not engage in "sheer speculation" as to future environmental consequences. The potential terrorist risk from the proposed Project and any potential physical impacts therefrom as posed in the comments are speculative in nature. While the Draft EIR adequately analyzes potential impacts with respect to facilities associated with public services, and an analysis of speculative terrorist threats is not required by CEQA, it should be noted that an EIR need not analyze potential impacts that are too speculative to determine.

The NOP comments suggest that a significant impact will occur because the YULA Boys School will become a target for terrorists if the proposed Project is implemented. CEQA requires an EIR to assess the possible impacts the project may have as compared to the baseline environmental setting for the project, which in this case is the existing YULA Boys School. Therefore, the lead agency is not determining whether or not the completed project would pose a terrorist threat as a whole; but rather whether the proposed Project presents a significant environmental impact due to the risk of terrorist attack. Although the YULA Boys School proposes to expand and modify certain aspects of its operation, the potential threat of terrorism is already existing and part of the environmental baseline. It was the responsibility of the Draft EIR to address any potential increase of a terrorism threat related to the expansion, not the risk of threat to the existing conditions. After considering the comments, this EIR concludes that the commenter’s claimed increase in the risk of terrorism due to the proposed expansion is too speculative and the Draft EIR, together with the response to comments, adequately analyzes the risk of terrorist attack.



In regard to the comment regarding the issue about the relationship(s) between and among the Applicant and the Museum, YULA Boys High School is an independent California 501(c)(3) corporation (Number C3009860), formed to operate the modern orthodox Judaic high school and project site. While not germane to the analysis of environmental impacts, its Board of Directors is currently comprised of the following persons: David Nagel, Michael Baum, Ron Nagel, Moshe Sassover, Brian Dror, Irwin Weiss, Brian Kleinman, Brad Markoff, David Rubin, Joanne Sacks, Sheri Schlesinger, Avi Steinlauf, Steve Wasserman, and Geri Wiener. The comment provides no substantial evidence that YULA Boys High School is not an independent entity apart from the Museum of Tolerance.

In regard to the comment pertaining to political campaign and financial relationships between the applicant and the City, see Response to Comment Fink-3.

In regard to the comment pertaining to violation of the 1999 CUP, purported violations of the 1999 CUP are beyond the scope of CEQA analysis, but may be raised to the decision-maker in the public hearing process pertaining to the applicant’s request. Mitigation Measures that required by the 1999 CUP and MND for the YULA school that are proposed to be retained by the Applicant are noted throughout the Draft EIR as applicable and are also summarized in Table I-1, Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, in Section I, Introduction/Summary of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the proposed modifications to the 1999 CUP were provided in Appendix B of the Draft EIR in both a redline and clean copy version. In addition, in response to comments, the proposed modifications have been revised as shown in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR. Whether to approve the modifications requested by the applicant, and upon what terms, is within the discretion of the decision-maker. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

With regard to enforcement of the conditions of 1999 CUP, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) is the agency charged with enforcing CUP conditions, not the Department of City Planning. For CUP violations one should call the LADBS Code Enforcement Section at (213) 252-3900. Additionally, Condition 29 of the 1999 CUP and Condition 25 of the proposed amended and restated permit conditions provide for the designation of a YULA Liaison who can be contacted by neighbors who wish to make an inquiry or lodge a complaint regarding any YULA activity and/or a violation of the conditions of the instant conditional use grant.

With regard to the Project applicant’s proposed continuance of some existing CUP conditions and revisions to others, CEQA allows for the analysis of any proposed project that any applicant wishes to submit to a Lead Agency. Any objection to any aspect of a project as an applicant proposes it can be presented at the public hearing on the project. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR and the relationship between the Museum of Tolerance and the Applicant, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1 and Master Response 2, respectively.

Comment Fink-15

The proposed project as described in the DEIR would require many deviations from the goals, policies and objectives specified in the West Los Angeles Community Plan component of the City’s General Plan, and from the zoning codes and regulations specified in the Los Angeles Municipal Code (including but not limited to, requirements for parking, density, land use, and building height). The Applicant needs to obtain variances and exceptions or amendments to several different zoning ordinances for this project to be built! The Applicant’s general approach, is that if through its political clout (apparently gained from campaign contributions from its Board members to City elected officials) it can convince the City to grant variances from or make exceptions to existing laws, rules, and regulations, planning goals and guidelines designed to protect its citizens, the proposed project would then not break the law and/or would be consistent with the various laws, rules, regulations, goals and guidelines that have been ignored, changed, or broken. Even then, the proposed project clearly violates applicable laws and guidelines such as those governing parking and height. The Applicant claims that the proposed yeshiva expansion is appropriate for land zoned for single family homes. The proposed land uses are entirely inconsistent with current zoning and with the West Los Angeles Community Plan. And even if the discretionary authorities vested in the various zoning commissions and political bodies are exercised, the failure to respect the Transitional Height Ordinance may be illegal. These serious errors must be corrected in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


The particular approvals that are necessary for the proposed project are identified on Page II-23 of the Draft EIR. It should be noted that YULA Boys High School is operating pursuant to the 1999 CUP, and has a vested right to complete the build-out of the facilities authorized by the 1999 CUP and to operate the completed facilities (including the expansion in enrollment) authorized by the 1999 CUP. Therefore, the Draft EIR analyzes the differences between the original project and the modifications proposed by YULA Boys High School as authorized by CEQA. See Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467, 1484 (1991) (lead agency "properly considered only the incremental differences between the original project and the modification when evaluating whether the modifications to the original proposal would result in any significant environmental impacts.").

Whether to approve the modifications requested by the applicant, and upon what terms, is within the discretion of the decision-maker. While modifications to the currently approved 1999 CUP and parking variance for the high school would be required for the project, the proposed modifications will not result in aesthetic or land use impacts, and do not conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and Zoning Code.



Zoning height restrictions applicable to the Project are discussed in Section IV.B, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR at page IV.B-5. The impact of the 1999 CUP on building heights at the site is discussed in Section IV.D, Land Use Planning, of the Draft EIR at page IV.D-8. The impact of the proposed modifications to the 1999 CUP on building heights is discussed in Section IV.D, Land Use Planning, of the Draft EIR at page IV.D-16.

In approving the 1999 CUP and parking variance, the City found that a school, adult education, and religious uses on the site would be consistent with the Community Plan. The consistency of the proposed modifications with the West Los Angeles Community Plan is provided in Table IV.D-2, Consistency with Applicable Policies of the Wes Los Angeles Community Plan, in Section IV.D, Land Use Planning, of the Draft EIR at page IV.D-21. As discussed therein, the difference between the improvement plans approved under the 1999 CUP and the modified project plans proposed by the Applicant would not result in inconsistencies with the applicable policies of the West Los Angeles Community Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The City's Transitional Height Ordinance (LAMC Section 12.21.1.A.10) applies to structures located in the C or M zone. The new buildings proposed to be constructed by the applicant as part of project are to be located in the R1-1 zone. The 1999 CUP authorized a height increase pursuant to LAMC 12.24.D,5, as that code section existed in 1999, providing for a maximum height of the gymnasium of 40 feet. This height increase was determined to result in less than significant environmental impacts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in connection with the 1999 CUP. The Applicant's proposed modifications would increase the maximum height of the gymnasium building from 40 feet, as approved by the 1999 CUP, to 45 feet, in accordance with LAMC Section 12.24.X.10, stepping down to 16 feet on its southern and eastern sides adjacent to residential properties and Castello Avenue. On its southern side, the new structure would step down to a height of 30 feet within a range of approximately 67 to 81 feet from the southern property line, and not exceed a height of 16 feet within a range of approximately 42 to 55 feet from the southern property line. On its eastern side, the new building would not exceed 16 feet within approximately 76 feet of the eastern property line. The visual and shade/shadow impacts of the proposed height increase are described in Section IV.B, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR at page IV.B-6. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on aesthetics.

This comment also expresses opinions about the approval process, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.



Comment Fink-16

The DEIR concludes that a wide variety of potentially “significant” impacts from the proposed project either are not significant or will be mitigated below the level of significance in a myriad of unrealistic ways, and documents that many other impacts will be significant and unmitigated. These are discussed in detail in the comments keyed to specific pages, paragraphs, tables, and illustrations in the YULA DEIR and the MOT DEIR (and its three volumes of Appendices). The impacts inadequately described include significant and unmitigated impacts on aesthetics (size, height, and mass - - we cannot comment on YULA’s design features because the DEIR is virtually silent on this important issue - - in itself a very serious defect in the DEIR, warranting the circulation of a revised DEIR containing far more detailed plans and descriptions of the design of the proposed project), traffic, parking, light, noise, and land use including height, and proposed extended hours.


The analysis of the Draft EIR concluded that the difference between the project approved under the 1999 CUP and MND and the modifications proposed by the Applicant would not result in any new significant impacts with the exception of temporary unavoidable construction noise impacts. With regard to provision of detailed plans and descriptions, the commenter is referred to Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for Figures II-4 through II-7 that illustrate the proposed project. These figures include project sections and elevations as well as a site plan, which illustrate the improvement plans currently approved by the City of Los Angeles pursuant to the 1999 CUP for YULA Boys High School, as well the modified improvement plans proposed by the applicant for the City’s approval. The Draft EIR adequately analyzes the potential visual impacts of approving the modified improvement plans for YULA Boys High School in Section IV.B, Aesthetics. The Draft EIR’s analysis indicates that the difference between the improvement plans approved under the 1999 CUP and the modified project plans proposed by the Applicant would not result in significant new aesthetic impacts.

The Draft EIR discloses that the Draft EIR prepared for Related Project No. 53 concluded that significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to visual character would occur as a result of implementation of both the proposed project and Related Project No. 53. Given the proximity of Related Project No. 53, the Draft EIR for YULA Boys High School conservatively concluded that despite the less than significant aesthetic impacts of the modified improvement plans proposed for YULA Boys High School, implementation of Related Project No. 53 with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character.

The commenter asserts that mitigation identified in the Draft EIR is “unrealistic” and that some of the impacts are “inadequately described,” but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, pursuant to §15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no further response to this portion of the comment is required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.



With regard to comments related to recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-17

The various studies contained in the DEIR and its Appendices are incorrect and need to be redone to fulfill the legal requirements of CEQA for an EIR. Specifically, the Traffic Study does not address the required closure of southbound traffic on Roxbury Drive, nor does it adequately explore the impacts of the cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue on local neighborhood traffic patterns, and in particular on Alcott Street and Castello Avenue. Nor does the DEIR address at all the likely occurrence of terrorist attacks (despite a specific request that this be addressed in comments on the Applicant’s Initial Study). It is not possible for the designated lead agency to adequately evaluate the proposed project, nor for the public to comment in an informed manner on it, with such flawed, incorrect, inaccurate, and inadequate information. The corrected and redone studies must be contained in the recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to the analysis of the Roxbury Drive partial closure and the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-4 and Fink-7, respectively. With regard to comments related to terrorism the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-14.

The cul-de-sac is an approved improvement per the 1999 CUP and MND. As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the potential residential street impacts of the potential cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue are analyzed in the traffic study’s Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis. The cul-de-sac would eliminate potential project related trips on Castello Avenue if implemented, but will not result in significant impacts to other neighborhood streets. The cul-de-sac will also be designed so that emergency vehicles can drive over the cul-de-sac, and therefore emergency access will not be impaired. While the applicant proposes to construct the cul-de-sac as provided in the 1999 CUP, for informational purposes the traffic analysis also analyzed the project without the cul-de-sac (see Exhibit C of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter). As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter at pages II-48 to II-50, the elimination of the cul-de-sac would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the residential street segment of Castello Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Cashio Street. This information further supports the applicant's proposal that the cul-de-sac be retained.


Comment Fink-18

We will now proceed to comments keyed to specific pages in the DEIR.

I-1. A. Introduction. The Applicant mentions that the proposed modifications to existing entitlements “will require certain discretionary approvals by the City.” We want to emphasize at this early point in the



review process that Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code states that an agency abuses its discretion “if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” The Applicant has not provided sufficient factual evidence to support its DEIR, and in fact has excluded relevant documentary and other evidence which must be reviewed to allow the public and the Deputy Advisory Agency to render a well-reasoned, independent opinion.


With regard to comments related to discretionary actions, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15. The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient factual evidence and that relevant evidence was excluded, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. The Draft EIR includes a series of technical appendices that provide factual and analytical support for the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to §15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no further response to this comment is required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

Comment Fink-19

Furthermore, we note that the law requires an unbiased, independent, legally adequate review of the proposed Project, especially of the project alternatives.


It is the role of the Lead Agency (the City of Los Angeles) to complete an independent, unbiased environmental review of the proposed project and the alternatives to the project. This comment does not state that an unbiased, independent, legally adequate review of the project was not conducted and as such, no further response to this comment is required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

Comment Fink-20

In general, we emphasize that the Applicant distorts or mischaracterizes existing conditions while omitting legally and environmentally significant facts. This patterns of inaccuracies begins on the very first page of this Introduction, where the Applicant states that “The 1999 CUP included the construction of a cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue” but entirely omits that the 1999 CUP also requires closure of the southbound lanes of Roxbury Drive south of Pico Blvd. and south of the driveway to the former WaMu (now Chase bank) parking lot. Furthermore, the yeshiva’s facilities were not to be used by any other group or school, as such use was specifically prohibited by the 1999 CUP (see Condition 7: “The use of the existing facilities shall be used only for the operations of the following three divisions of Yeshiva of Los Angeles: (a) the private boy’s school of YOLA; (b) YOLA University; and (c) the adult education Jewish Studies Institute...” No use is permitted by the YULA Girls High School under the Phase 1 conditions currently in force. The Applicant states several times that YULA Girls High School students



are already using its facilities. This is a clear admission of guilt regarding the Applicant’s violation of Condition 7 of the 1999 CUP.


The project description in the Draft EIR included proposed amendments to specific permit conditions of the 1999 CUP, including the elimination of the condition requiring the partial closure of Roxbury Drive, which were comprehensively identified in Appendix B to the Draft EIR. In order to clarify the proposal regarding Roxbury Drive, the EIR has been corrected to include a specific reference to this modification (see Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR at page IV-1). With respect to analysis of potential Roxbury Drive impacts, see Response to Comment Fink-4.

The existing 1999 CUP permitted use of the gymnasium (to be built in Phase II) by YULA Girls High School. The applicant is requesting that in addition to such use, use for school plays and sports tournaments be permitted because YULA Girls High School does not have appropriate facilities for such events. The applicant proposes to implement feasible mitigation measures such as the cul-de-sac (to divert traffic), 100 on site parking spaces, and provision for off-site parking to mitigate potential environmental impacts. With such mitigation measures, the applicant proposes that such events be considered acceptable.

With respect to existing use of the facilities by YULA Girls High School, Condition 7 of the 1999 CUP provides that “…The use of YOLA's facilities by students from other schools shall be limited only to functions in which YOLA/HS and YOLA/U students from the Pico/Castello campus actively and substantially participate.” As such, use of the existing facilities by other schools, including the YULA Girls High School, is an allowable use under the existing 1999 CUP when said use includes the participation of YULA Boys High School students. The after-school enrichment programs in which YULA Girls High School students currently participate together with students from YULA Boys High School are examples of permitted joint programs.

Comment Fink-21

Use of the synagogue is also severely restricted in this Condition to a maximum of 50 neighbors not affiliated with the school. If the Applicant is admitting use by other groups or a larger attendance at its synagogue, this is an admission of serious CUP violations which must be investigated and penalized by the City.


With regards to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. The synagogue (also know as the Beit Midrash) is used for teaching and orthodox Jewish services only. The existing Beit Midrash is approximately 2,400 square feet and has 185 permanent seats, but can accommodate up to 200 persons. Although the applicant has a vested right to expand the Beit Midrash facilities by 1,500 square feet per Condition 4 of the 1999 CUP, the proposed



modifications do not include the expansion of the Beit Midrash. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered that these limitations be incorporated into proposed Condition 4. Whether to permit increased use of the synagogue for orthodox Jewish services as proposed by the applicant is within the discretion of the decision-maker. The potential environmental impacts of the applicant’s request are analyzed in the Draft EIR.

The applicant is requesting that the number of persons to be permitted to attend the orthodox Jewish services at the Beit Midrash be increased from 50 on weekdays/weekends and 100 on holidays to 100 on weekdays/weekends and 200 on holidays. Persons attending services from Friday evening to Saturday evening (the Jewish Sabbath) walk to and from the services. Weekday services occur at 10 p.m. and are not attended by large numbers of persons. In response to public concern, the applicant has volunteered that increased holiday attendance at services would be permitted only for holiday events where attendees walk, as shown in the revisions to the requested modifications to the 1999 CUP, provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR. Furthermore, in response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 9 to eliminate weddings and to restrict Bar and Bat Mitzvahs to Saturdays when attendees walk to the synagogue.

Comment Fink-22

I-1 B Proposed Project Description The Applicant must submit notarized copies of any and all leases, operating agreements, and other documents governing the relationship between it, the Museum, and YOLA so that the Advisory Agency and the public (including the Applicant’s neighbors) may properly understand the relationships among and between the different entities involved. A certified copy of the Articles of Incorporation of YULA Boys High School must also be provided. As stated in comments on the proposed Museum expansion, we believe that the Applicant, on the one hand, and Yeshiva of Los Angeles (YOLA) and/or the Simon Wiesenthal Center, on the other hand, engaged in a sham “divorce” (their own term for it) to try to proceed with the improper segmentation or piecemealing of the two connected expansion projects. Previous comments on the use of the yeshiva’s West Wing, and the attempt by the Museum to take over this space in the air rights transaction VTT-66144, are incorporated herein by reference. Among these comments are Susan Gans’ email of February 22, 2009, documenting existence of a lease under which the Simon Wiesenthal Center paid $525,286 in rent to the yeshiva for use of the yeshiva’s space, in blatant violation of the restrictions of the 1999 CUP.


With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. The types of documents requested in this comment do not relate to the project's potential environmental impacts. The project's potential environmental impacts, including the cumulative impacts of the YULA Boys High School project and the Museum of Tolerance project, are adequately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. See also Response to Comment Fink-14.



Comment Fink-23

I-2 The fact that YULA’s lease from YOLA “does not include the 7,153 square feet on the second and third floors of building area known as the West Wing” makes it even more important for full and accurate disclosure of relationships, leases, and any other documents governing activities in this space. Again, a copy of YULA’s lease from YOLA must be provided for review by the Deputy Advisory Agency and by the public as part of a revised and recirculated DEIR.


See Response to Comment Fink-22. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the “West Wing” is not part of the leasehold premises leased by YOLA to YULA Boys High School. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the applicant’s proposed project and also considers the cumulative impacts of related projects, including the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project, which proposes to include the West Wing.

Comment Fink-24

In the second full paragraph on this page, it is true that the 1999 CUP authorizes a total of 47,100 square feet, including the 7,153 square feet that YOLA apparently illegally has been letting the Wiesenthal Center and/or the Museum use. Total built space on the Applicant’s lot must be limited to this figure. It truly “boggles the mind” for the Applicant to cede 7,153 square feet of space to its landlord in the air rights transaction, VTT-66144, and then to ask the City to approve the construction of additional space to replace that which it has given away! This just isn’t right!!!


See Response to Comment Fink-23. It is not the job of the EIR to determine whether the Lead Agency should approve or deny a project; rather, the purpose of the EIR is to inform the decisionmaker of any potential environmental impacts associated with a project. Whether to approve the applicant’s proposed modifications is within the discretion of the decisionmaker. This comment will be forwarded to the decisionmaker for review during consideration of project approval.

Comment Fink-25

We again note the severe restriction on use of the Beit Midrash facilities by anyone not affiliated with the yeshiva.


See Response to Comments Fink-7, Fink-14, and Fink-21. Whether to approve the applicant’s proposed modifications requesting increased use of the Beit Midrash is within the discretion of the decision-maker. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts of such requests. This comment will be forwarded to the decisionmaker for review during consideration of project approval.



Comment Fink-26

The statement in the bottom paragraph about “existing and increasing demand in the City for modern orthodox Judaic secondary education for boys” is speculation and is unsupported by fact. There exist ample such facilities and no need has been demonstrated for the Applicant to expand its high school.


As discussed in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, there is an unmet demand for modern orthodox Judaic secondary schools that is expected to increase substantially in the coming years, as current students in the existing modern orthodox Judaic elementary schools graduate from eighth grade. Documentation to support this claim was provided by Dr. Gil Graff, Executive Director of the Bureau of Jewish Education, an independent organization, in correspondence dated January 2, 2009, provided in Appendix F of the Draft EIR. The commenter asserts that there are ample existing facilities but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, pursuant to §15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no further response to this comment is required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

Comment Fink-27

At the top of Page I-3, the Applicant claims that “YULA Boys High School is one of only two modern orthodox secondary schools in the area.” This may be true, but this is not a valid consideration under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Parochial education is not a valid public concern. The Applicant also fails to define what the “area” is. If it’s a very small area, it may be true. If it’s all of L.A. south of Mulholland, it may not be. Again, the drafting of this DEIR is either very careless or very devious and intentionally misleading - - we believe it’s the latter.


The comment questions the applicant’s objectives rather than the analysis of the Draft EIR. See Response to Comment Fink-26. Whether to approve the applicant’s proposed modifications is within the discretion of the decision-maker. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts of such requests. The commenter’s comments will be presented to the decision-maker as part of the Final EIR.

Comment Fink-28

In the second paragraph on this page, the Applicant states that it is proposing “a complete build-out of the campus with 45,000 square feet of facilities”. This is a gross mischaracterization of the project, underestimates the environmental impacts, and is completely inaccurate. Since the Applicant is relinquishing 7,153 square feet of space in the West Wing to YOLA (its predecessor institution) to the adjoining Museum of Tolerance in the air rights transaction, VTT-66144, the total is approximately 52,000 square feet of facilities. This serious error must be corrected in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Applicant is no longer in possession of the West Wing and cannot conduct its operations in the West Wing. Because the applicant does not have legal possession of such space, the modifications proposed by the Applicant to the 1999 CUP would eliminate the West Wing from the premises covered by the CUP. The project site is currently improved with an approximately 32,200 square foot building; approximately 4,100 square feet less than authorized by the 1999 CUP for Phase One. However, because the lease to the Applicant does not include the 7,153 square foot West Wing, the Applicant is currently operating 25,047 square feet of facilities. The project will include 19,953 square feet of new construction, resulting in a maximum of 45,000 square feet of campus improvements at full build-out, with certain modifications to the design of the phase two improvements authorized by the 1999 CUP. Total square footage would comply with applicable Floor to Area limitations for the project site. The overall Floor to Area ratio for the property would be 0.88:1 taking into account all improvements (i.e. the 45,000 square feet to be operated by the Applicant under the CUP, and the 7,153 square feet which is not leased by the Applicant and is proposed to be excluded from the CUP). See also response to Comment Fink-23.

With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-29

Furthermore, the required closure of southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive south of the entrance to the bank parking lot is not mentioned. This must be addressed in the revised and recirculated DEIR.



Comment Fink-30

In terms of enrollment, it is the near-doubling of high school enrollment, from the current 186 students to 350 students, that causes the greatest concern. It is the high school students, not the adult students, who cause the most problems for the yeshiva’s neighbors, with recent incidents of drag racing, vandalism, noise, litter, and very disruptive pranks late at night. The yeshiva should not be permitted to increase the number of high school students, because it has not demonstrated any desire or capability of handling even the current limited number of students.


The Draft EIR examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, which includes the proposed modification of the enrollment limits to increase permitted enrollment for the Judaic boys high



school while decreasing permitted enrollment for adult education programs. The 1999 CUP permits a total enrollment of 450 students, comprised of a maximum of 30 YOLA University students, 250 YULA Boys High School students, and 170 JSI students. The project would maintain permitted enrollment at the maximum of 450 students, but would alter the composition of permitted enrollment to a maximum of 350 high school students (100 more high school students than permitted by the 1999 CUP) and 100 JSI/YOLA University students (100 less adult education students than permitted by the 1999 CUP). The environmental impacts of this shift in enrollment were analyzed in the Draft EIR.

With respect to the commenter's concern regarding potential problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix B to the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. Condition 25 indicates that a YULA Liaison will be designated and can be contacted by neighbors who wish to make an inquiry or lodge a complaint regarding any YULA activity and/or a violation of the conditions of the instant conditional use grant. Condition 28 provides for a security guard to patrol the grounds during all hours of operation who would enforce and report any violations of the conditions to the YULA Liaison, and for 24-hour monitoring indoors and outdoors. Additionally, Condition 26 provides that all neighbors located within a 500-foot radius would be provided with a 24-hour pager number to use to contact the supervisor of security in the event that there is a need to reach a YULA representative at any time. Furthermore, Condition 27 indicates that a Community Relations Committee would be formed to review issues associated with any complaints regarding the operation of the YULA Facilities.

The Draft EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the modifications (including enrollment mix modifications) proposed by the applicant and recommends appropriate mitigation measures for all project impacts. It should be noted that no impacts associated exclusively with the proposed change in enrollment mix were identified in the Draft EIR. In addition, implementation of the Castello cul-de-sac will eliminate school-related automobile trips through the residential neighborhood to the south of the project and significantly reduce student passage through such area. General concerns about the behavior of high-school age students pertain to social issues rather than to significant effects on the environment as meant by CEQA (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). Lastly, the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the impact of the proposed project, which in this case consists of changes to the existing CUP under which the YULA Boys School is operated. It is not the job of the EIR to provide mitigation or correction for concerns that the public may have with the existing approved operation of the school. See also Master Response 4. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Further response is not required pursuant to CEQA.

Comment Fink-31

As noted in previous communications, any “Discretionary Actions and Approvals” must be based on fact to be legally valid. We are particularly concerned about (at the top of Page I-4) the conversion of land



zoned for residential use to non-residential use; the failure of the proposed Project to meet parking requirements of LAMC 12.24; the proposed modifications of the CUP, which completely abrogate the protections afforded to the Applicant’s neighbors by the existing CUP; the vagueness of the haul route, which is not specified and which must be specified before this project is approved;, and the “blank check” embodied in the language “Any additional actions as may be determined necessary.”


Private high school and religious facility uses may be authorized by conditional use permit in R-1 zoned areas. As discussed in response to Comment Fink-4, YULA Boys High School is operating pursuant to the 1999 CUP, and has a vested right to complete the build-out of the facilities authorized by the 1999 CUP and to operate the completed facilities (including the expansion in enrollment) authorized by the 1999 CUP. The City has previously found that school, adult education, and religious facility use of the site is a use consistent with the Community Plan, and the modifications proposed by the Applicant will not introduce any new use to the site not previously approved by the 1999 CUP.

Indeed, certain modifications proposed by the applicant, such as the replacement of the surface parking lot with single-story buildings and significantly increased landscape buffers, will foreseeably result in reduced impacts to adjacent uses. The EIR analyzes the differences between the original project and the modifications proposed by YULA Boys High School as authorized by CEQA. See also Master Response 4.

With regard to comments related to discretionary actions, parking requirements, and the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-15 and Master Response 3.

While the Draft EIR studied the impacts of the proposed excavation and export, as well as other aspects of project construction, the proposed haul route for construction is not yet known. However, the project proposes to retain the provisions of Condition 58 to the 1999 CUP (proposed condition number 44) which imposes specific limitations on construction truck traffic on adjacent residential streets. In addition, the standard City of Los Angeles process would be followed to establish the haul route when the location to which material would be exported for disposal is known. Under standard City procedures, use of residential streets for either hauling or staging of the construction haul trucks would not be permitted. Creation and approval of a haul route map is a requirement of the City and must be done prior to issuance of the demolition permit. The Applicant will apply for and obtain haul route permits in accordance with the provisions of the LAMC.

The reference to “additional actions” is merely provided to alert reviewers that the EIR may be used for other permit requirements, although none are presently foreseen.



Comment Fink-32

Under D. SCOPING PROCESS, we again note that the many concerns raised in comment letters on the Initial Study have not been adequately addressed in the DEIR, but were just ignored. These concerns must be addressed adequately in a revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to comments raised during the NOP comment period, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. The Draft EIR was prepared taking NOP comments into account, but deals with potential environmental impacts only, consistent with CEQA’s requirements. Accordingly, some of the non-environmental impact issues raised in the NOP might not be directly addressed by the Draft EIR. The comment does not specify what particular environmental impact issue raised in the NOP comments was not addressed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is possible. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-33

Under E. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA, we note that the Applicant appears to be “pulling a fast one.” It claims that it can do only a perfunctory DEIR because it is relying on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from 1999, a 10 year old document which by itself was performed in a legally valid but perfunctory manner, which allowed it to build the project specified in the 1999 CUP. Environmental impacts on traffic, noise, parking, and aesthetics were considered only briefly. But now the Applicant wants to radically revise its project, almost doubling the amount of new construction to complete the build out (from 10,500 square feet to 19,500 square feet!) while reducing the setback of the project from its residential neighbors from 65 feet to only 20 feet. This partial DEIR is inadequate. It fails to meet the requirements of Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines quoted on Page I-5.


See Response to Comment Fink-4 with respect to relationship between the Draft EIR and the 1999 CUP project. The Draft EIR analyzes the differences between the original project and the modifications proposed by YULA Boys High School as authorized by CEQA. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. With regard to comments related to setbacks and the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-15 and Fink-28.

Comment Fink-34

We again note for the record that if the residents of our small neighborhood, bounded by Roxbury Drive on the west, Beverwil Drive on the east, Pico Blvd. on the north, and Cashio Street on the south, had



known that the protections afforded us by the Museum’s Conditional Use Permit (Case No. 86-015-CU), would be abrogated by an ill-conceived expansion project, we would have fought much harder against the yeshiva’s expansion as allowed in the 1999 CUP. The cumulative environmental impacts of the simultaneous, adjoining, and interconnected expansion projects will be severe and unmitigated on our neighborhood.


This comment does not contain pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the project in relation to related projects, including the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-35

Likewise, the neighborhood residents would probably not be so opposed to an expansion of YULA in accordance with the 1999 CUP (i.e., of 10,500 sq. ft. rather than the almost 20,000 sq. ft. now being proposed, and retaining all of the other protections set forth in the 1999 CUP), if the Museum was not proposing to expand as well. The residents all recognize the horrendous cumulative impacts, even if the Lead Agency so far appears to be blind to them.


This comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-36

The DEIR does not adequately analyze impacts on Aesthetics, Land Use, Public Services, and especially Traffic and Transportation, including parking (G-AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Page I-7). These must be addressed completely in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


The comment does not provide specific deficiencies in the Draft EIR’s analysis of Aesthetics, Land Use, Public Services, Traffic and Transportation, or parking, all of which are analyzed in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, no further response is possible. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. With regard to the proper scope of analysis in the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 4.



Comment Fink-37

On Page I-8, I. ALTERNATIVES, Alternative A is a mischaracterization. “No Project” would not mean constructing something according to the 1999 CUP. “No Project” means leaving the existing yeshiva building exactly as it is.

This true “No Project Alternative” must be explored for one important reason: when the yeshiva expansion was first proposed in 1994, and again in 1996, and considered in 1997, which led to the 1999 CUP, there was no proposal for the expansion of the adjoining Museum of Tolerance. The yeshiva’s neighbors more or less acquiesced to its expansion, with all the Conditions of the 1999 CUP meant to protect us, because we thought (and had every reason to assume) that the Museum structure would remain as it was. We thought that the Museum’s Memorial Garden buffer zone, right next to the residentially zoned land where the Applicant wants to build the proposed project, would continue to protect us. Since the Museum has now proposed its expansion project, a true “No Project Alternative” of no additional construction must be considered to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This No Project Alternative must be considered in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


As discussed in the Alternatives Section of the Draft EIR, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides:

The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans, and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) provides:

If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the “no project” alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this “no project” consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means “no build” wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.



Here, a decision to disapprove the modifications proposed by the Applicant would not result in the maintenance of existing conditions at the project site. The 1999 CUP provided for the continuing operation of a modern orthodox Judaic high school and religious education center and for the phased build-out of a campus expansion. The 1999 CUP envisioned an eventual build-out of approximately 47,100 square feet of facilities. The 1999 CUP also provided for a cul-de-sac along South Castello Avenue, south of West Pico Boulevard, at the end of Alcott Street. In terms of enrollment, the 1999 CUP permits a total enrollment of 450 students, comprised of a maximum of 30 university students, 250 high school students, and 170 JSI students.

Accordingly, the "No Project (Existing 1999 CUP)" alternative properly assumes that full build-out of the project site (47,100 square feet) would be completed and operated in accordance with the 1999 CUP. However, as discussed in Chapter I (Introduction) of this Draft EIR, the Applicant is not in possession of the West Wing area. Therefore, the total facilities operated by the Applicant upon build-out of the project site would be 39,947 square feet rather than 47,100 square feet.

As the Draft EIR explains on page VI-3, a “no project no build alternative” would involve no new development on the project site as compared to existing conditions, with the existing YULA facilities to continue operating on the project site. Such an alternative is not reasonably foreseeable but, as discussed in the Draft EIR, existing conditions are extensively documented in the various topical sections of this Draft EIR. Because of the Applicant's existing vested right to develop and operate the built-out facility (47,000 square feet) pursuant to the 1999 CUP, a "no project no build alternative" was not further considered.

Comment Fink-38

On Page I-9 (Operation), we note that the 1999 CUP specifies a 65 foot setback from the nearest residential property line, that of the Cetner family at 1329 Castello Avenue. The transitional height ordinance would limit heights to only 25 feet for the first 0-49 feet from this property line. The Transitional Height Ordinance must be enforced. We disagree with the Applicant’s statement that “Significant new aesthetic impacts would not result from the applicant’s proposed modifications.” How can reduction of a setback from 65 feet to only 20 feet- about the length of a Ford F-150 pickup truck! - not cause significant new aesthetic impacts?????


The 1999 CUP does not require any "setback" on the southern end of the property. The comment apparently refers to the improvement plans approved along with the 1999 CUP, which showed the 40-foot gymnasium building set back 64 feet from the southern property line. However, these plans also provided for a surface and semi-subterranean parking area (including ramp), which was permitted to extend up to the southern property line with a line of trees and wall at the property line. The modified project replaces the surface parking lot with a one story building (16 feet high) along the perimeter set back from property lines by a 20 foot landscaped setback. The modified project provides for subterranean parking and relocates the garage ramp to the center of the property's eastern edge, along Castello Avenue, further



away from the adjacent residence. With regard to comments related to setbacks, heights, and the transitional height ordinance, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15.

Comment Fink-39

While there would be no change to the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac, what about the proposed closure of southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive, required by Condition 75 of the 1999 CUP. This street closure and its traffic impacts are not addressed in this DEIR. This is not addressed in the adjoining and interconnected Museum of Tolerance’s DEIR or FEIR, CEQA No. 2007-2476-EIR. This street closure must be addressed somewhere in either this DEIR or in the Museum’s EIR to meet CEQA requirements!



Comment Fink-40

On Page I-10, the Cumulative Impacts of this proposed project and that of the adjacent and adjoining Museum of Tolerance must be considered in a single EIR to meet CEQA requirements and those of applicable case law.

As the Applicant notes, its proposed Project combined with the massive and inappropriate Museum project will result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character. Massive adjoining and interconnected structures will occupy the northern part of the block defined by Pico Blvd. to the north, Cashio Street to the south, Roxbury Drive to the west and Castello Avenue to the east. Land dedicated for residential use in the General Plan and in the West Los Angeles Community Plan, zoned R1-1, would be converted to commercial use. This impact must be better studied in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed under the project being evaluated in this EIR. Whether to permit such modifications is within the discretion of the decisionmaker. The Draft EIR discusses the potential cumulative impacts of the project when considered in combination with the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project, which is identified in the Draft EIR as Related Project No. 53. These impacts, as evaluated in the Draft EIR, include traffic, aesthetics, land use, noise and air quality. Thus, the combined impacts of construction and operation of YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance are analyzed and accounted for in the Draft EIR. With specific respect to cumulative visual character impacts, the Draft EIR concludes (at page IV.B-9) that a significant and unavoidable impact



would result from the development of the proposed Project in conjunction with Related Project No 53, the Museum of Tolerance expansion.

Comment Fink-41

On Page I-11, the increase in vehicular traffic from the proposed expansion of the high school class size up to 350 students- almost a doubling from the current 186 students- would lead to large increases in greenhouse gas emissions. This increase must be addressed in the revised and recirculated DEIR. There would be a further increase if the students are allowed to leave campus, since they would have to drive somewhere to eat lunch as there are few restaurants within easy walking distance to meet the dining needs of 350 students.


With regard to comments related to greenhouse gas emissions, the commenter is referred to Section IV.C, Air Quality of the Draft EIR. Food services will be provided as part of the project in accordance with proposed Condition 11, and it is speculative to assert that students would need to, or be able to, drive to eat lunch. However, even if they do drive away from the campus at lunchtime, this would not necessarily lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. If the proposed expansion does not occur, these students would still be attending high school at other locations and would still be free to drive to off-campus lunch spots from those school sites, thus contributing to greenhouse gas emissions in roughly the same quantity. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 11 to limit off-campus eating privileges to 11th and 12th graders.

Comment Fink-42

On Pages I-11 and I-12 and I-13, we do not trust the Applicant to adhere to the Proposed Mitigation Monitors. The Applicant should be required to pay the salary of a full-time inspector from the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety to monitor its activities. This inspector should have a cell phone, the number of which should be provided to all neighbors within a 500-foot radius of the proposed Project.


This comment expresses an opinion regarding the provision of a full-time inspector, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Fink-43

Moreover, the haul route must be specified and approved by the Applicant’s neighbors before any approvals are granted for this project. Specifically, no construction traffic can be allowed on Castello Avenue south of the driveway entrance to the yeshiva. In fact, this is required by Condition 74 of the existing 1999 CUP.


With regard to comments related to the haul route, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-31. Furthermore, the applicant has not requested any substantive modifications to the 1999 CUP conditions as they relate to the cul-de-sac (referred to as the traffic diverter in the conditions). As illustrated in Appendix B to the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the modifications to Condition 75 in the 1999 CUP only include minor wording changes and the requirements of this condition are retained as proposed Condition 60.

Comment Fink-44

On page I-14, we disagree vigorously with the mischaracterization that “the modifications proposed by the Applicant would be generally consistent with the physical arrangement of the project site as authorized by the 1999 CUP.” The new construction would be much closer (only 20 feet away, not 65 feet away) from the nearest residential property line. The “one story facilities that would replace the surface parking area” are not consistent with the adjacent and surrounding, well-maintained single family homes, which remain largely unaltered since they were built approximately 50 years ago in a visually pleasing “traditional” mid-Century style. The gymnasium structure is more than 10% taller. We again demand that the Transitional Height Ordinance be enforced. We disagree with the Applicant’s false statement that “the proposed physical improvements are equally compatible with surrounding uses.” The Applicant has provided no architectural renderings of the proposed Project. These must be provided so the public and the Deputy Advisory Agency can analyze the Project. How can it be analyzed without these drawings and more detailed plans?


This comment reflects the commenter's views and does not identify a specific deficiency with the Draft EIR. R1 zoning generally permits structures up to 33 feet in height. Therefore, the proposed buildings, which are 16 feet high and would be set back 20 feet from the southerly property line, are not inconsistent with the surrounding area. Similarly, the lower level of the gym, which would be 30 feet high, would be compatible with permitted building height for the zone. The applicant proposes that 45 feet rather than the approved 40 feet be permitted for the gymnasium. However, as shown in Figures II-1 and II-4, the 45-foot portion of the gymnasium structure is in the same approximate position as the 40-foot portion approved under the 1999 CUP, and is approximately 66 and 76 feet from the southerly and easterly property lines, respectively. With regard to comments related to height, setbacks, the transitional height ordinance, and compatibility, the commenter is also referred to Response to Comment Fink-15 and Fink-



38. The Draft EIR provides site plans and elevations (Draft EIR Figures II-1 through II-7). The provision of architectural renderings is not required by CEQA to analyze visual impacts of a project. With regard to the provision of plans and the analysis of aesthetic impacts, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-16.

Comment Fink-45

The modifications to operating conditions do conflict with existing City of Los Angeles land use policies, ordinances, and regulations, which reserve the southern portion of the Applicant’s lot for residential use. The proposed use is inconsistent with the General Plan which specifies this land for “low density residential use.” We do not understand why the Applicant lies so boldly when the truth is so easily determined.


The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. With regard to consistency of the proposed modifications with planning and zoning regulations, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15.

Comment Fink-46

At the bottom of this page, under the heading “Cumulative”, we cannot understand the Applicant’s statement “Implementation of the Applicant’s proposed project would not contribute to the potential impacts of Related Project 53. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.” As detailed above, the cumulative impacts of these two massive, adjoining, interconnected development projects can legally only be adequately assessed in a combined single EIR.


It is again noted that this EIR is the City of Los Angeles’ evaluation of the proposed project’s environmental impacts and not that of the project applicant. For an explanation of the discrete, independent nature of the two projects referenced in the comment, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. Under CEQA, when two projects on adjacent properties are not linked by common ownership or sponsorship, there is no requirement that they be considered in the same environmental document. As is appropriate in such situations, the Draft EIR fully evaluates the cumulative impacts of developing the proposed project and Related Project No. 53 on the adjacent property.

Comment Fink-47

The Applicant states, “the modifications proposed by the Applicant to the project approved by the 1999 CUP would not result in an expansion of the area authorized for campus operations and would not result in significant new land use impacts.” We disagree vigorously with this outright lie. The proposed



Project is significantly bigger, taller, and closer to its neighbors than the approved project. How can a proposed Project that limits the setback from the nearest residential property line to only 20 feet cause less of an impact than one set back 65 feet????? The full cumulative impacts of the proposed Project must be fully explored in the revised and recirculated DEIR to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.


The comment reflects the commenter’s views and characterization of the existing approved plans for the site. The commenter does not discuss that the existing approved plans permitted the operation of an outdoor surface and semi-subterranean parking lot almost to the property line. Thus while buildings were to be set back, other active uses on the property -- such as parking and the entrance ramp to the subterranean parking garage extended almost to the property line. With regard to the proposed modifications to height and setbacks, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, 38 and 44. As described in the DEIR, the single-story buildings proposed at the southern end of the site are enclosed, internally oriented buildings with fixed non-opening windows, effectively enclosing the project site. This design would eliminate noise from the surface parking and would provide a building perimeter that would better contain noise from interior open-air areas. The cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the proposed modifications in combination with the identified related projects are analyzed in the Draft EIR. With regard to comments related to recirculation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-48

On Page I-15, we note that the construction noise especially will have serious impacts on the Applicant’s elderly neighbors. The neighbors living at 9751 Alcott Street, 1329 Castello Avenue, and 1333 Castello, are all very elderly (age 80-90) and in ill health. I have personally visited several of them when they have been in the hospital. This noise will kill them. Their blood will be on Rabbi Glass’s hands, and on David Nagel’s hands.

At the bottom of the page, Operational Noise is not adequately addressed. Most of the operational noise perceived in the neighborhood by sensitive receptors comes from the unruly yeshiva students running unchecked and unsupervised through our streets, or drag racing down them. They have committed occasional acts of vandalism. They show little respect for their neighbors. They must be contained on campus.


Section IV.E (Noise) of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts during construction. As noted, sensitive receptors were evaluated in this analysis, including single-family residences located south and southwest of the project site. The existing approved improvement plans under the 1999 CUP would also entail excavation (for surface and semi-subterranean parking) and construction. The project proposes to retain the construction hours limitations specified in Condition 57



to the 1999 CUP (proposed condition number 43), which are more restrictive than the construction hours limitations provided in the LAMC. Construction activities not governed by approved conditions would be permitted as specified in LAMC Section 41.40. The language for the proposed conditions has been revised (refer to Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, of this Final EIR) to provide clarity. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, after carefully considering all feasible mitigation measures and implementing those listed in Section IV.E, Noise, of the Draft EIR, temporary construction noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Noise generated as a result of project operation analyzed in the Draft EIR includes off-site vehicular noise and electrical and mechanical equipment. Data used to prepare this analysis were obtained from the City of Los Angeles General Plan Noise Element, the Los Angeles City Municipal Code (LAMC), and by measuring and modeling existing and projected future noise levels at the project site and the surrounding land uses. The data from the measurements and modeling of future noise were included in Appendix H of the Draft EIR. Traffic information contained in the Traffic Study titled “Traffic Impact Study For Yeshiva University of Los Angeles Boys High School Phase II Project At 9760 Pico Boulevard, City of Los Angeles” (the “Traffic Study”) prepared by Crain & Associates, dated February 2009, was used to prepare the noise modeling for vehicular sources. The noise data and Traffic Study are included as Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively, of the Draft EIR. An updated noise analysis was prepared using the traffic data presented in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. The results of this analysis are presented in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. The updated noise data is presented in Appendix D to this Final EIR.

As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, Comment LADOT-2, in response to comments traffic counts were conducted at the school and used to update the project traffic analysis. While this analysis indicated that the project would result in more peak hours trips than identified by the ITE-based trip generation analysis provided in the Draft EIR Chapter IV-G, the applicant has agreed to implement a trip cap that would limit the net project trip generation to that identified in the Draft EIR traffic analysis, i.e., 62 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips in the PM peak hour. (See Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter; Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR; and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR.) The Draft EIR operational noise analysis has been revised to reflect this information. (See Section IV, Corrections and Additions, Table IV.E-9, of this Final EIR.) With the proposed mitigation (Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), operational noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. See also Response to Comment Fink-47.

The applicant has proposed to implement the cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue, which would eliminate students driving through immediately adjacent neighborhood streets. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. These comments will also be forwarded to the decision-maker for consideration.

The balance of the comment contain general opinion but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the



project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

Comment Fink-49

On Page I-16, the mitigation measures are completely inadequate.

Construction and demolition hours must be more severely restricted because these activities will be taking place directly next to, and across the street from, our homes. Mitigation Measure E-1 must be modified to:

E-1 Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 8 am. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction or demolition will take place on Saturday or Sunday or on national holidays (New Years Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, July Fourth, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas).

(Note: the foregoing is consistent with the Applicant’s own proposed Mitigation Measure, further on in the DEIR [see Mitigation Measure G-1 on page I-22, and discussion below]). Proposing to retain Mitigation Measure G-1 from the 1999 CUP was undoubtedly a careless error made by the Applicant as a result of its unseemly haste to prepare this DEIR and try to get railroad this project to approval before Jack Weiss leaves office. In any event, the neighborhood should get the benefit of this error, because restricting the days and hours of construction to five days a week (and prohibiting any work on holidays) and from 8 AM to 4:30 PM is absolutely essential to the health and welfare of the neighborhood residents, many of whom are very elderly and ill and home all day.


The project proposes to retain the construction hour limitations specified in Condition 57 to the 1999 CUP (proposed condition number 43), which are more restrictive than the construction hours limitations provided in the LAMC and, among other things, prohibit construction on Saturdays. Construction activities not governed by approved conditions would be permitted as specified in LAMC Section 41.40. The language for the proposed conditions has been revised (refer to Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, of this Final EIR) to provide clarity, however, it was always the intent of the 1999 CUP and the proposed conditions to limit construction hours as described in Condition 57 to the 1999 CUP (proposed condition number 43). In addition, the applicant has not requested any substantive modifications to the additional limitations contained in Condition 53(e) of the 1999 CUP (proposed Condition number 40[d]).

Comment Fink-50

Condition E-31 on Page I-17 must also be modified, to read as follows:



E-13 The project developer shall ensure that all trucks used during construction are routed away from residential streets. All trucks must enter and leave the Project site from Pico Blvd. only.

The “weasel words” to the extent feasible must be stricken from this modification measure. No construction truck traffic can be allowed on residential streets. All construction vehicle access must be from Pico Blvd., restricted to the small segment of Castello Avenue north of the cul de sac.


Mitigation Measure E-13 has been revised, as discussed in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR to reflect the project's proposal to retain Condition 58 to the 1999 CUP (proposed condition number 44), which, among other things, limits excavation and demolition debris truck traffic to Pico Boulevard. As illustrated in Appendix B to the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the project does not propose any modifications to Condition 58 in the 1999 CUP and this condition is retained as proposed Condition 44.

Comment Fink-51

Under “Operation”, these Mitigation Measures must be significantly strengthened to minimize the impacts of the proposed Project (if it is constructed) on its neighbors. These must state:

E-15 Outdoor recreation and athletic activities on the site are strictly prohibited.

We note that the rationale that YOLA recited endlessly in 1999 for building the gym, was that it would bring all outdoor activities indoors, and thus greatly minimize the noise made by the students (particularly those who congregate outdoors to talk or play basketball), which has been so disruptive to our quiet residential neighborhood. This intent must be respected.


Mitigation Measure E-15 is a measure required by the 1999 CUP and MND that is proposed to be retained by the Applicant. However, it has been revised, as shown in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. When Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to the south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Any activities conducted outdoors would be conducted according to the requirements of the amended and restated conditions, provided in Appendix B of the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR. Amplified sound in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 12. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, activities in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. This comment expresses opinions but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental



impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-52

E-17 No outdoor public address or paging systems shall be allowed.

E-18 No amplified music, no loud unamplified music, and no voice amplification shall be allowed outdoors. No special events shall be allowed outdoors.

These restrictions are necessary because the proposed project is immediately adjacent to a single family residence, and across the street from several single family residences. There is NO amplification system that would be worth using, that cannot be heard outside YULA’s boundaries - - because these boundaries are simply too close to peoples’ homes.


Mitigation Measure E-17 has been deleted, as discussed in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR because this measure is duplicative of Mitigation Measure E-18. Mitigation Measure E-18 is equivalent to Condition 15 of the 1999 CUP, which is proposed to be retained by the Applicant. As illustrated in Appendix B to the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the project does not propose modifications to Condition 15 and this condition is retained as proposed Condition 12. This measure is intended to reduce noise impacts associated with the operation of the school and covers all forms of voice amplification rather than just paging and public address systems. With implementation of this measure, operational noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. See also Response to Comments Fink-47, Fink-48, and Fink-51. This comment expresses opinions about whether or not outdoor public address or paging system and voice amplification used in association with a special event should be allowed, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-53

On Page I-18, we again note that the simultaneous construction of this proposed Project and Related Project 53 will have serious unmitigated impacts during the construction phase as well as during the operational phase. These impacts can only be analyzed in a single combined EIR, as noted above.

On Page I-19, we note that cumulative operational noise impacts can only be analyzed in a combined EIR. The impact of 500 or 800 (or as many as 2,300 - - a capacity that was acknowledged in the PKF Report included in the appendices to the Museum’s FEIR) event-goers at the Museum of Tolerance’s



commercial banquet hall, catering facility, and conference center, leaving as late as 2 a.m., must be analyzed with several hundred unruly yeshiva students and students from other schools leaving events as late as midnight. These impacts must be reported in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


The Draft EIR analyzes cumulative construction noise impacts of the project and the Museum of Tolerance Expansion project, as well as cumulative noise impacts from operation. With regard to comments related to segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. See also Response to Comment Fink-46.

It should also be noted that, under the proposed project, athletic event hours are proposed to be limited to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays as stipulated in proposed Condition 10.

Comment Fink-54

Our main concern about Public Services, as discussed on Pages I-19 through I-22, is not crime but terrorism. This issue is addressed in great detail in comments on the Museum’s DEIR and FEIR, and these comments are incorporated herein by this reference. With specific references to terror attacks on yeshivas, we refer to the attack on a yeshiva in Jerusalem in March, 2006. Right now the Applicant’s neighbors are largely protected by the parking lot, which provides a buffer zone. This buffer will be reduced to only 20 feet if this proposed Project is built. Furthermore, several hundred yeshiva students attending an event in the gymnasium may pose an irresistible terror target. These concerns are not speculation. These are assumptions based on fact. One need only read the daily newspaper or turn on the television news to learn about car bombs, suicide bombers wearing explosive vests, mortar and rocket attacks, etc. These terror threats, and the steps that can be taken against them, must be addressed by the Applicant in the revised and recirculated DEIR.

In this regard, we note that at least the MOT has some security measures in place, because even though it refused to acknowledge the serious terrorist threat in its DEIR, FEIR or revised FEIR, it certainly acknowledges that it is a major terrorist target by its actions - - i.e., requiring all vehicles entering the garage to be searched, requiring all adults to show photo identification, requiring all visitors to pass through airport-style metal detectors, proposing to put cast-in-place concrete benches on Roxbury Drive to double as “security bollards”, leasing out the ground floor of the Wiesenthal Center’s headquarters at 1399 Roxbury “for security reasons”, and boasting of the proposed new cultural center’s use of “blast-resistant glass.” YULA is as much of a target, if not more so. How will YULA protect itself and its innocent residential neighbors, from a terrorist attack? These measures must be described in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




With regard to comments related to terrorism, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-14.. With regard to comments related to setbacks, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comment Fink-15, 38 and 44.

Comment Fink-55

Mitigation Measure F-6 must be added:

F-6 The Applicant shall cause to be conducted a terror threat and prevention analysis, to be performed by a company that specializes in anti-terrorism (such company to be selected by a committee composed of representatives of YULA, residents of the adjacent neighborhood, and of the 5th District Councilman’s office) and shall notify the yeshiva’s neighbors in writing of all specific and credible terror threats and of the actions being taken to protect them from these threats.


With regard to comments related to terrorism, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-14. There has been no indication that the proposed project could be any more susceptible to an act of terrorism than other similar institutions located throughout the City and region. An analysis of the type being requested in this comment was prepared in association with the EIR for Related Project No. 53, the adjacent expansion of the Museum of Tolerance. However, that project had been the subject of a greater level of controversy and visibility than has been the case with the proposed project.

Comment Fink-56

The Mitigation Measures on Page I-22 are different from the ones on Page I-16. Specifically, G-1 has different hours from those in Mitigation Measure E-1. The more restrictive hours set forth in G-1 on page I-22 should apply. (See discussion on page 10 of this letter).


See Response to Comment Fink-49.

Comment Fink-57

Under G-3, the Applicant must specify exactly where “off-site” the construction workers will park.


As with the 1999 CUP and MND, the project indicates that construction parking would be provided off-site or on-site (as the subterranean garage is completed). The location of off-site construction parking would be identified in the Construction, Staging, and Management Plan that is included as Mitigation



Measure II-7 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure II-3 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter incorporates the requirements of Condition 59 to the 1999 CUP, which prohibits construction workers from parking in residential neighborhoods and requires the contractor to implement procedures to enforce these restrictions. As illustrated in Appendix B to the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the project does not propose any modifications to Condition 59, which is equivalent to Mitigation Measure II-3, and this condition is retained as proposed Condition 45.

Comment Fink-58

Under G-8 on Page I-23, the Applicant must detail the haul route. No weekend construction can be allowed. Holidays shall be as specified in proposed Mitigation Measure E-1 above. The Applicant must pay for a full time employee of the Department of Building and Safety to be present at all times to supervise its adherence to these and any other conditions, restrictions, and mitigation measures during the construction phase. We do not trust the Applicant, based on previous violations reported to the City, to voluntarily adhere to any restrictions imposed upon it without strict supervision by the City.


With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to the haul route, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-31. With regard to comments related to the provision of a full time inspector, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-42. With regard to comments related to construction hours, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-49.

Comment Fink-59

On Page I-25 we have major concerns about the impacts of the proposed cul-de-sac on neighborhood traffic. The Applicant blithely states, “”The cul-de-sac along Castello Avenue south of the school driveway would be constructed as part of, but before the proposed project. Therefore, no project trips were assumed along Castello Avenue south of the school driveway, between Alcott Street and Cashio Street. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.”

This is a gross mischaracterization of the impact of the proposed cul-de-sac on neighborhood traffic patterns. Unless there is a 6-foot high fence preventing pedestrian access from the area south of the cul-de-sac, including blocking sidewalks on both sides of Alcott Street and Castello Avenue, parents will drive west on Alcott, drop off their students on the south side of the cul-de-sac, and proceed south on Castello. Or they will do the reverse, heading north on Castello, stopping at the cul-de-sac to drop off their students, and then heading east on Alcott. This will result in severe and unmitigated impacts on these two streets, especially on Alcott which is only 32 feet wide and which usually has cars parked on both sides of the street. The traffic impacts of the proposed project, including those of the cul-de-sac, on neighborhood streets must be completely studied to analyze the impacts of the proposed project, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.




With regard to comments related to analysis of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-7.

The project retains the requirement (in proposed Condition 64) that, other than emergency exists there shall be no pedestrian access south of the proposed cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue. In addition, the project retains Condition 26 of the 1999 CUP (in proposed Condition 22), which provides:

• All loading and unloading of students shall be conducted on-site to the maximum extent feasible. To facilitate traffic movement, to prevent double-parking and to ensure the enforcement of these and any other related traffic control provisions, YULA shall provide a traffic control monitor at the entrance of the parking area during regular YULA Boys High School days' morning drop-off hours (7:15 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.) and afternoon pick-up hours (5:15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.).

Proposed Condition 22 is substantially unchanged from the conditions of the 1999 CUP as it relates to the loading and unloading of students. This condition is also included in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter as Mitigation Measure II-9.

The project retains Condition 86 of the 1999 CUP (in proposed Condition 69), which provides:

• Vehicular and pedestrian access to the YULA Facilities shall only be provided via Pico Boulevard or via Castello Avenue, northerly of the traffic diverter. Except as otherwise permitted herein, all vehicles transporting students to and from YULA shall load and unload students on-site or within the Castello Avenue right-of-way north of the traffic diverter subject to the approval of the Department of Transportation. Conventional buses, passenger vans and Type 2 (up to 16-passenger) shall park, load or unload along the driveway into the YULA Facilities or on Castello Avenue northerly of the traffic diverter.

Phase II has been designed so that drop-offs and pick-ups will occur in the subterranean garage. Bus pick-ups, however, may occur on Castello Avenue northerly of the cul-de-sac as provided in proposed Condition 69. Proposed Condition 69 is substantially unchanged from the conditions of the 1999 CUP as it relates to site access via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac. As such, measures are in place to ensure that Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac is not utilized to access the school. The proposed site plan is in conformance with these restrictions.

Comment Fink-60

We note here and again later in this letter the requirements and intent of Condition 86 of the 1999 CUP:

“Vehicular and pedestrian access to the school facility shall only be provided via Pico Boulevard or via Castello Avenue, northerly of the traffic diverter.” The Applicant has not shown, and must show in the revised and recirculated DEIR, how this will be accomplished. A 6 foot high fence, with a gate with a



combination lock to allow neighbors but not yeshiva students or visitors to pass through the gate, would be one method, but of course is unrealistic - - and would pose other problems, particularly with respect to emergency vehicle access, which is an issue of great concern to the elderly homeowners who reside on Castello Avenue south of the proposed cul de sac.

The reality is that the cul de sac, with YULA’s proposed greatly expanded expansion, both in physical size and the size of its student body, would probably benefit YULA as much as or even more than it would benefit the adjacent neighborhood. The proposed expansion, in combination with the cul de sac, will permit YULA to “lay claim” not only to a much greater portion of the property on which its campus is located, but also to the roadway itself. Based on our prior experience with MOT- and YOLA-sponsored street demonstrations and disruptive events held on Roxbury Drive, we fully anticipate that YULA will - - unless it is prohibited from doing so right now - - hold events that are either intended to take place in the street (such as carnivals, rallies and protests) or that are so large that they will inevitably spill out onto the street. The cul de sac will, in effect, enable the MOT and YULA to essentially “own” and control an entire square city block, while neighborhood residents, long accustomed to easy access to their homes, will now be inconvenienced by both the permit parking that they will be forced to obtain, and the need to drive two or three additional blocks out of their way, all as a trade-off for the very speculative traffic mitigation benefits of the cul de sac.

Probably the only legitimate way to do an analysis of the impacts of the cul-de-sac is to (with appropriate City permits, and neighborhood approval and awareness) close off the traffic on Castello where the cul-de-sac would be built so traffic engineers could study the traffic patterns, and neighbors could observe what happens. Even then, the study would not be valid because the yeshiva has only 186 high school students now, and is proposing to almost double this number to 350. This would almost double the number of car trips. A traffic study performed by the Applicant’s neighbors found almost twice as

many vehicle trips as the Applicant reported in its traffic study, especially during morning drop off and afternoon pick up hours. This issue must be studied very carefully before this project can be approved.


With regard to trip generation, as discussed in detail in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, in response to comments additional data was collected and a revised traffic analysis was prepared. Traffic counts were conducted at the school in order to evaluate the ITE-based trip generation rate used in the Draft EIR traffic analysis. These traffic counts indicated that the project would add 164 AM trips and 99 PM trips with a total of 820 daily trips, which is higher than the ITE-based trip generation analysis provided in the Draft EIR for the proposed and existing uses. In response to this analysis, and in accordance with the recommendations of LADOT, the applicant has agreed to implement a trip cap that would limit the net project trip generation to that identified in the Draft EIR traffic analysis, i.e., 62 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips in the PM peak hour. This trip cap is provided as Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-11 through 13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and is provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR. The proposed conditions of



approval set forth in Appendix E to this Final EIR have been revised to reflect these new mitigation measures in Conditions 23 and 61. The revised traffic analysis is set forth in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, which supersedes and replaces Chapter IV.G (Traffic/Transportation/Parking) of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, and Comment LADOT-2, with the trip cap, all potential traffic impacts will be reduced to less than significant. The Recirculated Traffic Chapter circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. Comment letters on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are provided in Appendix A-2, and Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are provided in Section III.3 of this Final EIR. Chapter IV.G of the Draft EIR has been revised in Section IV, Corrections & Additions to reflect the Recirculated Traffic Chapter.

With regard to comments related to access on Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. The cul-de-sac was required as a condition of Phase II of the project by the 1999 CUP, and is proposed as part of the project. As reflected in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and Comment LADOT-2, the cul-de-sac is necessary in order to avoid potential impacts to the residential street segment of Castello Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Cashio Street. This comment speculates on intent of the Applicant to hold events within the cul-de-sac, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-61

Most importantly, if the Applicant is relying on the 1999 MND, the 1999 CUP specifies the closure of southbound traffic on Roxbury Drive south of the bank driveway south of Pico Blvd. This closure, and its impacts on traffic on Roxbury Drive, Pico Blvd., Beverwil Drive, and other streets and intersections is not included in the Applicant’s traffic studies. This closure must take place before the Applicant begins construction. The impacts of this street closure must be analyzed in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to the Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4. With regard to comments related to recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-62

The full parking requirements of LAMC 12.24 and other sections must be met. The applicant is proposing to build fewer than 40% of the required parking spaces. This is inadequate to meet the needs of the existing school, let alone an expanded high school. We continue to see students parking on residential streets, despite the two-hour parking restrictions - - they simply move their cars a few feet, every two hours.




With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students parking in the neighborhood, the school regularly advises students and parents to encourage compliance with parking restriction conditions pertaining to the school. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions, as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions. The commenter is also referred to Response to Comment Fink-30 and Fink-59.

Comment Fink-63

The cumulative impacts of this proposed project, combined with those of Related Project 53, can only be analyzed in a combined EIR.


With regard to comments related to segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Fink-64

The summary in Table I-1 merely puts the Applicant’s distortions and lies in tabular form. The comments and criticisms of the information included in the table, summarized in comments on Pages I-1 through I-26, are included herein by reference.


This comment refers back to preceding comments made by the commenter and notes that said comments apply to Table I-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts. Preceding comments have been addressed in Response to Comments Fink-1 through Fink-63. Therefore, no further response is required.

Comment Fink-65

Turning to the Project Description and A. Project Background on Page II-1, we note that the 1999 CUP imposed 90 Conditions crafted specifically by Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green, with input from the Applicant’s neighbors, to protect the neighborhood from the impacts of the yeshiva. Among these restrictions are the required cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue and the partial closure of Roxbury Drive, already referenced. There is nothing in the 1999 CUP about “a modern orthodox Judaic high school” or



of a large synagogue. This language is new to this DEIR. Furthermore, public use of the Beit Midrash was severely restricted to 50 unaffiliated persons.


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to the analysis of the Roxbury Drive partial closure and the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4 and Fink-7, respectively. This comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project modifications proposed by the applicant or ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-66

No use by other schools or groups was allowed during Phase 1. The reported use of the YULA Boys High School facilities by others (including the Museum) is an admission of the Applicant’s guilt and a clear and specific violation of the existing 1999 CUP, and has been reported to the Department of Building and Safety. We understand that an investigation is pending; accordingly, all action in connection with the environmental review of this project should be suspended until such time as a decision is reached in such investigation and the investigation is officially concluded.


With regards to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP and the use of the facilities by other schools, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-20. The use of the YULA Boys High School facilities as noted in Section II, Project Description, on page II-1 includes use by others for Orthodox Jewish prayer and services as permitted by the existing 1999 CUP.

Comment Fink-67

For the record, we ask that the entire 1999 CUP be part of the Applicant’s DEIR, including especially the comments and findings of Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green on Pages 25-41. Specific attention is called to the comments on Page 36:

“No change has been made under this grant from the previous prohibition on the use of the site for weddings, bar or bat mitzvahs. According to prior and current public testimony, these celebrations have created adverse impacts on the immediate neighbors. As noted in the previous conditional use grant, there is nothing about these private celebrations which is ancillary to the operation of a school. In fact, allowing these type of activities represents a use of the facility which is akin to a banquet hall facility and a more commercial use that is inappropriate to the location and the requested use of the property.”




The conditions of the 1999 CUP are included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. The proposed amendments and modifications to the 1999 CUP are provided in Appendix B of the Draft EIR in both redline and clean formats. In response to comments, the proposed modifications have been revised as shown in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR. All other materials pertinent to the 1999 CUP are available as part of public record. However, these materials have been provided as Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR.

Comment Fink-68

The Applicant must provide the Deputy Advisory Agency and the public with notarized copies of any and all leases, rental agreements, and other documents describing the relationship between YOLA and YULA and the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance. These documents must explain exactly what YOLA, the MOT and/or the Simon Wiesenthal Center is/are doing in the 7,153 square feet it apparently continues to occupy in the West Wing. The reasons this space, which Rabbi Meier May (then with YOLA, now with the Simon Wiesenthal Center) publicly proclaimed was so desperately needed by the yeshiva’s small student body, can now be ceded to YOLA and/or the Museum (Related Project 53) must be adequately explained. The Applicant’s 25,047 square feet of current facilities, combined with 19,953 square feet of new space, would total 45,000 square feet, which combined with the West Wing’s 7,153 square feet of space, would total 52,153 square feet. This is far bigger than contemplated in the 1999 MND and in the 1999 CUP, and results in a far worse Floor Area Ratio than is acceptable for land zoned R1.


The types of documents requested in this comment do not relate to the project's potential environmental impacts. The project's potential environmental impacts, including the cumulative impacts of the YULA Boys High School project and the Museum of Tolerance project, are adequately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. However, this comment will be added to the administrative record and forwarded to the decisionmaker. With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. With regards to comments related to the total proposed square footage and FAR, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Fink-69

At the top of Page II-2, the Applicant inexplicably omits any discussion of the required closure of southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive before any new construction is undertaken, under the 1999 CUP and MND. Discussion of this partial street closure, and analysis of its traffic impacts especially in conjunction of the traffic impacts of Related Project 53, must be provided in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




With regard to comments related to recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. With regard to comments related to the Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4.

Comment Fink-70

The needs for any specific Jewish education are irrelevant to consideration under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This would be similar to someone claiming they had to build a church of a certain denomination in the middle of a City park because members of their religion were underserved.


With regard to comments related to the discussion of the applicant’s project objectives, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-27. Project objectives are considered a cornerstone in the CEQA process and are necessary in order to evaluate potential mitigation measures and project alternatives. In order to consider whether to approve a project, decisionmakers must have an understanding of the objectives the project applicant hopes to achieve by implementing the project.

Comment Fink-71

As discussed previously, it is the high school students who are most disruptive. The number cannot be allowed to increase beyond the permitted 250. In fact, the current lower cap of 200 should be maintained and imposed by the City in perpetuity because the Applicant clearly cannot provide adequate supervision even for only 186 existing students. The neighbors’ many written complaints about drag racing, vandalism, noise, pranks and other problems are incorporated herein by reference. The Applicant’s students disrupt our lives and endanger those of our children.


With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. The other views and comments expressed in this comment do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but will be forwarded to the decision-maker for consideration.

Comment Fink-72

The facilities cannot be used by YULA Girls High School because they are right in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. As is currently allowed in the 1999 CUP, use must be restricted to YULA Boys High School students only, with other students only being allowed for interscholastic athletic activities in which the BHS students actively participate (as required in the 1999 CUP). And extended use is also entirely inappropriate, again because of the project site’s proximity to its residential neighbors. We



remind the Planning Department that the land on which the Applicant proposes to build its massive project is zoned R1-1, for single family homes.


The 1999 CUP currently permits use of the facilities by YULA Girls High School under certain conditions as discussed in Response to Comment Fink-20, and permits additional use by YULA Girls High School following completion of the gymnasium (Condition 81 of the 1999 CUP). This comment expresses the commenter's opinion and preferences regarding use of the facilities, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-73

The illegally operating Jewish church has already been reported to City authorities, and we are waiting for enforcement action. If a church operation open to the public is allowed to continue, such operation must meet all the requirements (including parking requirements) of the LAMC for a church, including but not limited to LAMC 12.24 W.9, 12.111A.4. (e), 12.11A.2., 12.11.2.A.2, 12.14.A.10, 12.13. A.1, and 12.17.A.1 (a).


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regards to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-74

At the bottom, the Applicant claims that it is “proposing (1) a complete build-out of the campus with 45,00 square feet of facilities...” This is a lie, not a fact. The Applicant is proposing a build-out totaling 52,153 square feet of built space, including the West Wing space mentioned previously. The Applicant states at the bottom of Page II-2, “the project adds some square footage to offset the elimination of the approximately 7,153 square foot West Wing area which is no longer part of the school premises.” A more accurate and factually correct statement would be: “The Applicant is replacing the 7,153 square feet of West Wing space already illegally occupied by the Museum and/or Wiesenthal Center with 19,953 square feet of space.” The Applicant’s neighbors find this offensive and outrageous.


With regards to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.



Comment Fink-75

The enrollments proposed at the top of Page II-3 should remain in force. The YULA BHS cannot be allowed to increase the number of unruly students.


With regard to comments related to enrollment, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. The comment expresses the commenter's opinion, but does not raise a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project modifications proposed by the applicant or ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-76

Under B PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS on this page, the gymnasium is much larger than that permitted in the 1999 CUP and MND, and the buffer only a third of what was previously proposed. These changes are unacceptable to the Applicant’s neighbors. The proximity of the new design, and its proximity to the adjoining single family residence at 1329 Castello Avenue, are shown in Figure II-4. The inappropriate size of the proposed construction relative to its residential neighbors is shown in Figure II-5 and II-6. The Transitional Height Ordinance and applicable LAMC provisions regarding height should be respected, limiting the height of the proposed Project to a more appropriate 33 feet at its maximum.


The position of the 45-foot high portion of the gymnasium is approximately the same as under the approved 1999 CUP plans. The building steps down to 30 feet (below permitted R-1 heights) within approximately 40 to 55 feet of the southern property line. A one-story structure, set back 20 feet from the southern property line, separates the 30 foot building further from adjacent properties to the south. With regard to comments related to setbacks, heights, and the transitional height ordinance, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, Fink-38, Fink-44 and Fink-47. Proposed Condition 66 limits gymnasium occupancy to 300 persons, excluding YULA Boys and Girls High School students under the age of 18. This reflects a maximum anticipated 300 persons for gymnasium events.

Comment Fink-77

On Page II-19, we again note that the Applicant must provide appropriate documentation of leases, agreements, etc. between it and YOLA and the Wiesenthal Center, and any and other entities involved with the facilities at 9876 and 9760 West Pico Blvd. As requested previously, copies of all lease and other documents about the relationship between YULA, YOLA, the Museum of Tolerance, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center must be provided for public review.




See Response to Comment Fink-14. The types of documents requested in this comment do not relate to the project's potential environmental impacts. The project's potential environmental impacts, including the cumulative impacts of the YULA Boys High School project and the Museum of Tolerance project, are adequately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Fink-78

Under 3, we again emphasize that the Applicant cannot be allowed to increase the size of the high school student population to 350. It is the high school students who are most disruptive and dangerous to the neighborhood.


With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but will be included in the Final EIR for the decision-maker’s consideration.

Comment Fink-79

Under 4, we again emphasize that all parking required by LAMC 12.24 and other sections must be provided by the Applicant. Where will 350 students park? Where will the 1,000 people (300 people excluding students from the BHS and Girls High School) park?


With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. The project will provide 100 subterranean parking spaces and consistent with the current requirements of the 1999 CUP, will provide parking plans for Special Events where projected parking needs are expected to exceed parking provided at the site. Consistent with the current requirements of the 1999 CUP, parking on neighborhood streets by students, parents, faculty, and employees will be prohibited. See proposed conditions 18 through 21. See also Response to Comment Fink-59.

Comment Fink-80

Under 5, we again note that the many restrictions in the 1999 CUP, designed to protect the Applicant’s neighbors, must be maintained and not abrogated. Extended use of the facilities in evening times and on weekends is inappropriate and will disrupt the neighborhood and disturb the Applicant’s neighbors. The very limited number of parking spaces will be inadequate for attendees at such events, and they will park on our narrow neighborhood streets.




See Response to Comment Fink-79 and Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Fink-81

Extended use for orthodox Jewish religious services is also inappropriate for a structure so close to single family homes. A survey also shows that there are ample synagogues in the Pico Corridor, including many varieties of Orthodox Jewish synagogues. The nearest one is Congregation Mogen David, almost directly north of the Applicant, at 9717 West Pico Blvd., literally across the street from the Applicant!


This comment expresses the opinions that religious services are an inappropriate use near residential zones and that there are ample synagogues in the Pico Corridor, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-82

The proposed amendments to the 1999 CUP conditions show - - by the number of lines of CUP crossed out - - that the protections of the 1999 CUP would be almost completely eliminated. This is not right.


The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of the modifications proposed by the applicant. With regard to comments related to modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. Whether to permit modifications to the 1999 CUP conditions is within the discretion of the decision-maker. The commenter’s views will be included in the Final EIR for the decision-maker’s consideration.

Comment Fink-83

The proposed gym occupancy of 300 persons, excluding 350 YULA Boys students and 177 YULA Girls High School students (existing YULA Girls High School enrollment obtained from its website) would total 827 occupants. The Applicant must explain how many people would occupy the gymnasium in the revised and recirculated DEIR. Where these students would park must be explained. Also, if any student groups would arrive by bus, how the buses would drive to the Applicant’s site and where they would park must be explained in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




Proposed Condition 66 limits gymnasium occupancy to 300 persons, excluding YULA Boys and Girls High School students under the age of 18. This reflects a maximum anticipated 300 persons for gymnasium events. Students under 18 are expected to be participants in such events and anticipated to traveling to and from the school with audience members, such as their parents. Therefore on-site parking or Special Event off-street parking is anticipated to be adequate to meet parking needs. It is not anticipated that the gym would be simultaneously occupied by every student (350) and YULA Boys High School and 300 additional audience members. A more foreseeable scenario would be where the gym is occupied by event participants (i.e. a certain number of students well below the school’s total enrollment) with interested persons attending as the audience. Events where the entire seating capacity of the gymnasium would be consumed would be the exception – not the rule. Refer to Master Response 3. Access for buses is addressed in Proposed condition 69.


Comment Fink-84

The proposed construction must obey the restrictions of the Transitional Height Ordinance, with heights not exceeding 25 feet for land 0-49 feet from the residential property line, and then not higher than 33 feet for the land 50-99 feet from the property line. The proposed structure violates these restrictions. A modified structure, in compliance with existing laws and regulations, must be shown in the revised and recirculated DEIR. (The taller structure was approved under the 1999 CUP, but since that entitlement document is being completely abrogated, this project must be reviewed “from the start.”)


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to setbacks, heights, and the transitional height ordinance, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, 38 and 44.

Comment Fink-85

On Page II-20, the minimal 11 foot buffer zone between the Applicant’s western side and the adjoining property at 1428 S. Roxbury Drive is inadequate. This should be increased to 20 feet.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. This comment expresses the opinion that the landscape buffer on the western side of the project site should be increased from 11 feet to 20 feet, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and



ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-86

The existing restrictions on use of the facilities for religious activities and prayer must be maintained. All requirements for a church, as mentioned above and incorporated herein by reference, must be maintained and all approvals granted if “permitted use of the facilities for religious activities and prayer services by individuals not affiliated with the school” is allowed. If the Applicant were to moderate its religious orthodoxy, for example, churchgoers might drive. Also, while orthodox Jews walk to services on their Sabbath and on major holidays, there are other holidays where they are allowed to drive. One must assume that these holidays would also be celebrated at the yeshiva. Therefore, adequate parking must be provided.


Consistent with the existing 1999 CUP, the applicant proposes to maintain the project as facilities operated by Yeshiva University Boys High School with allowance for JSI adult education programs and modern orthodox Jewish religious services. All of these programs and activities are governed by modern orthodox religious beliefs, as noted by the comment; specifically, driving and other activities are prohibited on the Sabbath and most religious holidays. The comment expresses the opinion that the existing restrictions for religious activities and prayer must be maintained, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

With regard to comments related to synagogue use and parking, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-21 and Master Response 3, respectively.

Comment Fink-87

Again, as noted above, there is no dearth of synagogues along Pico Blvd. Mogen David is less than 300 feet northeast of YULA!! Review of the synagogue directory published in the September 12, 2008 Jewish Journal’s annual “Congregation Directory” showed the following Orthodox Jewish synagogues in the yeshiva’s vicinity:

Beth Jacob Congregation 9030 W. Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA



Chabad in the Hills 1012 Cory Avenue Beverly Hills CA

Nessah Educational and Cultural Center 142 S. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills CA

Ohr Letzion 326 N. Doheny Drive Beverly HIlls, CA

Young Israel of Beverly Hills 8701 W. Pico Blvd Beverly Hills, CA (? but this is the listing)

Adas Torah 1135 S. Beverly Drive Los Angeles, CA

Aish HaTorah Los Angeles 1417 S. Doheny Drive Los Angeles, CA

Anshe Emes 1490 S. Robertson Avenue Los Angeles, CA

B’nai David-Judea Congregation 8906 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles CA

Chabad Israel Center 1520 S. Robertson Blvd. Los Angeles, CA

Chabad of Beverlywood 1952 S. Robertson Blvd Los Angeles, CA

Chabad of Century City 1145 S. Wetherly Drive Los Angeles CA



Congregation Bais Bezalel/Chabad of South Beverly Hills 8850 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles, CA

Congregation Mogen David 9717 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles, CA

Ohel Moshe Congregation 8644 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles, CA

Ohr Haemet Institute 1030 S. Robertson Drive Los Angeles, CA

Young Israel of Century City 9317 W. Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA

There are multiple additional Reform, Conservative, Independent, and Traditional synagogues listed as well. It would appear that the nearby Jewish population is well-served by synagogues and that there is no need for a synagogue open to the public at this location. Of course, it is entirely appropriate for the Applicant to operate a synagogue for its students, and this would of course be permitted, as is currently the case.


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment expresses the opinion that the Jewish community is well served by existing facilities, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-88

Any food service, including “Kiddush following services”, cannot be allowed. Some of these meals are quite elaborate. These meals would be inappropriate for a school facility. Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green was quite specific when she crafted the Conditions of the 1999 CUP and



specifically addressed the disruptions such meal service would cause. These restrictions must be respected in any yeshiva expansion.


With regard to comments related to modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. Kiddush after a Saturday Bar or Bat Mitzvah where attendees walk is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. This comment expresses the opinion that Kiddush not be allowed following services, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-89

The 1999 CUP prohibition of off-campus dining for students must be maintained. If students are allowed to leave campus, they will have to drive because there are no restaurants close enough for them to walk to, eat lunch, and walk back during a short lunch hour. Also, any nearby restaurants would not be able to accommodate 350 students for lunch. This driving will increase vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the unruly students cannot be trusted not to terrorize our neighborhood. They should only be dropped off and picked up by their parents or other responsible adults, and must be kept on the YULA campus to the maximum extent possible, to protect our neighborhood.


With regard to comments related to greenhouse gas emissions, the commenter is referred to Section IV.C, Air Quality of the Draft EIR.

With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students and off-campus dining, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-30 and Fink-41, respectively. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 11 (see Appendix E of this Final EIR) to limit off-campus eating privileges to 11th and 12th graders.

Comment Fink-90

On Page II-20, Access and Parking, all requirements of the LAMC regarding parking must be met. The “off-site parking arrangements” must be described in greater detail. Where is the other location mentioned at the top of Page !1-21?


With regard to comments related to parking and parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. Various off-street parking facilities are available in the vicinity of the project. The



applicant has used the large parking lot located at 9740 Pico Boulevard, which is one block from the campus, in the past.

Comment Fink-91

The project architect is Yazdani, the same architect of the Museum project. The plans we have seen are so disharmonious with the neighboring community as to be offensive at best and repugnant at worst. We will have to look out at these massive structures from our windows, day in and day out. There must be some modifications made in the stark, modern mass, to make the buildings blend in better with the residential neighborhood.


The commenter incorrectly asserts that the architect for the modified improvement plans proposed for YULA Boys High School is Yazdani Design Studios. The architect for the modified improvement plans for YULA Boys High School is Gruen Associates. With regard to the provision of plans and the analysis of aesthetic impacts, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-16. Aesthetic impacts of the Project are discussed in Section IV.B, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. Project-specific impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Comment Fink-92

The “lower single-story structures” are too close to the property line. The setbacks specified in the 1999 CUP must be respected.

The 20 foot rear setback must be expanded to at least 40 feet.


With regard to comments related to setbacks and heights, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comment Fink-15, Fink-38, Fink-44 and Fink-47.

Comment Fink-93

No lighting or glare should be visible from any portion of Castello Avenue, Alcott Street, Saturn Street, or from any residence on these streets.


With regard to comments related to light and glare, the commenter if referred to Section IV.B, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications due to the provision of enclosed buildings, Mitigation Measure B-2 (and proposed Condition 40(f)) retains the requirement for light shielding, which was required by the 1999 CUP and



MND in Condition 53(i). Additionally, although not required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure B-5 requiring the use of non-reflective materials, is also proposed.

Comment Fink-94

The monument sign on Pico Boulevard will be removed, as specified at the top of Page II-22.


This comment refers to text provided on page II-22 of the Draft EIR that addresses any new exterior signage. The project description does not provide for the removal of any existing signage. The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-95

On Page II-22 Project Objectives:

The increased enrollment in the high school cannot be allowed. This is the segment which is a danger to the community.


With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of the modifications proposed by the applicant. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but will be included in the Final EIR for the decision-maker’s consideration.

Comment Fink-96

The Operating Conditions specified in the 1999 CUP must be maintained to protect the community. This is why these Conditions were specified by Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green.


With regard to comments related to modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Fink-97

Why is the Applicant concerned about a “secure facility” if there is no security or terror threat. Comments about terror threats in comment letters about the Museum expansion in response to its DEIR and FEIR and Revised FEIR are incorporated herein by reference. The attack on a Yeshiva in Jerusalem in March, 2006 is specifically referenced. The smaller the terror magnet, the smaller the terror attacks it will attract.


With regard to comments related to terrorism, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-55.

Comment Fink-98

Any expanded use of the sanctuary by non-students must meet ALL requirements for a church, including parking, in Los Angeles, as specified by the LAMC.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to synagogue use and parking, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-21 and Master Response 3, respectively. Adequate on-site parking for the orthodox Jewish synagogue activities proposed by the project will be provided by the 100 spaces provided as part of the project.

Comment Fink-99

On II-23, we caution the City not to abuse its discretion in making any decisions about this project.


With regard to comments related to discretionary actions, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15. The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-100

On Page III-1 we note that the Overview of Environmental Setting does not adequately describe the quiet residential neighborhood including the southerly portion of the Applicant’s land where this Project would be built. All the land south of Pico Blvd on Figure III-1 is zoned R1-1 except for the narrow strip along



Pico Blvd. which is zoned C4. The residential character of the neighborhood is well-documented in Figure III-2.


The surrounding land uses are adequately described starting on page III-13 of Section III, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR. This section and the description of the existing setting in the vicinity of the project site was reviewed and approved by the City’s planning staff following multiple site visits to the area.

Comment Fink-101

The glaring, disharmonious architecture of the Applicant is well shown in Figure II-3. It is out of scale and does not relate architecturally to the pleasing mid-century residential development to the south. The photos to the north, in Figure III-5, are basically irrelevant to this Project, which is to the south of the existing school structure. The low-rise homes along narrow, quiet tree-lined streets are shown in View 6 of this Figure.


With regard to comments related to aesthetics, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-16. With regard to setback, heights and compatibility, see Response to Comments Fink-15, 38, 44 and 47. This comment expresses an opinion regarding scale and architecture, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-102

At the top of Page III-13, we again request all documents describing the relationship between the Applicant, the YOLA, the Museum, and the Wiesenthal Center.


This comment repeats one or more comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. The types of documents requested in this comment do not relate to the project's potential environmental impacts. The project's potential environmental impacts, including the cumulative impacts of the YULA Boys High School project and the Museum of Tolerance project, are adequately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.



Comment Fink-103

The paragraphs on “Surrounding Land Uses” understate the quiet residential neighborhood to the Applicant’s south, east, and west. The single family home at 1428 South Roxbury Drive and the single family home at 1429 Castello Avenue would be most impacted by the proposed Project. The occupants of both are very elderly and in very poor health. The impacts on these extremely “sensitive receptors” are not adequately described.


Single-family residences are identified in the Draft EIR as sensitive receptors. Buildings proposed by the applicant’s modifications would be separated from 1429 Castello by a 20 foot landscaped setback and from 1428 Roxbury by a 5 - 11 foot setback. The heights of project buildings adjacent to these properties would be from 16 feet to 30 feet in height, which is consistent with permitted residential heights in the R-1 zone. It should also be noted that the existing 1999 CUP currently allows construction and excavation to occur on the project site. See also Response to Comments Fink-15, Fink-38, Fink-44 and Fink-47. Construction noise impacts are acknowledged to be significant and unavoidable in the Draft EIR notwithstanding the adoption of feasible mitigation. With regards to comments related to adequacy of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-104

The major Related Project is the Museum of Tolerance expansion. All previous comments on its expansion and on the need for the current Project and the Museum expansion to be considered in a single, combined EIR are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed demolition and reconstruction of the Century Plaza Hotel is not adequately described.


This comment expresses the opinion that the demolition and reconstruction of the Century Plaza Hotel should have been included on the list of related projects and considered in the cumulative traffic analysis. At the time of NOP circulation (May 14, 2008), no application for such a project had been filed, and as such, the Century Plaza Hotel was not included as one of the related projects in the Draft EIR. On December 19, 2008, an application for the project replacing the Century Plaza Hotel was filed with the City of Los Angeles.

With regard to related projects and cumulative impacts, Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published…” Additionally, Section 15130(b)(1)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the Draft EIR should consider the potential cumulative impacts that could occur as a result of implementation of the project in conjunction with other “past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts.” Thus, the list of related projects shown on Table III-1 on pages III-14 through III-17 in Section III, Environmental Setting, of the Draft



EIR includes all of the reasonably foreseeable related projects known to the City of Los Angeles at the time the NOP for the proposed project was circulated (May 14, 2008). Additionally, the cumulative analysis in the Draft EIR takes these related projects into consideration. However, the cumulative traffic analysis not only considers this related project but also assumes a growth factor of one percent each year compounded. This growth factor captures other potential development in the project area that could occur but was not proposed at the time of the circulation of the NOP.


Comment Fink-105

Turning to Section IV on Page Iv.A.1, there would be significant impacts on neighborhood aesthetics. The proposed project is too large for its surrounding neighborhood of single family homes.

These thoughts are discussed further in comments on Page IV.B-1. The “Surrounding Area” to the north of the Yeshiva may “consist[s] of a broad range of urban uses” but that immediately surrounding and adjoining the site where the proposed project would be built is ONLY single family homes. There are no multi-family homes in the area surrounding this Project, bordered by Roxbury Drive on the west, Beverwil Drive on the east, Pico Blvd. on the north, and Cashio Street or even further south to Horner Street (and actually all the way south almost to National Blvd!). There are ONLY single-story homes on Castello Avenue to the south of the Applicant’s site. There are very few two-story homes in the area described above. Figure II-4 and II-5 do not adequately document the true nature of the residential neighborhood. The aerial view in Figure II-2 best shows the quiet streets and 91 single family homes on them.

While not a “Scenic Resource” in itself, as described on Page IV.B-2, it is a pleasant neighborhood which should be preserved, not destroyed by inappropriate development.


The surrounding land uses are adequately described starting on page III-13 of Section III, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR. With regard to the analysis of aesthetic impacts, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-16.

Comment Fink-106

The Existing Viewsheds which are most relevant are those from the South and East, as any new development would be screened by the existing school buildings from any view from the north. The proposed Project is viewed from the west only by the residents at 1428 S. Roxbury Drive, and from the south by those at 1429 Castello Avenue.




With regard to the analysis of aesthetic impacts, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-16. This comment expresses an opinion regarding which existing viewsheds are most relevant, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-107

The lights on the Applicant’s parking lot are too bright and disrupt the neighborhood.

The proposed Project is inconsistent with the West Los Angeles Community Plan, which specifies the current parking lot for “Low Density Residential” use. This land is further zoned for single family homes in the LAMC.

The West Los Angeles Community Plan specifies that residential neighborhoods must be protected and that transitions between commercial and residential uses should be smooth. This proposed Project obviously does not meet these objectives.

The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) actually specifies a 33 foot height limit for residential use of the southerly portion of the Applicant’s land, but since the Applicant is proposing another non-residential use, the Transitional Height Ordinance would apply. This limits height to 25 feet for land within 0-49 feet from the residential property line, and then to 33 feet for land 50-99 feet from the residential property line. The provisions of the LAMC should be respected and enforced.


With regard to consistency with the West Los Angeles Community Plan, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-31. With regard to comments related to setbacks, heights, the transitional height ordinance, and consistency of the proposed modifications, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, 38, 44 and 47. The comment that the lights on the existing parking lot are too bright relates to the existing condition. The parking lot is proposed to be removed as part of the project, and will be replaced by a subterranean parking garage and single-story buildings; thus eliminating the source of the complained-of illumination. With regard to comments related to light, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-93.

Comment Fink-108

At the bottom of Page IV.B.-5, we note that the term “modern orthodox Judaic high school” is not mentioned in the 1999 CUP. The religious sanctuary is mainly for the religious instruction of the yeshiva students, with extremely limited public use. The 1999 CUP also requires a cul-de-sac on Castello



Avenue, and closure of the southbound lanes of Roxbury Drive south of the entrance to the bank driveway south of Pico Blvd., before the Phase 2 construction of the gymnasium mentioned can begin.


With regard to comments related to the analysis of the Roxbury Drive partial closure and the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4 and Fink-7, respectively.


Comment Fink-109

The Environmental Impacts of the proposed project in this DEIR are much greater than those approved in the 1999 CUP and MND because of the radically expanded synagogue, and the dramatic increase in the size of the proposed expansion, almost a doubling from the already approved 10,500 square feet to 19,953 square feet! This is not acceptable. The synagogue must meet all LAMC requirements, including but not limited to parking and signage, for a church if it wants to be open to the public. As noted above, there is no need for yet another orthodox Jewish synagogue in the Pico-Robertson “Kosher District.” Community needs (and most likely even future needs) for religious observance are amply met.


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to parking and parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28. This comment expresses the opinion that there are ample synagogues in the Pico Corridor, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

With regard to comments related to the 1999 CUP and the MND, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. The fact that the proposed project’s impacts are greater than those of the original proposal evaluated in the 1999 MND is what triggered the City’s preparation of an EIR for the project.



Comment Fink-110

To limit construction impacts, no Saturday construction should be allowed. This is both in accordance with Jewish law (which forbids Jews from working on the Sabbath), and also out of respect for the Applicant’s neighbors, who deserve peace and quiet during their weekends.


With regard to comments related to construction hours, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-49.

Comment Fink-111

The impacts of the proposed project will be much greater than those of the expansion approved in the 1999 CUP. The height is more than 12% higher, at 45 feet instead of 40 feet. We again urge full compliance with the LAMC and the Transitional Height Ordinance. We again note that only YULA BHS students, not YULA Girls High School or other students, should be permitted to use the facility. We express concern about the maximum occupancy, which should be limited to 300 occupants total, not 300 occupants plus 350 YULA BHS students plus a similar number of YULA girls. This would be far too many unruly, ill-behaved, dangerous and disruptive students in our quiet residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed number of parking spaces is inadequate even to handle 300 occupants.


With regard to comments related to parking and parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to discretionary actions, proposed heights, and the transitional height ordinance, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, Fink-38, Fink-44 and Fink-47. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With respect to the commenter's opinion that the use of the facilities should be restricted to YULA Boys High School students, this comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-112

It is difficult to envision exactly what the Applicant is proposing to build. Its architect, Yazdani Studios, must submit detailed plans and architectural renderings of what it proposed to build, and also show these images combined with images of the MOT expansion, so these can properly be evaluated by the public and by the Planning Department.




The commenter incorrectly asserts that the architect for the modified improvement plans proposed for YULA Boys High School is Yazdani Design Studios. The architect for the modified improvement plans for YULA Boys High School is Gruen Associates. Although architectural renderings of a project are sometimes utilized in the evaluation of visual impacts in CEQA documents, there is nothing in CEQA that requires this. With regard to the provision of plans and the analysis of aesthetic impacts, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-16. Further, Section IV.B, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR (at page IV.B-9) concludes that the cumulative impact of the proposed project and the Museum of Tolerance expansion project (Related Project No. 53) on visual character would be significant and unavoidable.

Comment Fink-113

The 20 foot landscaped buffer is inadequate. The surface parking structure combined with a landscaped buffer between any structures and the residential neighbors is more appropriate to this quiet residential neighborhood.


With regard to comments related to setbacks, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, 38, 44 and 47. The commenter’s view that a surface parking lot is more appropriate than enclosed one-story buildings separated from Castello Avenue and the residence to the south by a 20-foot landscaped setback represents the commenter’s opinion. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but will be forwarded to the decision-maker for consideration as part of the Final EIR.

Comment Fink-114

The five foot height increase in the gym is offensive and will be unsightly to the Applicant’s neighbors. We can already see its structures looming ominously over our neighborhood. Forty-five feet is too high and is inconsistent with the 33 foot height limit for this land, and violates the 25 foot height limit of the Transitional Height Ordinance! The perimeter of the site- if the Applicant builds what it is proposing- should not be accessible at all, but should be a quiet buffer zone between the school and its neighbors. The parking may be preferable to a larger, closer school structure.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to discretionary actions and proposed heights and setbacks, and the transitional height ordinance, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, Fink-38, Fink-44 and Fink-47.



Comment Fink-115

On Page IV.B-8, there may be shading impacts on the adjacent single family home at 1428 S. Roxbury Drive. These must be assessed in detail.


As discussed in Section IV.B, Aesthetics, in the Draft EIR, according to the City of Los Angeles' screening criteria for shading impacts, projects that include light-blocking structures in excess of 60 feet in height (or the equivalent when elevation is considered) that have shade-sensitive uses to the north, northeast, or northwest within a distance of three times the height of the proposed structure(s), should be evaluated for potential impacts. In the 1999 CUP a 40-foot high gymnasium building is permitted. The modified design now proposed by the Applicant proposes an increase of 5 feet in height to the gym (to 45 feet in height). The gym will be located to the northeast of the nearby home at 1428 Roxbury Drive and will be well set back from the property line. It is therefore not expected to have significant shadow impacts on such residence. Similarly, the single-family residence at 1428 Castello is located to the south of the project’s nearest buildings which are setback from the property line by a 20 foot setback and do not exceed 30 feet within 66 feet of the property line. Accordingly, no significant new shading impacts would occur.

Comment Fink-116

As noted previously, the surface parking structure is preferable to a larger closer school building. The Project as approved in the 1999 CUP must be built, not this dramatically expanded project.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter, but contradicts the commenter’s previous statement that lighting in the outdoor parking lot is too bright. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. This comment states the opinion that the commenter prefers surface parking on the project site, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-117

Under CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on Page IV.B-8, we again note that to meet CEQA requirements, this Project cannot be piecemealed or segmented from Related Project 53 and that both projects need to be combined in a single EIR. The reasons for this have been amply described in previous documents on the



Museum’s Initial Study, DEIR, FEIR, and Revised FEIR, and these are all incorporated herein by reference.


With regard to comments related to piecemealing, segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.


Comment Fink-118

Again, the requirement under the 1999 CUP for a closure of southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive south of the bank parking lot driveway south of Pico Blvd. is emphasized. This requirement appears to have been ignored both by the Museum in its DEIR and FEIR and now by the Applicant in this DEIR. This violates the law and CEQA requirements. This must be addressed somewhere, especially impacts

on traffic on Roxbury Drive and Pico Boulevard.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to the Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4.

Comment Fink-119

The significant environmental impacts of the Museum expansion have already been commented on in numerous letters and emails, in public statements, and in worldwide media coverage. The headline “Neighbors Can’t Tolerate Museum of Tolerance Expansion” accurately summarizes the situation.



Comment Fink-120

The Applicant’s current proposed Project, versus that approved in the 1999 CUP, would have severe and unmitigated impacts both due to the almost doubling in size of the proposed new Phase 2 construction, the use of the yeshiva by students from other schools including YULA Girls High



School for non-athletic activities, the use of the school property for outdoor activities beyond normal school hours, the proposed near-doubling of the high school student body, and other changes in Conditions which abrogate almost all of the protections put in the 1999 CUP by Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green to protect the Applicant’s neighbors.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-121

The Mitigation Measures mentioned are inadequate to protect the Applicant’s neighbors.

Turning to Section IV,.D-1 we note under “Existing Onsite Land Uses” that use by YULA Girls High School students is not permitted under the 1999 CUP. Furthermore, attendance by non-affiliated persons at the illegally operating Jewish church is limited to 50 persons under the 1999 CUP.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP and the use of the facilities by the YULA Girls High School, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-20. This comment states an opinion that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are inadequate, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-122

We again note that YOLA and the Museum and/or the Wiesenthal Center engaged in what appears to be a sham transaction to separate, with the YOLA educational activities being taken over by the Applicant solely or largely to allow these two intertwined institutions to engage in virtually simultaneous expansion projects with a misguided attempt at gaining approval by separate EIRs, in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law.



The statement: “thus, the Applicant is no longer in possession of the West Wing and cannot conduct its operations in the West Wing” must be explained in full. The statement, “Because it does not have legal possession of such space, the modifications proposed by the Applicant eliminate the West Wing from the premises covered by the CUP” must also be explained, because the air rights transaction, Case VTT-66144, had not been approved at the time that the DEIR was released. Was the Applicant just so certain that it would be “rushed to judgment” and approved by February 26th?? The situation remains murky and inaccessible to public review.

The complex description of the legal situation regarding the West Wing at the top of Page IV.D.-2 further illustrates why the Museum and yeshiva expansions must be considered in a single, combined EIR. Moreover, we were recently shocked to see advertised on the United Mileage Plus Dining website (see attached to printed copy of this letter) a Kosher catering business with its address at the Yeshiva, presumably in the West Wing (since there is no other logical location on the YULA campus). Is that the purpose of the relinquishing of the west wing space????? And note that this is yet another violation of the 1999 CUP, since a catering operation is most definitely not school-related.


YOLA has leased the premises of the high school to YULA Boys High School, but has not included the West Wing with such leased premises. Therefore, YOLA presently retains such premises for any lawful use by YOLA. The lease of a portion of an existing developed premises by a landlord does not require prior approval of an airspace subdivision. Although an airspace subdivision to create an airspace lot to transfer to the Museum of Tolerance was approved by the City (Case No. CPC-2007-2622), the second and third floor of the West Wing are still not within the premises leased to YULA Boys High School by YOLA. With regard to comments related to segmentation and the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to a Kosher catering business being operated at the project site, there is no such business being operated out of the YULA school facilities. An independent individual formerly operated a mobile cart that provided food service at the site to students; however, the operation of this mobile cart was ceased on July 1, 2008.

Comment Fink-123

We again note that the proposed Project is on the southerly portion of the Applicant’s site. At this location, the areas to the north are shielded from it by the existing school structure. The areas to the west are shielded by the existing and proposed Museum structure. The main impacts will not be on the Pico commercial corridor, or on the people living north of Pico Blvd., but on the Applicant’s residential neighbors, especially those immediately west and south, and to the east.




This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. This comment states the opinion that the impacts of the project will be on the neighborhood and not the commercial corridor, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-124

There are NO two-story homes south of the project site. A very few two-story homes are located east of the project site. Most of the homes are single story, in their original exterior state.


Homes up to 33 feet in height are permitted in the R-1 zone. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-125

The Land Use of the General Plan (Page IV.D.5) and the West Los Angeles Community Plan (IV.D.6) specifies the portion of the Applicant’s land where this project would be built for Low Density Residential use. It is also zoned in accordance with LAMC as R1-1 for single family homes.


With regard to comments related to the LAMC and the West Los Angeles Community Plan, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15 and Fink-31. The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker.

Comment Fink-126

Table IV.D.-1 is inaccurate and must be corrected in the revised and recirculated DEIR to meet CEQA Guideline requirements for factual statements.

Specifically, under Uses, the existing “Religious Sanctuary” whose primary use is for student religious instruction would be dramatically expanded.

We note again under “Enrollment” that the current YULA BHS enrollment is 186, so 350 students represents almost a doubling of the high school enrollment. As noted above, it is these ill-behaved,



poorly supervised students who are most disruptive, disrespectful, and dangerous (primarily by virtue of their reckless driving at excessive speeds on neighborhood streets) to their neighbors.

Most importantly, this Table OMITS the 7,153 square feet in the West Wing that YULA BHS is not leasing from YOLA. Under the “Proposed Modifications”, the total square footage is really 52,153 square feet of space. This is TOO much!!!


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. Table IV.D-1 accurately summarizes the 1999 CUP permitted uses and the proposed modifications. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28. With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Fink-127

The Landscape Buffer of 8 feet really includes a buffer of approximately 60 feet of parking lot in the 1999 CUP, so it is really a 68 foot buffer.


With regard to setback of uses, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15, 38, 44 and 47. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-128

The Parking requirements of LAMC 12.24 and other relevant sections must be met.


With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-129

This is especially true because the Maximum Gym Occupancy of “300 persons (excluding YULA Boys and Girls high school students under the age of 18)” dramatically expands the potential occupancy. The Applicant must provide a precise number of occupants for the proposed gymnasium for both athletic and any other events, so the adequacy of arrangements including security and parking can be assessed by the public and by the Planning Department.




With regard to comments related to gym occupancy and parking, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83 and Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-130

Figures IV.D-1 and IV.D-2 show that the Applicant’s land where the proposed Project would be built is zoned for Low Density Residential uses, specifically R1-1 zoning.


The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With respect to consistency with the Community Plan, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15 and Fink-31.

Comment Fink-131

Commenting on Page IV.D-15, we note that this proposed Project does conflict with applicable land use regulation, specifically the General Plan, West Los Angeles Community Plan, and zoning code of LAMC.

The proposed Project is inconsistent with existing land use regulations and guidelines, including the General Plan.


The comment does not identify a specific conflict with applicable land use regulations. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with applicable land use regulations is contained in Table IV.D-2 on page IV.D-21 of the Draft EIR. With regard to comments related to the LAMC and the West Los Angeles Community Plan, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15 and Fink-31.

Comment Fink-132

The proposed Project, especially in conjunction with the virtually simultaneous Museum expansion project, would completely disrupt this quiet residential neighborhood (bounded by Roxbury Drive on the west, Beverwil Drive on the east, Pico Boulevard on the north, and Horner Street on the south) permanently and quite likely force some people, particularly the elderly who will not be able to tolerate the construction noise six days a week, to move out of the homes they have lived in for many years - - if the noise doesn’t kill them first!




This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-133

The 1999 CUP and the 1999 MND cannot be considered in isolation, but they and the Applicant’s DEIR must be considered jointly with the Museum expansion, CEQA No. ENV-2007-2476-EIR. The cumulative impacts of these connected, adjoining, and simultaneous expansion projects are severe and unmitigated. They have not been analyzed adequately to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law. We question the propriety of “this Section of the Draft EIR analyz[ing] the potential land use environmental impacts of the differences between the original project approved under the 1999 CUP and MND and the modifications proposed by the Applicant.” The entire YULA BHS project, including existing operations in violation of the 1999 CUP, must be reviewed in toto, as a completely new project, to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter.

With regard to comments related to adequacy of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

With regard to comments related to segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-134

Again, n Page IV.D-16, we ask for an explanation of why the lease from YOLA excludes 7,153 square feet in the West Wing, and ask for a description of what activities are occurring in this space. (Note: the apparent fact that YOLA and the SWC, which have the same management and are headed by the same individual, Marvin Hier, conspired at or before the time of the ground lease with YULA, to appropriate this space for the Museum’s use, does not constitute a valid or acceptable explanation)

Under Project Impacts, we again note that the correct total square footage is 25,047 plus 7,153 in the West Wing, plus 19,950 proposed new construction, which is a total of 52,150 square feet and not 45,000 square feet. All measurements must be repeated by inspectors from the Department of Building and Safety, and these official measurements must be reported in the revised and recirculated DEIR.



We request that the Lead Agency require disclosure of all of the persons and entities currently using the West Wing space, how long each has been using it, and the purpose(s) of such use(s). This information should be included in a revised and recirculated DEIR.


Since its separation from YOLA, the second and third floors of the so-called West Wing have not been occupied or in the possession of YULA Boys High School. See Response to Comment Fink-122. With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Fink-135

The height limits of the Transitional Height Ordinance must be enforced. At the very least, the height limit of 40 feet imposed by the 1999 CUP must be enforced.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to setbacks, heights, and the transitional height ordinance, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15.

Comment Fink-136

The gym size should be limited to 7,500 square feet, as previously approved in the 1999 CUP.


This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-137

As noted previously, a specific occupancy limit for the gym must be included in the revised and recirculated DEIR. Allowing 300 “other” persons, plus 350 YULA BHS students, plus an unspecified number of YULA Girls High School students, is unlawfully vague and provides too much room for abuse. Parking requirements for the total number of gym occupants, as specified in LAMC 12.24 and other relevant sections, must be met.




This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. It is not anticipated that the gym would be simultaneously occupied by every student (350) and YULA Boys High School and 300 additional audience members. A more foreseeable scenario would be where the gym is occupied by event participants (i.e. a certain number of students well below the school’s total enrollment) with interested persons attending as the audience. Events where the entire seating capacity of the gymnasium would be consumed would be the exception – not the rule. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy and parking, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83 and Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-138

Continuing on Page IV.D-18, we again note that the parking lot and landscape buffer may be preferable to the massive expansion now proposed (compared to the much smaller project approved in the 1999 CUP.) The gym is too tall and must be restricted to the 40 foot height.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-139

The Applicant’s current enrollment of 186 high school students is within the Phase 1 limit. The existing Phase 2 limit of 250 high school students must be respected. As noted above, it is the unruly, poorly supervised, disrespectful YULA BHS students who are most disruptive and indeed dangerous to our quiet residential neighborhood.


This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Fink-140

On Page IV.D.19, we emphasize that ANY expansion of the permitted use of the facilities for religious activities and prayer services by individuals not affiliated with the school is entirely inappropriate and unlawful. If the Applicant wants to operate a synagogue, it must meet all LAMC requirements for operating a church, including parking requirements. (We note that on most Jewish holidays, observant Jews do not drive, but there are other holidays and other occasions (e.g., a bar mitzvah occurring on a



Monday or Thursday evening) where driving is permitted. Therefore, parking restrictions must be imposed as required by LAMC.)


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 9 to eliminate weddings and to restrict Bar and Bat Mitzvahs to Saturdays when attendees walk to the synagogue.

Comment Fink-141

Furthermore, any food service including “Kiddush” following services is inappropriate and must be prohibited.


With regard to comments related to Kiddush, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-88.

Comment Fink-142

The Applicant is proposing to build a structure on land currently zoned for residential use, adjacent to and surrounded by single family homes. The proposed religious activities are inappropriate because of this.


The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modifications to the terms of that use are proposed as part of the proposed project. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant, the sum total of which represent the proposed project. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. With regard to comments related to zoning, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15 and Fink-31.

Comment Fink-143

The existing prohibition on off-campus dining must remain in force. Having students rampage through our neighborhood, on foot or in their vehicles, during a short lunch hour, will be dangerous and disruptive. There are insufficient restaurants nearby for students to eat lunch off-campus and return to school in time to resume classes.




Food service will be provided on-site by the project. With regard to comments related to alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students and off-campus dining, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-30 and Fink-41, respectively. This comment expresses the opinion that the prohibition of off-campus dining be maintained, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-144

The proposed wall should be high enough to keep the unruly students safely contained and separated from the quiet residential neighborhood surrounding the school.


Pursuant to the modifications proposed by the applicant, all activities on campus will be confined within enclosed buildings or within a small courtyard separated from surrounding neighborhood by buildings and the driveway from Castello Avenue. With regards to vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-145

The Parking facilities of the Applicant are inadequate now and even with the modest proposed expansion would not meet LAMC requirements or actual operational requirements for 300 other occupants, 350 YULA BHS students, and perhaps 200 YULA Girls High School students. The full parking requirement of LAMC for the anticipated maximum occupancy of the Applicant must be met. If 265 spaces are required by code, that is what is required! One hundred spaces obviously isn’t enough!! Why shouldn’t the law apply to the Applicant? Is it because members of the Nagel family have given thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Fifth District Councilman Jack Weiss and to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa? This isn’t right.


With regard to comments related to parking and parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. A parking variance is currently approved for the operation of the facilities at the project site. The applicant proposes to modify this variance to provide for the parking needs of the modified project. Events where the anticipated attendance would exceed the amount of available on-site parking would be considered Special Events under the proposed modifications to the CUP, thus requiring



that additional off-street parking be provided. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83.

Comment Fink-146

The exact location of the “accessible parking” must be specified in detail, including number of spaces available, street address of the parking facility, instructions for the valet parking attendants about where they will drive and where they will park (especially if the Mayor’s ill-advised Olympic/Pico traffic plan is implemented).


With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-90 and Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-147

As documented in Table IV.D-2 on Page IV.D.-21 (which must be corrected in the revised and recirculated DEIR) the proposed Project is clearly inconsistent with the West Los Angeles Community Plan. It will damage an existing single family residential neighborhood by allowing new out of scale development and incompatible uses. It will destroy a quiet residential neighborhood.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to consistency, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15 and Fink-31. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-148

The Walkability Checklist is not particularly relevant to this development, which may not harm, but certainly does nothing to enhance, “walkability” in our city or our neighborhood.


This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-149

The Cumulative Impacts discussed on Page IV.D-25 can only be assessed by considering this project jointly with the Museum expansion. One impact which has been specifically ignored by both the Museum and the Applicant’s DEIR is the closure of southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive south of



the driveway to the bank parking lot, south of Pico Blvd. The impacts of this street closure must be studied in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. With regard to comments related to the Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4.

Comment Fink-150

Furthermore, the cumulative impacts of the construction of almost 21,000 square feet of new space by the Museum, and almost 20,000 square feet of new space by the Applicant, both on land currently zoned for single family homes, must be assessed in a single combined EIR to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law. Impacts on noise, parking, traffic, aesthetics, lighting, and security (i.e., the terror threat) cannot be assessed in isolation.


The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. No planning or zone changes are proposed by such modifications The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. With regard to comments related to segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. The Draft EIR considers potential cumulative impacts, including those relating to the Museum of Tolerance Expansion Project (Related Project No. 53) with respect to each of the environmental issue categories discussed in the EIR.

Comment Fink-151

We again note on Page IV.D.-26 that full consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed project, not a limited analysis based on the 1999 CUP and MND which are being virtually completely rewritten, must be done to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law.


See Response to Comment Fink-4. With regard to comments related to the 1999 CUP and the MND, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.



Comment Fink-152

The impacts associated with this project would unfortunately be very significant, unmitigated and, when combined with the impacts of the adjoining and connected Museum which is proposing a virtually simultaneous expansion, would be extremely deleterious to our neighborhood.


This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to comments related to cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. It is noted that the Draft EIR found some of the cumulative impacts to which the project would contribute to be significant and unavoidable.

Comment Fink-153

Turning to Noise impacts, I note that in reference to Table IV.E-1 Noise Levels, I have measured ambient noise levels on Saturn Street at several occasions in the early morning and at night using a handheld sound meter. Sound levels range from 35-37 dB. Our street is very quiet. No additional noise can be allowed from the Applicant’s proposed expansion, especially at night and on weekends. Because our neighborhood is so quiet, any noise is very noticeable and very disruptive.

We ask that noise levels be measured on Castello Avenue in front of the homes in the 1400 block, not in front of the school, and on Saturn Street and on Alcott Street.


As indicated in the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the primary operational noise sources associated with the proposed project would include vehicular travel on the surrounding roadways in the project site vicinity and on-site HVAC equipment. The operational noise analysis of vehicular traffic is based on the data provided in the traffic study, which includes the implementation of the cul-de-sac. In terms of traffic noise, the increases in roadway noise levels offsite resulting from implementation of the proposed project were calculated based on data from the project’s traffic study and using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. As discussed in Response to Comment Fink-60, in response to comments, traffic counts were conducted at the school and used to update the project traffic analysis (see Recirculated Traffic Chapter). While this analysis indicated that the project would result in more peak hours trips than identified by the ITE-based trip generation analysis provided in the Draft EIR, the applicant has agreed to implement a trip cap that would limit the net project trip generation to that identified in the Draft EIR traffic analysis, i.e., 62 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips in the PM peak hour. (See Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter; Section IV, Corrections and Additions, and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR.) The Draft EIR operational noise analysis has been revised to reflect this information. (See Section IV, Corrections and Additions, Table IV.E-9, of this Final EIR.) With the proposed mitigation (Mitigation



Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), operational noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels, as this mitigation measure would result in a trip cap.

As shown in Table IV.E-9 in the Draft EIR, revised in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR, the noise level at the roadway segment of Castello Avenue, south of West Pico Boulevard and north of the cul-de-sac would experience an increase in traffic noise levels of 5.7 dBA CNEL, which is greater than the applicable threshold in the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, operational noise impacts would remain as identified in the Draft EIR and the project’s potentially significant operational noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

As discussed in the Draft EIR, when evaluating changes in 24-hour community noise levels a difference of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible increase to most people. With implementation of Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., single-family homes) located along Castello Avenue would experience a 2.3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels, which would not be normally perceptible to most people. Since the single-family homes on Alcott Street and Saturn Street would be located even further away from the project site than the single-family homes fronting Castello Avenue, these receptors would also not experience a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels because noise levels decline as distance to the receptor increases.

In terms of noise generated by the on-site HVAC equipment, the Draft EIR indicates on pages IV.E-18 and IV.E-19 that due to the Applicant’s proposed full build-out design, the HVAC systems at the project site would be located a minimum of 50 feet from the project property line. In turn, given this distance, the maximum CNEL noise levels at the project site property line would average between 47 to 57 dBA CNEL even if the HVAC equipment is operated over a 24-hour period. As these noise levels would not exceed the City’s exterior noise level standard of 60 dBA CNEL for single-family residences, potential impacts associated with HVAC equipment noise at the project site would be less than significant. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure E-20 is also prescribed in the Draft EIR to ensure that the surrounding single-family homes to the project site would be able to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL with open windows.

Therefore, the operational noise levels generated by the proposed project would not result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels at the off-site noise-sensitive receptors. With regard to comments related to noise, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-47 and Fink-48.

Comment Fink-154

The Mitigation Measures proposed must be modified and strengthened to protect the Applicant’s neighbors.




This comment does not raise a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project modifications proposed by the applicant or ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to comments related to noise, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-47 and Fink-48.

Comment Fink-155

E-1 To reduce the impacts of construction noise, as noted above, construction and demolition activities should be allowed only Monday-Friday. No Saturday or Sunday construction activities should be

allowed.


The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant. This comment recommends a different mitigation measure restriction, but does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Sunday construction is not permitted in the City of Los Angeles and would not occur on the project site. Saturday construction is not proposed by the Applicant as discussed in Response to Comment Fink-48 and -49.

Comment Fink-156

E-15 must be modified to comply with the existing 1999 CUP. No active outdoor recreation on the site

is permitted after 6:00 p.m. daily.


The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant. This comment recommends a different mitigation measure restriction, but does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-51 and -144 (relating to outdoor areas remaining after project build-out).

Comment Fink-157

E-17 No outdoor public address or paging systems shall be allowed.

E-18 No voice amplification shall be permitted outdoors in conjunction with any Special Event. Again, we emphasize that the Applicant is immediately adjacent to and shares a common property line



with two single family homes, and is surrounded by a quiet neighborhood of single family homes. It is completely disrespectful for the Applicant to even propose to have any outdoor amplified sound!!!


With regard to comments related to outdoor public address or paging system and voice amplification, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-51, -52 and -144. See also proposed applicant Conditions 12 and 13, which are substantially the same as those under the 1999 CUP currently in effect (except with respect to emergency communications systems).

Comment Fink-158

E-22 Students shall not be permitted to leave the YULA BHS campus during the daytime except in emergency situations, but not for lunch. Again, the students are far too noisy and far too unruly to be allowed off campus during the daytime.

Concerns about noise are not just about noise originating at and emanating from the yeshiva, but from students and others arriving and leaving at early and late hours. We are concerned about any increase in noise from vehicles and their occupants, especially if 800 gymnasium occupants park their vehicles on neighborhood streets and leave after an athletic or other event. Because of the inadequate parking (discussed below), they will park on our quiet neighborhood streets (especially Castello, Alcott, Saturn, but possibly also Cashio and Roxbury and Beverwil depending on the event size) because of the inadequate parking offered by the Applicant.


With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83. With regard to comments related to alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students and off-campus dining, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-30 and Fink-41, respectively. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 11 to limit off-campus eating privileges to 11th and 12th graders. The revised proposed Condition 11 (included in Appendix E to this Final EIR) now reads: “YULA Boys High School students who are not in the 11th or 12th grade shall not be permitted to eat off-campus unless part of an organized activity which takes place outside of the surrounding residential neighborhood.”

Certain modifications proposed by the applicant, such as the replacement of the surface parking lot with single-story buildings and increased landscape buffers, will foreseeably result in reduced noise impacts to adjacent uses. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final



EIR (see Mitigation Measures II-1 through II-13). This comment expresses opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-159

E- 23 If the proposed project is built the Applicant should be required to pay for the purchase and installation of new, double paned windows and sound insulation of all homes in the four block area bounded by Roxbury (on both sides of the street), Cashio (on both sides of the street, Pico, and Beverwil (on both sides of the street), including Alcott and Saturn Streets. The sound insulation program implemented near Los Angeles International Airport provides a good model for such a program here.


As analyzed in the Draft EIR, potential operational noise impacts of the project are less than significant, mitigation measures are recommended by the Draft EIR to further reduce potential operational noise, and the suggested mitigation measure suggested by the commenter are not necessary.

Comment Fink-160

E- 24 Furthermore, the City should be required to implement 24-hour permit parking on the neighborhood streets- the 1400 blocks of Roxbury Drive and Castello Avenue, the 9700 blocks of Alcott Street and Saturn Street, and Cashio Street between Roxbury and Beverwil Drives. The Applicant should be required to pay for 2 regular permits and 2 guest permits for each home on these streets, in perpetuity.

These noise mitigation measures must be discussed in the recirculated DEIR.


This comment suggests that the applicant should facilitate a parking district. However, there is no showing that such mitigation is necessary to mitigate a potentially significant impact of the project. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. In addition, on-street parking demand studies were conducted to determine if spillover parking from the campus was resulting in a shortage of on-street parking near the project site. As indicated in Table II-19 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, two-thirds of the on-street parking spaces remained available at all times. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions. Nevertheless, the applicant has no objection to the implementation



of a parking district if properly authorized by area property owners and the City, and would be willing to participate and fund such a district on a fair share basis. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-161

Turning to IV.F Public Services, all previous comments on the Museum’s DEIR, FEIR and Revised FEIR regarding the serious and very real terror threat posed by Jewish schools and institutions are incorporated herein by reference. All comments on the Museum’s Security Survey are incorporated herein by reference. We note that in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks in India - - which has very few Jews - - a Jewish institution was targeted. These concerns are very real. They are not hypothetical. The existing buffer zone supplied by the Applicant’s parking lot must be preserved as much as possible, as per the plans approved in the 1999 CUP, to protect the Applicant’s neighbors from blast effects.

The yeshiva’s neighbors have grave concerns about their own safety and security should the simultaneous adjoining Museum and yeshiva expansions be built. None of the Fire or Police or Security sections of this DEIR address terrorism scenarios which, based on recent experience in Iraq, Israel, and Mumbai, India, are likely to occur. The museum’s residential neighbors are currently protected to a certain extent by the 100-foot buffer zone, and the yeshiva’s neighbors by the 100-foot parking lot, which may not have been thought of in terms of terrorism protection but which fortunately has served that function well for more than 20 years.

We also note that, unlike the Museum (which requires all vehicles entering the garage to be searched, the driver and all passengers to provide photo i.d., and all Museum visitors to pass through a metal detector), the Applicant currently has NO security measures in effect, other than a solitary, unarmed guard at the Castello driveway (and we seriously doubt that such guards have any training in counter-terrorism). With many more visitors and many more students, as proposed, it will become much easier for a terrorist to blend in with the crowds and enter the YULA facilities, absent much stricter security procedures. Accordingly, the revised and recirculated DEIR must include details with respect to what, if any, enhanced security measures will be put in place to protect YULA students, congregants, other invitees, and YULA’s residential neighbors.

Following is a list of several different likely scenarios (based on reports of other recent attacks), but which are not addressed, and need to be addressed, in the revised DEIR:

Scenario 1: Several individuals wearing suicide bomb vests enter the yeshiva’s vestibule and detonate their vests among students or worshippers waiting to enter.

Scenario 2: These same individuals force their way into the yeshiva firing automatic weapons and make their way inside the Beit Midrash where they detonate their vests among the several hundred worshippers. This is exactly what happened in a yeshiva in Jerusalem in March 2006.



Scenario 3: A large charter jet is chartered by terrorists to fly from a nearby airport (e.g., Palm Springs or Santa Barbara) to Santa Monica Airport and allegedly then to a distant airport. Suitcases containing TNT or other high explosives or a small nuclear device are loaded on board. At some point during the approach to Santa Monica Airport, the jet (which still has almost a full fuel load) is taken over by the passengers and crashed into the yeshiva.

Scenario 4: A tanker truck laden with gasoline or other volatile liquid is driven into the parking lot and explosives are used to detonate it.

Scenario 5: A terrorist with an automatic weapon opens fire on those leaving the school after an athletic event in the gymnasium.

Scenario 6: A well-organized terror attack, like that which occurred on Mumbai, India on November 26-27, 2008, is undertaken in which fires are set, hostages are taken, explosives are detonated, etc. This might be undertaken in conjunction with diversionary attacks on other nearby “soft” targets, e.g., on the hotels and stores and offices and movie theaters in Century City or at the Westside Pavilion, to divert LAPD and LAFD attention away from the primary target.

Scenario 7: In combination with any of the above scenarios, the terrorists rent or hijack buses or trucks and park and disable them across the emergency access routes, i.e., Pico Blvd just west of Beverwil and perhaps at Ambassador, Beverwil and Cashio, and Roxbury and Vidor, making it difficult or impossible for emergency responders to reach the yeshiva and/or the connected museum in a timely fashion.

A combination of any or all of these scenarios must also be considered. The Museum has already been the target of several bomb threats, demonstrations and protest rallies, and other threats since it opened. Despite the SWC’s claims that there have been no such incidents, we are well-aware of these threats, because we have had the FBI knocking on our doors, and we have been diverted around police lines while the Museum was evacuated and searched. The concerns of the Museum’s and YULA’s neighbors are, unfortunately, not theoretical!

In fact, the Simon Wiesenthal Center which, as further detailed in Susan Gans’ letter of even date herewith, is very closely affiliated with YOLA (which is the groundlessor of the YULA premises), is already aware of the terror threat and has taken steps to minimize its own danger. In the IRS Form 990 for the SWC Roxbury Corporation, which is the affiliated holding company for the title to its International Headquarters at 1399 S. Roxbury Drive, it states in Part VIII (page 11) that “the lower level of the building is leased and occupied by third parties for security purposes . . . .” (emphasis added). Since police reports document that this is a low-crime neighborhood, the Wiesenthal Center must be concerned not about theft or robbery, but about terrorist actions such as those we have suggested. The security bollards in the Museum expansion disguised as inappropriately placed concrete benches on Roxbury Drive (Figure II-10 of the Museum’s DEIR) confirm that the Applicant is well-aware of the security threats posed by terrorist attacks, specifically car or truck bomb attacks - - the risk of which (hopefully) would be lessened by such bollards. Again, the very real terrorist threat must be acknowledged and specifically addressed by a competent expert in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




See Response to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-55. The comment identifies various speculative scenarios that are beyond the scope of CEQA analysis of environmental impacts. The Draft EIR discusses security measures currently in force and those proposed by the applicant. Notwithstanding the commenter’s views, it should be noted that terrorism does pose risks that are unique to the presence of Jewish institutions. Terrorism and indiscriminate violence are risks that affect all of society and all types of uses. Examples include the 2001 and prior attacks on the World Trade Center; school shootings such as those which occurred at Columbine High School; the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing; the attack on the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai in 2008; the Colorado church shootings in 2007, etc.

Comment Fink-162

Turning to IV.G.-1, Traffic/Transportation/Parking, we note that Pico Blvd. is gridlocked at most hours of the day and that its intersections with Roxbury Drive to the Applicant’s west and with Beverwil Drive to the Applicant’s east are at Condition E or F many hours of the day. Pico Blvd. carries an enormous number of cars west to Century City in the morning commute hours (approximately 6 a.m.- 10 a.m.) and eastbound from Century City in the evening commute hours (approximately 4 p.m.-7 p.m.). As noted, right hand turns from Pico Blvd. onto Castello and Roxbury are currently prohibited during the PM peak hour.


This comment relays anecdotal information does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-163

Beverwil Drive, mentioned towards the top of Page IV.G-3, has recently been “improved” with the installation of median dividers south of Pico Blvd., and re-striping of lanes both south and north of Pico Blvd. These “improvements” in terms of planting the medians are still ongoing, but the lane restriping was done in March. The description of Beverwil Drive is no longer accurate. Only one southbound through lane exists now, from north of Pico all the way to National Blvd. The statement “Near the project site, Beverwil Drive has two through lanes in each direction” is no longer accurate. A revised description of this intersection must be included in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


As noted in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the improvement at the intersection of Pico Boulevard/Beverwil Drive noted by the commenter were approved and under construction during



preparation of the traffic study. These improvements were assumed in the future traffic conditions for both the Without Project and With Project scenarios. As such, this improvement was considered in the traffic analysis for the project and no further analysis is required. See also Response to Comment Fink-1-6.

Comment Fink-164

In addition, the traffic studies for the intersection of Beverwil and Pico must be re-done and included in the revised and recirculated DEIR. The traffic patterns have changed dramatically, with long lines of southbound traffic on Beverwil blocking Pico waiting to cross the intersection, and backups in both eastbound and westbound directions, due these so-called “improvements” that the City has installed.


As noted in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the improvement at the intersection of Pico Boulevard/Beverwil Drive noted by the commenter were approved and under construction during preparation of the traffic study. These improvements were assumed in the future traffic conditions for both the Without Project and With Project scenarios. As such, this improvement was considered in the traffic analysis for the project and no further analysis is required. See also Response to Comment Fink-1-6.

Comment Fink-165

Cashio Street, also mentioned on Page IV.G-3, carries a tremendous amount of “cut through traffic”, i.e., cars trying to avoid the gridlock on Pico Blvd. This cut-through traffic has not been adequately

studied. Traffic on Cashio Street must be studied and these studies included in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


As shown in Figures II-5 and II-6 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, project traffic would not utilize Cashio Street west of Beverwil Drive to access the project site. As noted in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, a neighborhood traffic impact analysis was conducted for the project. The project traffic impacts were assessed on Castello Avenue, which was identified as the neighborhood street most like to be impacted by project traffic. Project impacts were determined to be less than significant and no further analysis is required. The traffic analysis shows the project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in the level of neighborhood cut through traffic.

Comment Fink-166

Public transportation is mentioned on Page IV.G-3. These are interesting theoretical considerations. The Applicant should state how many of its students arrive or leave by public transportation. We have not observed any students arriving by public transportation, even though there are bus lines on Pico Blvd.



We have observed a very few students (2 - 3) occasionally waiting for a bus on Pico Blvd. after school, presumably returning home.


Although transit use, ride sharing, and carpooling are encouraged by the project (in Mitigation Measure II-10 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), the traffic analysis assumed no transit credit and thus analyzes a worst-case scenario in which no transportation demand measures are implemented. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

Comment Fink-167

On Page IV.G-23, the haul route and staging location of the construction vehicles must be determined before any approvals are granted. This location must be specified in the revised and recirculated DEIR. How can environmental impacts be determined as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines if these details are not known?


With regard to comments related to the haul route and staging, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-31. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-168

On Page IV.G-26, we note the large number of trips to be generated by the increased number of students in Table IV.G-12. We also note, as stated previously and despite the Applicant’s statement that worshippers in its proposed much-enlarged prayer hall would arrive by foot, that 80 trips are forecast in conjunction with the “Synagogue Expansion.” We note that orthodox Jewish religious observances can take place on days when worshippers are allowed to drive, specifically bar mitzvah ceremonies on Mondays and Thursdays. Unless such observances are specifically prohibited by a CUP, attendance at and parking for these ceremonies must be addressed in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


The Recirculated Traffic Chapter analyzes potential trips during peak hours. As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and Response to Comment Fink-60, potential traffic impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant will be less than significant with mitigation, taking existing and cumulative traffic into account. In response to the comment, the applicant has clarified in proposed Condition 16 (included on page 4 of Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR) that non-Sabbath weekday religious activities and prayer services for persons not affiliated with YULA would not begin earlier than 10 p.m. Thus, the synagogue trips would not occur during the AM or PM peak hours.



In addition, in response to comments, the applicant has volunteered that increased holiday attendance at services would be permitted only for holiday events where driving is not permitted, as shown in the revisions to the requested modifications to the 1999 CUP, provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions (in Condition 7 on page 1), of this Final EIR. Furthermore, in response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 9 (on page 2 of Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR) to eliminate weddings and to restrict Bar and Bat Mitzvahs to Saturdays when attendees walk to the synagogue. With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-169

The figure in the Table LV.G-12 of only 57 inbound and 25 outbound trips is not accurate and this traffic study must be re-done. I personally performed a traffic study (PLEASE NOTE: I AM EXPERT ENOUGH TO COUNT CARS) on December 18, 2008 and counted approximately 115 inbound trips and 105 outbound trips, with only 10 cars parking. 82 cars were counted at the peak time between 7:15 AM and 7:30 AM. This is approximately double the number of cars counted by the Applicant’s so-called expert. The flawed traffic study must be re-done.


See Response to Comment Fink-60. Based upon the findings presented in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the applicant has agreed to implement a trip cap that would limit the net project trip generation to that identified in the Draft EIR traffic analysis, i.e., 62 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips in the PM peak hour. This trip cap is provided as Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and is provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR.

The Recirculated Traffic Chapter is based upon the following documents prepared and approved by professional traffic engineers: Traffic Impact Study for Yeshiva University of Los Angeles Boys High School Phase II Project at 9760 West Pico Boulevard, City of Los Angeles prepared by Crain & Associates in February 2009 (Traffic Study), a letter regarding the Yeshiva High School Traffic Monitoring Report to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) prepared by Crain & Associates dated July 1, 2009 (July 2009 Letter), a letter regarding the Yeshiva High School Traffic Report for Without Cul-de-Sac Scenario to the LADOT prepared by Crain & Associates dated November 30, 2009 (November 2009 Letter), and interdepartmental correspondence from the LADOT to the Department of City Planning dated December 17, 2009 (December 2009 LADOT Memo). These documents are provided as Appendices to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter.



Comment Fink-170

On Page IV.G-27, under Trip Distribution, the Applicant states “The 1999 CUP includes a cul-de-sac along Castello Avenue south of the project driveway, which would be constructed before the project. As a result, no trips were assigned along Castello Avenue to the south.”

This analysis is clearly flawed and inadequate. As noted in Table IV.G-13, 15% of trips are estimated to come from the south and 40% from the east. This means that there will be a “race-track” of cars avoiding the gridlocked traffic on Pico Blvd., especially on Alcott Street and Castello Avenue, but possibly also on Saturn Street as well. We anticipate that cars dropping students off in the morning and picking them up at night will drive north on Castello from Cashio, drop the students off south of the cul-de-sac and then head east on Alcott to Beverwil. Alternatively, cars will drive west on Alcott from Beverwil, drop the students off south of the cul-de-sac, and proceed south on Castello to Cashio Street.


The commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of its assertion that the traffic study is flawed. With regard to comments related to the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-7. With regards to the regulation of drop-offs and pick-ups, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59.

Comment Fink-171

To protect the Applicant’s residential neighbors residing on Castello Avenue, Alcott Street, and Saturn Street from this race-track traffic, the overriding principle is that all yeshiva traffic should enter and leave from Pico Blvd. to the north, with the residential neighbors being protected by the cul-de-sac already mentioned.



Comment Fink-172

A few signs, which will impose minimal cost to the City or the Applicant, will accomplish this objective. (The map in Figure IV.G-4 may be a helpful reference in considering these signs.) The signs required are the following:

· at northbound Castello south of Cashio, signs stating: “NO THROUGH TRAFFIC LEFT OR RIGHT TURN ONLY.” This will prevent people from taking a left turn from Beverwil onto Horner, a right turn onto Castello, and proceeding north across Cashio to drop students off south of the cul-de-sac before taking a right turn on Alcott to Beverwil.



· at Castello north of Cashio, signs stating: “DO NOT ENTER 7-10 A.M. Residents and Service Vehicles Exempt”’

· on Cashio westbound at Castello: “NO RIGHT TURN 7-10 A.M. Residents and Service Vehicles Exempt.”

· on Cashio eastbound at Castello: “NO LEFT TURN 7-10 A.M. Residents and Service Vehicles Exempt.”

· on Beverwil at Alcott and at Saturn: “NO RIGHT TURN 7-10 A.M. Residents and Service Vehicles Exempt.” The inclusion of Saturn Street is necessary because otherwise those dropping students off would use Saturn Street as a cut-through street from Beverwil to get to the southern side of the cul-de-sac.

A licensed traffic engineer employed by the City should review these proposals and make any modifications necessary to protect the neigbhorhood from the “race-track traffic” that the cul-de-sac will engender.


With regards to drop-offs and pick-ups, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59.

The Traffic Study evaluated potential residential cut through traffic and no significant project traffic impact were identified at the locations identified in the comment or any other location. Therefore, the measures recommended by the comment are not required as project traffic mitigation measures.

Comment Fink-173

Then, of course, these turn restrictions need to be enforced by the Los Angeles Police Department. We do not trust the yeshiva to enforce any restrictions or conditions on the behaviors or actions of its students, based on past experience.


See Response to Comment Fink-172. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-174

This general approach was specifically planned in the 1999 CUP. Condition 86 states:

“86. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the school facility shall only be provided via Pico Boulevard or via Castello Avenue, northerly of the traffic diverter.




The applicant proposes to retain this restriction and to implement the cul de sac if directed by the City to do so. With regards to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59.

Comment Fink-175

The “Project Traffic Volumes (Net) in Figure IV.G-5 are dramatically lower than those measured by me in a YULA Traffic Study performed in December 2008, as described above. This is because the numbers in Figures IV.G-5 and 6 are only for “net traffic”. This dramatically understates the traffic impacts of the Yeshiva and its unruly students on our neighborhood. The Applicant must include these Figures with total trip numbers in the revised and recirculated DEIR, so the public and the Deputy Advisory Agency can accurately assess the Project’s impact on its neighbors. Alternatively, these total trip numbers can be inserted on Figure IV.G-4. The Applicant and/or its expert must have the numbers, since it was able to calculate percentages.

As expressed in comments on the Museum’s DEIR, FEIR, and Revised FEIR, the traffic estimates in Table IV.G-14 cannot be believed. If the Applicant’s trip numbers in this DEIR understate measured traffic by half, we know that the Applicant’s trip numbers for the other projects here are equally inaccurate and cannot be believed. These traffic studies must be repeated by LADOT personnel, at the Applicant’s expense, to provide real and reliable data for the public and for the Deputy Advisory Agency. There is a reason the traffic is at gridlock on Olympic and Pico most times of the day.


See response to Fink-60. With respect to the analysis of future traffic conditions, there is no substantial evidence that this analysis is unreliable or inadequate. As explained in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (page II-24), year 2012 pre-project conditions were forecast using two separate, though overlapping techniques in accordance with LADOT practices and policy. This analysis both assumed that existing traffic volumes will grow by a factor of 1 percent each year until the forecast year (2012) and assumes the build-out of all identified "related" development projects without any accompanying mitigation measures. Because the 1 percent growth factor is intended to account for traffic growth from new development and other sources, and because most major development projects would be accompanied by traffic mitigation, this methodology for forecasting future pre-project conditions is likely to significantly overstate future traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-176

The impact of the Olympic West-Pico East Initiative, the Initial Study of which was released in March 2009, must also be studied and reported in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




As noted in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the Office of the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles released the “Olympic-West Pico-East” plan in November 2007. The plan is still under development and consideration by the City of Los Angeles. An Initial Study for the Initiative was released in March 2009 (following the release of the Draft EIR for the YULA project) and identifies those issues to be addressed in the EIR for the Initiative. Transportation/Traffic was identified as an issue for further study in the EIR for that Initiative, and more definitive conclusions will be reached in the EIR document for that project. It should also be noted that the project description in the Initial Study for the Initiative is consistent with the assumptions made in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Traffic Chapter for the YULA project. The Initiative may result in modifications, such as the on-street parking restrictions, striping and signal timing in order to increase corridor capacity on the arterials and reduce the amount of neighborhood traffic intrusion. While some shift in traffic would be anticipated for through trips in response to the increased capacity/decreased travel time from this Initiative, no traffic movements are currently proposed to be restricted as part of the project described in the Initial Study. Therefore, no change in assumptions would be appropriate for the analysis provided in the Draft EIR or Recirculated Traffic Chapter for the YULA project.

Comment Fink-177

We note that Figure IV.G-7 shows that development is occurring (other than the Museum and Yeshiva expansion projects) north of Pico Blvd., because the area south of Pico is a quiet residential neighborhood.


This comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-178

The data on Figure IV.G-8 and Figure IV.G-9 are flawed. They do not show the “race track” traffic that would travel on Alcott Street and Castello Avenue when the cul-de-sac is constructed. The numbers are also so small as to be unbelievable. These calculations should be redone, in the presence of a monitor designated by the homeowners’ representatives, and the new data reported in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


Figures II-8 and II-9 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter reflect the traffic to be generated during peak hours by the related projects. Traffic generation of related projects was determined using ITE trip generation rates in accordance with LADOT procedures. As shown, no related projects were identified that use the neighborhood street segments for access and therefore no related project traffic was routed to



this area. With regards to pick-up and drop-off routes, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59.

Comment Fink-179

The gridlocked traffic conditions on Pico Blvd. in only 3 years with significant unmitigated impacts are documented on Page IV.G-49.


The trip cap added as Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, and Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR, would reduce all project impacts to less than significant levels. However, this comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-180

Figures IV.G-10 and 11 do not adequately count “cut-through” traffic on Cashio Street or Roxbury Drive. Figure IV.G-11 is specifically flawed in that it shows zero cars turning right from Pico onto southbound Roxbury. This turn is illegal, but every day at least 20-30 cars per hour during the posted hours of “NO RIGHT TURN 3-7 PM” make this turn.


The residential intrusion analysis was based upon the machine counts conducted on the segments, rather than the intersection counts being referred to by the commenter. Thus, any changes to these intersection count values would not result in a change in the study conclusions regarding residential intrusion. Further, although the illegal right turning movements at this intersection were shown and treated as through movements in the original study, the Recirculated Traffic Chapter reported such illegal turns as right turning volumes and these turns are shown in the graphics in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (see Figures II-10 and II-11). These changes do not alter the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) values or study conclusion regarding intersection impacts.

Comment Fink-181

In fact, these inconsistencies are demonstrated in the Applicant’s traffic studies. In its Traffic Report (Appendix I of this DEIR), Figures 8(b), 9(b), and 10(b) show zero cars turning right from Pico Blvd to southbound Roxbury Drive in the PM peak period, but the first “Traffic Count Data Sheet” in Appendix A to the Traffic Report (unnumbered page, labeled at top VEHICLE TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY N/S Street Roxbry Dr, E/W Street Pico Blvd.) shows in the bottom right figure that 34 cars turn right from Pico onto southbound Roxbury Drive in the PM Peak hour of 5 p.m. This fits with my personal observation noted above that 20-30 cars per hour make the illegal right turn at this intersection!



The Applicant must contact the LAPD traffic bureau in West L.A. to obtain figures for tickets given to drivers who make this turn.


Refer to Response to Comments Fink-59, 172, and 180. With regard to comments related to enforcement of the conditions of 1999 CUP, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is the agency charged with enforcing traffic restrictions, not the Department of City Planning. Enforcement of traffic restrictions is not an environmental issue, but an enforcement issue.

Comment Fink-182

We further note AGAIN the requirement for the closure of the southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive south of the alley south of Pico Blvd., as specified in the 1999 CUP. The Applicant is relying in its DEIR on the 1999 CUP and 1999 MND, both of which required this partial street closure. This impact was not studied in the Applicant’s traffic studies and to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines must be studied to assess the environmental impacts of this project.



Comment Fink-183

The significant impact of this proposed Project on traffic is summarized in Table IV.G-15. Traffic is just too heavy in this neighborhood to allow this project to be built.


The traffic impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant are determined to be less than significant after mitigation as determined by the analysis provided in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and the trip cap provided by Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13. See Response to Comment Fink-60. However, the commenter’s opinions are acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-184

As mentioned above, the flawed “Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis” must be re-done to consider the “race track” traffic on Alcott Street and Castello Avenue mentioned above. The cul-de-sac will not magically eliminate traffic on these streets, but will merely re-direct it! The signs mitigating the impacts of the cul-de-sac on traffic patterns must be installed if this proposed Project is built.



We would strongly urge a “traffic test” whereby the Applicant, with appropriate City approvals, places temporary barriers in the location of the cul-de-sac (not during a vacation time, but during a week when regular school activities occur!) and that the impacts of the cul-de-sac be studied so that appropriate mitigation measures can be implemented.


See Response to Comments Fink-172 and Fink-180. The trip cap provided as proposed Conditions 23 and 61 and in Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and Section IV, Corrections and Additions and V, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, of this Final EIR, will reduce all potential project impacts to less than significant. As discussed in Response to Comment Fink-60, above, the cul-de-sac is necessary to avoid impacts to the residential street segment on Castello Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Cashio Street. With regard to pick-up and drop-off routes, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59 and Response to Comment Fink-185. With regard to the signage proposed by the commenter, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-172.

Comment Fink-185

We also strongly urge that the Planning Department, in order to demonstrate that the lead agency is actually exercising independent judgment with respect to the preparation of the DEIR and FEIR, require that the morning drop off and afternoon pick up routines be recorded with a video camera placed at the intersection of Alcott Street, Castello Avenue, and the YULA driveway, for a period of two weeks (while school is actively in session), to record for the public and for the Planning Department the sheer and utter chaos that occurs at morning drop off and evening pick up times. This must be seen to be believed! The situation is MUCH worse than the Applicant’s traffic studies suggest.


The commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-60. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-186

Again, the paragraph at the bottom of Page IV.G-59 does not adequately describe the cut-through traffic on Castello Avenue, nor the hundred cars in the morning drop off time and presumably an equal number in the evening, using Castello Avenue. The comments on the impact of the cul-de-sac on traffic flow on Alcott and Castello made above are incorporated herein by reference.


The commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-59, 172, and 180.



Comment Fink-187

Finally, with respect to the cul de sac on Castello Avenue, although the Applicant maintains that such street closure will be designed in such a manner (i.e., with a “rolled curb”) that it will not impede emergency vehicle access, our elderly neighbors who reside on Castello Avenue are fearful that this is not accurate, and they inform us that the captains at the local LAFD stations agree. (We again note that Condition 86 of the 1999 CUP also specifies that pedestrian traffic approach the Applicant from Pico Blvd. and from Castello Avenue north of the cul-de-sac, which would require a 6 or 8 foot high fence, ideally with a combination-keyed gate. This fence and gate must be discussed in the revised and recirculated DEIR.) Accordingly, the Applicant must obtain, and include in the revised and recirculated DEIR, written statements from the captains of the two closest LAFD units, confirming that the proposed cul de sac will not slow or impair in any way emergency vehicle access to the neighborhood (and particularly residents of Castello Avenue). In any event, we remain extremely concerned that the gridlock on Pico Blvd., exacerbated by the additional traffic generated by the Museum and YULA expansions, will in itself result in a significant increase in response time, as emergency vehicles get stuck in traffic with everyone else. Even now, in the PM rush hour, it can take 10 minutes or more simply to drive the two blocks from Roxbury Drive to Beverwil Drive on Pico Blvd., with all of the lanes gridlocked!!


The project traffic impacts have been analyzed assuming the implementation of the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac and were determined to be less than significant after mitigation. The proposed cul-de-sac would be constructed to allow access for emergency vehicles. A 6 or 8-foot high fence would not be part of the cul-de-sac. Rather, the cul-de-sac would be constructed with a rolled-curb design that would allow emergency vehicles to pass over. Furthermore, as part of the approval process, the Applicant would provide the West Los Angeles Area Commanding Officer with a diagram of each portion of the property that would include access routes and any additional information that might facilitate police response. Additionally, Mitigation Measure F-1 requires plot plan submittal to the LAFD for review and approval. It should also be noted that numerous cul-de-sacs, pedestrian plazas and other areas where normal traffic is prohibited but emergency vehicles are allowed, currently operate throughout California including sites located in the City of Los Angeles. Finally, comments concerning cumulative traffic impacts are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. The traffic study presents a full analysis of existing conditions, and all project and cumulative impacts. Although the project proposes the implementation of the cul-de-sac, for informational purposes only, the traffic analysis also studied project impacts with the elimination of the cul-de-sac and determined that the cul-de-sac is necessary in order to avoid potential impacts to the residential street segment on Castello Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Cashio Street.

Comment Fink-188

Turning to Project Parking and Access on Page IV.G-60, we note that the number of parking spaces required by LAMC 12.24 and other sections must be provided by the Applicant. The Parking Demand



estimate in Table IV.G-17 does not include 300 occupants of the gymnasium plus 350 YULA students plus an estimated 200 YULA Girls High School students. Parking demand for athletic events and other special events must be included in a revised Table in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


Table II-17 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter includes gymnasium occupants as visitors and estimates a typical allocation of 60 parking spaces for visitors in the evening. Additionally, Table II-17, as revised in Chapter IV, Corrections and Additions, also includes the YULA students and allocates 9-14 parking spaces for YULA students in the evening. Events where on-site parking is not anticipated to be adequate would be treated as Special Events requiring the provision of additional off-street parking. Refer to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-189

We again question where off-site parking will be provided. The street address and the number of spaces available at this location must be provided in the revised and recirculated DEIR so the public and the Planning Department can assess the adequacy of these arrangements. Similarly, detailed instructions for the valet parking attendants mentioned at the bottom of Page IV.G-61 must be provided. We don’t know how the valet parking attendants will park cars at an off-site location, given the traffic gridlock on Pico.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. Various off-street parking facilities are available in the vicinity of the project. The applicant has used the large parking lot located at 9740 Pico Boulevard, which is one block from the campus, in the past.

Comment Fink-190

It may be necessary to modify the signs mentioned above to add evening hours, if special events and athletic events at the YULA/YOLA facilities lead to unacceptable evening traffic on Alcott, Saturn, and Castello.



Comment Fink-191

We note that a minimum of 265 parking spaces are required by the LAMC, as documented in Table IV.G-18. This is a gross UNDERESTIMATE of the actual parking need, as very few cars in Los Angeles carry 5 passengers!!!! A more realistic estimate is 2 passengers per car (Trip Generation Ratio of 0.46 in LU



444, contained in the Museum’s DEIR). This would mean that approximately 400 spaces are required for 800-900 occupants in the proposed gymnasium.


The commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-192

We question the statement “the project will provide sufficient parking spaces on the school site to meet normal operating needs.” This isn’t true now. The YULA students and visitors park on our neighborhood streets right now! Although street parking is limited to two hours between 10 AM and 6 PM, Monday – Saturday, enforcement is lax, and the students simply move their cars every two hours. This situation will only get worse if this project is built. And the large gymnasium, with athletic and special events, will only make the situation MUCH worse!


See Response to Comment Fink-62. In addition, on-street parking demand studies were conducted to determine if spillover parking from the campus was resulting in a shortage of on-street parking near the project site. As indicated in Table II-19 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, two-thirds of the on-street parking spaces remained available at all times. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions. This mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure II-12) is provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions. See also Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-193

Parking occupancy is not “low” on the neighborhood streets. It is appropriate for a quiet residential neighborhood with narrow streets (Castello Drive is 35 feet wide, Alcott and Saturn Street are only 32 feet wide!) The research reflected in Table IV.G-19 must be repeated at other hours, e.g. between 7-9 a.m. and between 4-6 p.m. to truly describe the parking situation in the neighborhood.


The parking occupancy counts were conducted at those times with the highest observed daily parking demand, from 12:30 to 1:30 PM, rather than during the peak traffic hours of 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM, which are cited by the commenter.

Comment Fink-194

The data in Table IV.G-21 show the gridlock on nearby intersections with Conditions E and F occurring 30% of the time. The streets just cannot handle any more traffic!




See Response to Fink-183.

Comment Fink-195

We note that Mitigation Measure G-1 restricts construction activity to weekdays. This restriction must be respected for the entire proposed Project if it is approved.



Comment Fink-196

The haul route must be specified before any approvals are granted. Since the cul-de-sac must be constructed before construction of the project can commence, we expect that all truck traffic will enter and leave the Project site from Pico Blvd. This must be specifically stated in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to the haul route, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-31. With regard to comments related to recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-197

Under “Operation” on Page IV.G-67, we again emphasize that the intent of all traffic plans should be to restrict entry to and egress from the Applicant’s grounds to Castello Avenue NORTH of the cul-de-sac, and from or onto Pico Blvd., and that there should be no cut-through traffic on Alcott Street or Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac. To effect this, the operational conditions listed must be modified as follows:



Comment Fink-198

G-9 All loading and unloading of students shall be conducted on-site. DELETE the “weasel words” ” to the maximum extent feasible.”




The language referred to is part of the existing 1999 CUP. Loading and unloading of student is expected to occur on-site, with the exception of the loading of buses and vans that cannot enter the subterranean parking structure. The comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-199

ADD: G-12 All vehicular ingress and egress to the YULA campus shall be from Pico Boulevard onto Castello Avenue north of the cul-de-sac. The traffic control monitor shall make certain that no drop-off or pick-up of students occurs on neighborhood streets south (i.e., on Castello Avenue) or east (i.e., on Alcott Street) of the cul-de-sac.



Comment Fink-200

On Page V-1, we concur that this proposed Project would cause significant unmitigated impacts to the environment, specifically to the quiet residential neighborhood surrounding the Applicant’s site.



Comment Fink-201

On Page VI-2, we take issue with the Project Objectives which are inconsistent with the Project’s location on land currently zoned R1-1 for single family homes, in the midst of a quiet residential neighborhood and the two immediately adjoining single family homes.


The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. No planning or zone changes are proposed by such modifications The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Fink-202

There may or may not be a “community need” for increased orthodox Jewish high school spaces, but this need not be addressed by this school or at this site. The orthodox Jewish elementary schools mentioned in a letter from the Bureau of Jewish Education can undertake expansions on their sites or at other locations, perhaps in conjunction with the Applicant. An “Off-Site Alternative’ must be fully explored and analyzed to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law.


The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. No planning or zone changes are proposed by such modifications. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the modifications proposed by the applicant. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. The impacts of constructing a wholly new or expanded modern orthodox high school campus at another location would be speculative, and are therefore beyond the scope of the EIR. Alternative A (Existing 1999 CUP) analyzes the probable effects of disapproving the modifications proposed by the applicant. The proposed project is designed and intended to complete the basic facilities envisioned by the 1999 CUP (for example, the gymnasium and library) as well as maximize the use of the existing campus and its existing infrastructure for orthodox Judaic high school purposes, and to provide for a superior and more secure facility design for all students. Unless built as an expansion of another orthodox high school, an off-site location would contradict these objectives, and would force a split of the campus into two, requiring cost-prohibitive duplication of facilities and resources, resulting in insufficient facilities at one or both locations, and/or creating a need for travel between two locations. For all of these reasons, an "off site alternative" was determined to be infeasible and not further considered (see page VI-3 of the Draft EIR).

Comment Fink-203

The operating conditions in the 1999 CUP were specifically and painstakingly crafted to protect the Applicant’s neighbors from the school’s adverse impacts, with a great deal of input from both sides. These protections must be maintained.


This comment repeats one or more similar comments contained earlier in the commenter's letter. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-14, -224 and -225. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-204

Adequate parking as required by LAMC 12.24 and other sections must be provided to the full extent required by law.




The commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-188. With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-205

The orthodox Jewish sanctuary can only operate with the current limitations, i.e., for the use of YULA students, their (immediate) families, and faculty, and for up to 50 other people, with a specified maximum number of congregants. We suggest that this maximum number be 75, period. This would eliminate the need to try to determine who is “affiliated” or “not affiliated” with YULA, which is impossible and even ridiculous. If someone is the 2nd cousin of a student, does that make him “affiliated” with YULA?? And how will people prove this? Will they be assigned membership cards to use the synagogue? In addition, the number of seats in the Beis Midrash should be fixed at 75, so that the condition regarding maximum occupancy of the synagogue is self-enforcing.


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment expresses opinions regarding restrictions for religious services, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-206

If it is going to be allowed to expand, all requirements of LAMC governing churches, including parking, must be met. We note that the orthodox prohibition on driving applies only on the Sabbath (from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday) and certain religious holidays. At all other prayer times, congregants will drive to the YULA synagogue, thus limiting the number of spaces available for events occurring elsewhere on the YULA campus at the same time. Accordingly, there must be a requirement that all activities (including evening prayer services) that overlap must be coordinated so that all such activities can be accommodated by the amount of on-site parking. The reality is that people will not use valet parking or off-site parking requiring a shuttle, if there is any more convenient alternative (i.e., street parking on our quiet narrow neighborhood streets!) available.


Religious services open to individuals not affiliated with YULA Boys High School currently occur from 10:00 p.m. to approximately 10:15 p.m. on weekday evenings, as well as on the Jewish Sabbath and religious holidays where driving is not permitted. Modern orthodox doctrine prohibits driving during the Sabbath and such religious holidays, and therefore no parking demand is generated during such days of



observance. Proposed Condition 68 requires that the use of the gymnasium and the Beit Midrash be coordinated so that off-street parking is available at all times. The applicant owns two shuttles. Shuttle service is used at many high schools with success, and the comment provides no substantial evidence for the commenter’s claim that shuttle service does not work. Various off-street parking facilities are available in the vicinity of the project. The applicant has used the large parking lot located at 9740 Pico Boulevard, which is one block from the campus, in the past. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 21 to add “YULA will use reasonable efforts to coordinate the scheduling of Special Events with the Museum of Tolerance’s Special Events so that parking impacts to residential neighborhoods from YULA Special Events are avoided.” With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-207

Finally, all environmental impacts must be mitigated or the Project cannot be allowed to be built.


As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project would result in significant and unavoidable, but temporary impacts associated with cumulative and project construction noise and vibration. Additionally, it is conservatively concluded that implementation of Related Project No. 53 in combination with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character.

CEQA does not mandate that all environmental impacts of a project be mitigated to less than significant. CEQA provides that where a project results in significant unavoidable impacts after the implementation of feasible mitigation, a Lead Agency may find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. This must be a written finding stating the agency’s specific reasons supporting its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The requirements for a Statement of Overriding Considerations are established in Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and in the CEQA statute in Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.

Comment Fink-208

The “No Project Alternative” (i.e., building per the 1999 CUP) is not infeasible. This project is already approved by the City, and would lead to the construction of 10,500 square feet of new space, including the gymnasium desired by the Applicant. If the Applicant were not ceding 7,153 square feet of space to YOLA and/or the Museum, there would be ample space for the enlarged student body. The Applicant has failed to explain how this already approved project would fail to meet its objectives. It would allow the increased enrollment at the school to the limit in the 1999 CUP, the main Project Objective. The other Project Objectives are illegitimate and inappropriate for this land, and cannot be allowed within the restrictions imposed by law, as noted above. What the Applicant incorrectly calls the “No Project



Alternative”, more accurately called the “1999 CUP Alternative”, would amply meet its needs. This Alternative must be fully explored to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law.


At page VI-8, the Draft EIR discusses the relationship of the No Project Alternative to the Applicant’s objectives. The Draft EIR concludes that the No Project Alternative would not meet most of the Applicant’s current objectives. See also Response to Comment Fink-37.

Comment Fink-209

The Off-Site Alternative must be explored more fully to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law. It cannot be off-handedly dismissed, as is done by the Applicant. Unfortunately due to the recent economic downturn, there are ample nearby sites available for lease or purchase. A “middle school” with some facilities, and a high school campus with more facilities, is a very viable model already used by outstanding schools in Los Angeles, such as the Oakwood School and the Harvard-Westlake School. These two institutions seem to coordinate and provide for educational programs quite well at their two campuses. The Applicant has certainly not demonstrated to any required legal standard that the Off-Site Alternative is truly infeasible.


With regard to comments related to an Off Site Alternative, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-202.

Comment Fink-210

As discussed on Page VI-5, the so-called “No Project Alternative” which is in reality Phase II of the existing 1999 CUP, allows a more than adequate expansion of the Applicant’s facilities which would meet the majority of its objectives.


With regards to comments related to the No Project Alternative, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-37 and 208.

Comment Fink-211

We again emphasize that in addition to the cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue mentioned on this page, to be constructed south of Pico Blvd. and just north of the end of Alcott Street, the 1999 CUP also required in Condition 75 “the construction of a partial closure of Roxbury Drive south of the alley south of Pico Boulevard.” This requirement has not been discussed in the Museum’s DEIR, FEIR, or Revised FEIR, and is not discussed in the Applicant’s DEIR. The traffic impacts of this required



street closure must be studied and reported in the revised and recirculated DEIR. THIS CANNOT BE IGNORED. The comments of Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green about this street closure on Page 35 of the 1999 CUP are incorporated herein by reference.


With regard to comments related to the Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4. With regard to comments related to the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-7.

Comment Fink-212

The fact that the Applicant is ceding 7,153 square feet of space to YOLA and/or the SWC, for annexation by the Museum, is not sufficient justification for it to ask for new space to be approved to replace the space it is giving away! This request meets the comedian’s definition of the Yiddish word “chutzpah” (“nerve”): a man kills both parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is now an orphan! The DEIR states, “the Applicant is not in possession of the West Wing area.” We again ask that a full explanation of WHY the Applicant is not in possession of the West Wing area, and ALL relevant documents describing and explaining the relationships among the Applicant, YOLA, the Museum, and the Wiesenthal Center be made available for public review and comment. These documents must be part of the revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-28 and -122. With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Fink-213

The aesthetic impacts of the misleadingly named “No Project Alternative” would be much less than the proposed Project, due to the smaller size and lower height of the buildings. The new construction in the proposed Project is almost double in size (19,950 square feet compared to 10,500 square feet) compared to the No Project Alternative. We note that only 10,500 square feet of new space, NOT 14,900 square feet of new space, is approved in the 1999 CUP.





Comment Fink-214

At the top of Page VI-7, we again note that if it wanted, the Applicant could gain possession of the West Wing space and then would have sufficient space in which to conduct its educational activities. This space was specifically dedicated for student use in the 1999 CUP and Museum use was specifically prohibited. YOLA’s need for this space for student activities was loudly proclaimed by Rabbi Meier May in 1996, and this is documented in contemporaneous newspaper articles. YOLA is currently prohibited by the conditions of the 1999 CUP from using the West Wing space for anything other than yeshiva use for art studios and classroom space; the agreements that it has entered into are in violation of the 1999 CUP. The conditions of the 1999 CUP regarding the West Wing space must remain in effect. In this regard, the entire contents of our letter, also dated April 13, 2009, with respect to our appeal of the Deputy Advisory Agency’s decision in Case VTT-66144 (approval of the tentative tract map providing for the subdivision of the airspace in the West Wing) (herein the “VTT Appeal Letter”) are incorporated herein by this reference.


With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-28 and -122.

Comment Fink-215

Noise impacts of the proposed Project would be much worse than the No Project Alternative, due to the larger high school enrollment and especially to the abrogation of almost all of the Conditions of the 1999 CUP which were imposed to protect the Applicant’s neighbors.


The Draft EIR analyzes the potential noise impacts of the modifications proposed by the Applicant. The comment does not indicate any specific deficiency in such analysis. Nevertheless, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-216

The terror magnet impact of both projects is about the same. Anything bigger is a bigger terror magnet. The police and fire responses to the realistic terror threat must be adequately explained in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




With regard to comments related to terrorism, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-55. Based upon the lack of history of any terrorist threats at the project site, the “terror magnet” impact associated with the Museum of Tolerance expansion project was considered to be less speculative in nature and was thus evaluated in the EIR for that project.

Comment Fink-217

On Page VI-8, we note that the Applicant’s current parking is inadequate and that the full requirements of LAMC 12.24 and other relevant sections of LAMC must be enforced.


The commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-188. With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-218

The Applicant has not demonstrated in any factual way that the No Project Alternative would not allow it to meet its Project Objectives. Enrollment would be increased from the current 186 students to 250 students, providing additional capacity. Ample other locations exist, e.g. yeshivot on La Brea Boulevard, to meet the needs of orthodox Jewish high school students. Again, we note that if the Applicant and/or YOLA were not misusing or misallocating the 7,153 square feet of space in the West Wing but were using this space appropriately as specified in the 1999 CUP, there would be adequate space for it to meet its needs.


See Response to Comments Fink-37, -202 and -208. This comment expresses the opinion that the No Project Alternative would meet the project objectives or that other unspecified locations could be developed for orthodox high school use, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-219

The current conditions of the 1999 CUP are NOT complex, redundant, or difficult to practically administer. The current conditions are no more complex, redundant, or difficult than the numerous

laws and rabbinical interpretation which the adherents of orthodox Judaism, including the Applicant’s Jewish faculty, Jewish staff, students, and the students’ families, follow right now in their daily activities! Do they (and other observant Jews) not follow these laws and interpretations because they are complex or difficult? NO!! In fact, the rabbis teach that following the complex



rules of Jewish observance makes us better people, because we know what is done and we are trained to do the right thing.

The fact that the Applicant has not followed these Conditions, does not want to follow these Conditions, and the City doesn’t enforce these Conditions, does not mean that the Applicant cannot follow them. The Applicant must describe which of the Conditions in the 1999 CUP it finds complex, redundant, or difficult to practically administer. We note again that these Conditions were imposed by Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green specifically to protect YOLA’s (and now the Applicant’s) neighbors from inappropriate disturbances. The southerly portion of the Applicant’s land, on which either the No Project Alternative or the proposed Project would be built, is currently zoned R1-1. This land is immediately adjoining two single family homes, and is surrounded by a quiet neighborhood of single family homes. This fact is recognized in Condition 3 of the 1999 CUP, which provides:

“3. The authorized use shall be conducted at all times with due regard for the character of the surrounding district, and the right is reserved to the Zoning Administrator to impose additional corrective conditions if, in the Administrator’s opinion, such conditions are proven necessary for the protection of persons in the neighborhood or occupants of adjacent property.”


The 1999 CUP permits educational and religious use of the project site, although modification to the terms of that use are proposed. Whether to permit such modifications is in the discretion of the decision-maker. The proposed amendments and modifications to the 1999 CUP are provided in Appendix B in both redline and clean formats. In response to comments, the proposed modifications have also been revised as shown in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. The comment does not indicate any deficiency in the Draft EIR’s analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed modifications. However, the comment will be forwarded to the decision-maker for its consideration as part of the Final EIR.

Comment Fink-220

The No Project (Existing 1999 CUP) alternative would avoid the major environmental impacts associated with excavation for the underground parking structure in the proposed project. It would also minimize impacts on the Applicant’s neighbors by being smaller in size, height, and with an increased distance between the new structures and the neighbors.


See Response to Comments Fink-37, -202, -208 and -218. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Fink-221

It is entirely appropriate that the potential impacts of constructing and operating a separate or expanded modern orthodox Judaic Boys High School be shifted to a more appropriate location, one located on commercially zoned and not on land zoned for single family homes, one not immediately adjoining a large Museum proposing to undergo a simultaneous large expansion project. This Off-Site Alternative must be fully explored and analyzed to meet the requirements of CEQA guidelines and applicable case law.


With regard to comments related to an Off Site Alternative, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-37, -202, -208 and -218.

Comment Fink-222

The No Project (Existing 1999 CUP) alternative is clearly the environmentally superior alternative and should be chosen by the City.


This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. The Draft EIR identifies the No Project as the environmentally superior alternative.

Comment Fink-223

An Off-Site Alternative is even more superior and must also be fully considered and analyzed in the revised and recirculated DEIR to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law.



Comment Fink-224

APPENDIX B: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

The existing 1999 CUP which is in the Appendix is a superior document, crafted to protect the Applicant’s neighbors. Again, the entire document, including the Findings of Fact set forth on Pages 25-41 of the 1999 CUP, must be incorporated into the revised and recirculated DEIR. Its conditions, to protect the Applicant’s neighbors, should be kept intact even if the larger proposed Project is approved.



We note that the Applicant wants to have unfettered reign over its activities and facilities, despite the fact that it operates not by right but by entitlement, by CUP. The Conditions of the 1999 CUP were imposed by the City to protect the Applicant’s neighbors. These Conditions should not be abrogated. We do not, of course, have any objection to changing “YULA” to “YOLA”, where appropriate to reflect the change in management of the yeshiva operations.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to provisions of additional CUP documentation, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-67.

Comment Fink-225

Comment Fink-225A

For purposes of clarification, an “Existing Condition” shall refer to the condition of the applicable number as set forth in Appendix “A” to the DEIR, and “Proposed Condition” shall refer to the condition of the applicable number as set forth in Appendix “B” to the DEIR.

Existing Condition 3 recognizes the “character of the surrounding district.”

Existing Condition 4 should not allow YOLA to retain 7,153 square feet of space. This space should be used solely for classroom space for the yeshiva students, as specified in the existing 1999 CUP, and thus eliminating the Applicant’s “need” for new classroom space to “offset” the space it is losing.

Response to Comment Fink-225A

As discussed in Response to Comment Fink-7, the so-called West Wing has not been leased to the applicant. The City does not have the authority to require that such area be leased to the applicant.

Comment Fink-225B

The maximum square footage addition should remain at 10,500 sq. ft., inclusive of the 7,500 (max) sq. ft. gym, the 1,500 (max) sq. ft. library/computer center, and the 1,500 (max) sq. ft. Beit Midrash. (We note, with alarm, that nowhere in the DEIR is the proposed square footage of the Beit Midrash mentioned, and we believe that this omission was intentional, because the Applicant (or YOLA) intends to have a huge synagogue in which the wedding and bar/bat mitzvah ceremonies would be held, to be followed by the huge parties for 500 or more people at the Museum. Therefore, information regarding the square footage of the proposed Beit Midrash, and its maximum occupancy, must be provided in the revised and recirculated DEIR).



Response to Comment Fink-225B

When Phase II of the proposed project is completed, the premises of the high school will be 45,000 square feet, which is less square footage than the 47,100 square feet permitted by the 1999 CUP for the high school premises. The applicant is requesting that square footage limitations on internal school space be eliminated. The applicant believes that limitations on the overall square footage, combined with enrollment limitations and limitations on occupancy and attendance on events are adequate to address potential environmental impacts. For such reason, the applicant does not propose that the square footage of the library or the gymnasium be limited. The applicant proposes that the occupancy of the gymnasium remain restricted to 300 persons (the potential audience for events), with the exclusion of students under 18 (who are anticipated to be the participants in the events). The applicant is not proposing to expand the size of the Beit Midrash, which is approximately 2,400 square feet and presently has 200 seats. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered that these limitations be incorporated into Condition 4.

Comment Fink-225C

In addition, it is not clear whether YULA or YOLA will operate the Beit Midrash/synagogue/prayer hall. This should be clarified in the revised and recirculated DEIR.

Response to Comment Fink-225C

The Beit Midrash is used for all of the programs at the high school, including the JSI programs and the synagogue. However, all facilities on the project site will be operated by YULA.

Comment Fink-225D

Existing Condition 7 should not be modified, except that the distinction between persons “affiliated” or “not affiliated” with the school should be eliminated. The Beit Midrash addition should be no more than 1,500 sq. ft. (as provided for in the 1999 CUP) and have no more than 75 fixed seats, so that the maximum occupancy that we are proposing (i.e., 75 persons) can be self-enforced. The requirement that all persons (other than YULA students and faculty) walk to the site should remain, since there is insufficient on-site parking.

Response to Comment Fink-225D

No expansion to the Beit Midrash is being proposed. The applicant has agreed that the existing square footage and seats be reflected in Condition 4. The Beit Midrash is proposed to be used for orthodox Jewish services only. The applicant is requesting that the number of persons to be permitted to attend the orthodox Jewish services at the Beit Midrash be increased from 50 on weekdays/weekends and 100 on holidays to 100 on weekdays/weekends and 200 on holidays. Persons attending services from Friday evening to Saturday evening (the Jewish Sabbath) walk to and from the services. Weekday services occur at 10 p.m. and are not attended by large numbers of persons. In response to comments, the applicant has



volunteered that increased holiday attendance at services would be permitted only for holiday events where attendees walk. See proposed Condition 7. With such restrictions and the other mitigation measures proposed by the applicant (see Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR and Mitigation Measures II-1 through II-13 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are not anticipated.

Comment Fink-225E

Restrictions on use of the YULA facilities must be maintained to protect the Applicant’s neighbors. Dances and fundraising functions are inappropriate for this location because it is adjacent to and surrounded by single family homes. These activities should take place off-site, at an appropriate remote location.

Response to Comment Fink-225E

The applicant proposes that the high school should be permitted to conduct all of the functions typically conducted by a high school, and proposes to implement feasible mitigation measures such as building the cul-de-sac (to divert traffic) referred to in the original proposal, 100 on-site parking spaces, and provision for off-site parking to mitigate potential environmental impacts. The existing 1999 CUP permitted use of the gymnasium (to be built in Phase II) by YULA Girls High School. The applicant is requesting that in addition to such use, use for school plays and sports tournaments be permitted. With restrictions and the other mitigation measures proposed by the applicant (see Response to Comment Fink-225D), significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are not anticipated. All of these mitigation measures are presented in the Draft EIR as modified in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. With such mitigation measures, the applicant proposes that the multiple and often confusing conditions in the 1999 CUP are no longer appropriate or necessary and should be eliminated.

Comment Fink-225F

YULA Girls High School students should not be permitted to use the gymnasium. The use of the YULA campus, particularly the gymnasium, by students from other schools should be strictly limited to athletic activities in which YULA students actively and substantially participate (as provided in the 1999 CUP). (The proposed expansion to any “league” in which YULA students participate is excessively broad. The gym should NOT become THE gym for every team in the league! This is outrageous).

Response to Comment Fink-225F

See Responses to Comments Fink-225D and -225E.

Comment Fink-225G

Existing Condition 8 should continue to restrict use of the premises for Special Events to YULA-related activities. The changes proposed by the Applicant eliminate virtually all of the protections afforded by



Condition 8 in the 1999 CUP, and would make the nature and number of events on the YULA campus virtually unlimited. The limitation of the number of Special Events must be retained at eight (8) per calendar year to protect the Applicant’s neighbors.

Response to Comment Fink-225G


Comment Fink-225H

The limitation on Special Events that can be held outdoors should remain at three (3) per year (included within the 8 Special Events per year), and a duration of 1-1/2 hours, but in addition should be limited to daytime hours only (which in the summer shall be deemed to be no later than 6:30 PM), and there shall be NO sound amplification of any kind (voice or music) in connection with such 3 outdoor Special Events. Except for such 3 outdoor Special Events, there should be NO activities of any kind outdoors, including any athletic activities or activities in connection with the operations of the synagogue. (We note that the City’s approval of the new gymnasium in 1999 was premised on YOLA’s assurances that the primary reason for building the gym was to bring indoors all of the noisy outdoor activities, especially from use of the play/basketball area, to eliminate the disturbance to the school’s neighbors). Time restrictions for Special Events must be retained. No “community events” shall take place on the site. Such events are inappropriate for land currently zoned for single-family homes, surrounded by a quiet neighborhood of single-family homes. In addition, under no circumstances can any events take place, at any time, in the roadway of Castello Avenue. All activities must take place within the perimeter walls of the campus. (Note: we raise this latter issue because the neighborhood has had problems with school and Museum activities taking place on Castello Avenue and Roxbury Drive).

Response to Comment Fink-225H

See Responses to Comment Fink-225D and -225E. When the proposed Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas that will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. No events are anticipated for the Castello Avenue roadway. Amplified sound in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 12. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10 (see Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR). With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood.

Comment Fink-225I

Existing Condition 9 should remain as stated, except as follows: YULA faculty and employees may have the described events inside the YULA facilities, within the normal operating hours as allowed - - provided, however, that there is sufficient on-site parking available for all of the attendees.



Response to Comment Fink-225I

See Responses to Comments Fink-225D and -225E and Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-225J

Somewhere in the conditions it must be provided that no events can be held which (combined with other events occurring during the same time period) cannot be accommodated by on-site parking.

Response to Comment Fink-225J

Proposed Conditions 21 and 23 are intended to ensure that no events can be held at the premises that are not adequately served by off-street parking. Refer to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-225K

Existing Condition 10 must be modified, but as follows: No outdoor activities (other than the 3 Special Events within the strict parameters described in Condition 8 above) shall be permitted, because of the proximity to a quiet neighborhood of single family homes. We again note that one of the rationales for construction of the gymnasium in Phase II was to bring all outdoor activities indoors, to minimize any noise and disruption in the neighborhood. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we would not object to meditation and individual study activities - - and even student eating if strictly limited to customary lunchtime hours - - provided that all such activities take place in the inside courtyard of the YULA facilities (e.g., surrounded on all sides by buildings, to minimize the noise impacts on YULA’s neighbors).

Response to Comment Fink-225K

See Response to Comment Fink-225H.

Comment Fink-225L

Existing Condition 11 must be maintained. The “religious sanctuary” must be kept only for religious instruction and prayer services of the YULA students, their families, faculty and (only) neighbors who WALK to YULA, but in no event more than a maximum of 75 persons.

Response to Comment Fink-225L

See Response to Comment Fink-225D.

Comment Fink-225M

If this project is truly separate from the Museum expansion and entitled to be reviewed pursuant to a separate EIR, then YULA should evidence that by agreeing that there will be no wedding ceremonies or bar/bat mitzvah ceremonies held anywhere on the YULA/YOLA property (we say YULA/YOLA because



it is unclear whether YULA or YOLA will own and/or operate the synagogue). It is meaningless to agree that there won’t be any banquets held on the subject site, because any baboon will realize that the banquets will be held next door at the Museum’s “cultural center”/banquet hall. Further, any food service in conjunction with religious activities is inappropriate and should remain prohibited, again out of respect for the Applicant’s neighbors. (In this regard, we note that if the Museum expansion is allowed, and because of the easy access between the Museum and YULA via bridge and elevator, it would be extremely easy for the Museum’s proposed catering facility to provide food and beverage/alcohol service on the YULA/YOLA site; this must be prohibited). Notwithstanding the foregoing, we would agree to have a very limited Kiddush service (limited to grape juice or non-alcoholic wine, and challah), and only if such Kiddush services are held indoors.

Response to Comment Fink-225M

The applicant’s project is separate from the Museum of Tolerance expansion project. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 9 to eliminate weddings and to restrict Bar and Bat Mitzvahs to Saturdays when attendees walk to the synagogue. Kiddush, after a Saturday Bar or Bat Mitzvah where attendees walk, is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood.

Comment Fink-225N

Existing Condition 12 must be enforced, if there remains any non-yeshiva use in the yeshiva’s space. This includes YOLA and YULA space. We have already notified the Department of Building and Safety of the ongoing brazen violation of this Condition by YOLA and by the Museum and the Wiesenthal Center. Copies of the documents evidencing such violations are attached to the VTT Appeal Letter, and such documents are incorporated herein by this reference.

Proposed Condition 10 is UNACCEPTABLE. Existing Condition 13 should be modified to provide that there shall be NO outdoor activities, except for the three (3) Special Events, in accordance with the restrictions set forth above with respect to Existing Condition 8, including the requirement that all such events be held during daylight hours. The importance of this condition cannot be emphasized enough. Outdoor activities at YOLA/YULA have been a constant annoyance to the yeshiva’s neighbors. These activities must be brought INDOORS, as YOLA promised to do in 1999 when it got approval to build the gym. The yeshiva is on land zoned for residential use, immediately adjacent to peoples’ homes (with virtually no buffer, especially if the expansion is approved as proposed). We have had enough. Most of us moved into the neighborhood long before there was a yeshiva there. YULA’s closest neighbors are very elderly, in poor health, and home all day. We demand, and we are entitled to, PEACE AND QUIET!!

Response to Comment Fink-225N




Comment Fink-225O

Existing Condition 14 must be maintained. YULA students, as noted previously, are the ones who disturb our neighborhood (as opposed to the university or adult, Jewish Studies Institute students). Even with the current conditions, the YULA students loiter and leave trash on the sidewalks and even our lawns, often smoking, playing their car stereos and talking loudly. The YULA rabbis and faculty have admitted to their neighbors (in conjunction with the notorious “swimming pool incident” in March 2009 which has been reported both to LAPD and the Department of Building and Safety) that they cannot control the students There are insufficient restaurants within walking distance where they can eat lunch and get back to campus. Unless students are allowed to cross to the Museum via the bridge from the West Wing for lunch in the Museum’s restaurant, they should not otherwise be allowed to leave campus.

Response to Comment Fink-225O

The commenter’s views regarding the applicant’s requested enrollment modifications will be presented to the decision-maker as part of the Final EIR. In response to comment, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 11 to limit off-campus eating privileges to 11th and 12th graders.

In regards to the noted “swimming pool incident”, on February 25th, 2009, students engaged in a seasonal prank by putting a portable swimming pool on the basketball court filled with water. The pool was promptly taken down by the school's faculty, and both the students involved and those who were responsible for supervising at the time in question have been informed that the carrying-on which occurred caused a nuisance to the school's neighbors and violated the school's operating conditions. The school is apologetic for the annoyance that occurred and will do its best to ensure that all students, staff and faculty are sensitive that outdoor activities have the potential to disturb neighbors.

YULA Boys High School is proposing certain modifications to the site plan approved under the 1999 CUP with respect to build-out of facilities that will limit the potential for nuisances related to the use of outdoor areas. These modifications will maintain the plan for the fully enclosed gymnasium, will eliminate the approved surface parking lot, and will enclose remaining outdoor areas in the interior of the campus with a one-story classroom building.

Comment Fink-225P

Existing Condition 15 should be modified to prohibit ANY amplification (music and voice) outdoors, excluding only a public address system for use only in the event of an emergency, (such as the anticipated terrorist attacks). This strict prohibition is based largely on the following factors: (1) the reality that the project site is simply SO close to adjacent single-family homes, that there is no kind of sound amplification that will not be audible to persons in those homes; (2) amplified sound of any kind is extremely annoying and disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of one’s home; and (3) YULA/YOLA simply cannot be trusted to comply with this condition, since it has violated it in the past. In this regard, the Planning Department should note that a torah dedication service was held outdoors in the parking/basketball area, early on Sunday morning, August 24, 2007, with amplified music. Such service



was officiated by none other than Marvin Hier, the CEO of YOLA, who, when confronted by an angry neighbor who recited the specific sections of Conditions 8 and 15 being violated, simply smirked and replied “We’ll see about those conditions.” Well, we are “seeing” now what he meant - - and that is precisely why the existing conditions must not only remain but they must also be modified to make them even more clear and more enforceable - - and most of all, more protective of YULA’s neighbors.

Response to Comment Fink-225P

Proposed Condition 12 (previous condition 15) is not proposed to be modified. See Responses to Comments Fink-7 and Fink-225H.

Comment Fink-225Q

Existing Condition 16 should be modified to provide that NO exterior bells will be permitted at any time. High school students are all perfectly capable of telling time, and keeping track of time, without bells. In most school campuses exterior bells would be fine, but they are not fine when the school is immediately adjacent to peoples’ homes. For example, one of the homeowners on Castello Avenue (within approx. 125 feet of YULA) is 84 years old, has had four heart attacks, and must take a nap for several hours every afternoon pursuant to her doctor’s orders. What will she do if BELLS go off every day when she is trying to nap??

Response to Comment Fink-225Q

Schools are typically found in residential neighborhoods and bells are an ordinary part of school operation. When the Proposed Phase II is completed, outdoor areas on the campus will be enclosed by surrounding buildings. Proposed Condition 13 (see Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR) states “no use of exterior bells shall be permitted except at the beginning of the school day and at the end of the lunch period. Interior bells shall not be audible beyond the subject property's boundary lines”. See also Response to Comment Fink-225H.

Comment Fink-225R

Existing Condition 17 must remain, specifically the restriction of YULHA BHS students to 200. As explained elsewhere, it is the high school students who cause all of the problems. Current enrollment is 186 students. Condition 17 would allow for a very modest (7-1/2%) increase in enrollment, rather than the FORTY PERCENT increase proposed by YULA. In the event that such 7-1/2 % increase does not present problems, particularly with respect to noise, traffic and parking, then nothing would prevent YULA from seeking a modification to its CUP at a later time, to request an increase in enrollment. In light of all the past, ongoing and anticipated future problems caused by the Yeshiva students, it is reckless and irresponsible for the Planning Department to do anything other than limit enrollment to the numbers specified in Existing Condition 17 and adopt a “wait and see” approach to any further adjustments in enrollment caps, which should be subject to the full conditional use review described in Existing Condition 19.



Response to Comment Fink-225R

See Response to Comment Fink-225O.

Comment Fink-225S

Existing Condition 20 must remain. YULA Girls High School students should stay at their nearby campus on Robertson Blvd. The earlier concluding hour of 10:15 p.m. must be retained. Weekday religious activities should be restricted to YULA BHS students only. Services at the sanctuary/synagogue shall be in accordance with all of the terms of Existing Condition 11 as set forth/modified above and, in addition, shall not commence prior to 7 PM, Monday through Thursday, or before sundown on Friday. (The impossible-to-enforce distinction between “affiliated” and “unaffiliated” disappears, since synagogue capacity will simply be limited to 75 people).

Response to Comment Fink-225S

YULA Boys and Girls High School use common faculty to teach after-school enrichment programs which end before 8 pm. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to modify proposed Condition 16 to clarify the times of classroom and Beit Midrash activities on campus. Specifically, enrichment classes will end by 8 p.m.; JSI classes will end by 10 p.m.; and the Beit Midrash non-Sabbath weekday evening prayer services will begin at 10 p.m. and end before 11 p.m.

Comment Fink-225T

We express specific concern about the fact that in the Jewish religion bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs can take place not only on Saturday, but also at services on Mondays and Thursdays. Those attending on Mondays and Thursdays are able to drive on these days. Such events must be specifically prohibited, as discussed by Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green in the 1999 CUP and referenced previously.

Response to Comment Fink-225T

See Response to Comment Fink-225M.

Comment Fink-225U

Existing Condition 21 must be retained. All Friday evening and Saturday activities and indeed all activities other than ingress and egress must take place indoors, except for the three very limited Special Event per year, in accordance with all of the terms previously described.

Response to Comment Fink-225U

When Proposed Phase II is completed, outdoor areas on the campus will be enclosed by surrounding buildings. Orthodox services are typically conducted indoors, but some outdoor observance does occur. See Response to Comment Fink-225H.



Comment Fink-225V

Existing Condition 25 must be retained. YULA events must be coordinated with Museum of Tolerance, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Moriah Film events, and events of any and all related entities, to protect the Applicant’s neighbors from too much commercial and entertainment activity, with insufficient parking, at any one time.

Response to Comment Fink-225V

In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 21 to add “YULA will use reasonable efforts to coordinate the scheduling of Special Events with the Museum of Tolerance’s Special Events so that parking impacts to residential neighborhoods from YULA Special Events are avoided.”

Comment Fink-225W

In addition, as stated previously, the revised and recirculated DEIR must indicate exactly where the additional parking within 750 feet of YULA will be located. There should be no “shuttle service” parking, because it simply doesn’t work. People will not use it. If an event is so large that shuttle service is necessary, then it is too large to be held in a location immediately adjacent to a quiet residential neighborhood.

Response to Comment Fink-225W

The applicant owns two shuttles. Shuttle service is used at many high schools with success, and the comment provides no substantial evidence for the commenter’s claim that shuttle service does not work. Various off-street parking facilities are available in the vicinity of the project. The applicant has used the large parking lot located at 9740 Pico Boulevard, which is one block from the campus, in the past.

Comment Fink-225X

Existing Condition 26 must be modified to state “All loading and unloading of students shall be conducted on-site.” The “weasel words” of “to the maximum extent feasible” must be deleted. The drop-off and pick-up hours may need to be adjusted, depending on the information provided by the videotape that we have requested above.

Response to Comment Fink-225X

Proposed Condition 22 (former condition 26) is not proposed to be substantively modified. Phase II has been designed so that drop-offs and pick-ups will occur in the subterranean garage. Bus pick-ups, however, may occur on Castello Avenue northerly of the cul-de-sac as provided in proposed Condition 69.



Comment Fink-225Y

Existing Condition 27 must be modified to clarify that valet parking shall only be used to increase the capacity of on-site parking (i.e., by stacking cars in the parking area). This is necessary because there is simply no way to use any off-site parking that would not increase cut-through traffic on residential streets. The only exception would be if YULA can guarantee that off-site parking will be available at a location on Pico Blvd. (e.g., valets can not turn right on Beverwil, and then proceed to circle back via Cashio). Since we are doubtful that there is any available and convenient off-site parking, the Applicant must identify the location of such off-site parking in the revised and recirculated DEIR.

Response to Comment Fink-225Y

See Response to Comment Fink-225W.

Comment Fink-225Z

Existing Condition 28 must be retained. Buses should not be allowed to park on or be driven on ANY part of Castello Avenue, including the section that would be north of the proposed cul de sac. This is of the essence. If buses park or load/unload on Castello, even north of the proposed cul de sac, they will be visible from the homes located on Castello, which is NOT acceptable. No one should ever have a bus parked or idling in front of, or even driving by, his/her home. In addition, the diesel particulate matter from bus exhaust is a known carcinogen. The very sneaky change proposed by the Applicant, to delete “between Pico Boulevard and” - - and substitute “south of” - - is completely unacceptable!! Indeed, we have had an ongoing problem with buses (albeit mostly buses related to Museum visitors). Accordingly, we reserve the right to suggest additional conditions to address the issue of bus traffic and parking on our narrow, quiet residential streets. We note that currently bus traffic is specifically excluded from Castello Avenue at all hours.

Response to Comment Fink-225Z

See Response to Comment Fink-225W. The cul-de-sac will reduce the amount of traffic on Castello Avenue south of the diverter. Bus loading only involves a short period of time, and there is no substantial evidence that temporary loading of buses north of the cul de sac will have significant impacts on nearby residences. Bus loading in such areas is considered more desirable than along Pico Boulevard where it may interfere with through traffic.

Comment Fink-225AA

Existing Condition 29 must be modified to state “A toll free complaint number shall be posted prominently on the Pico Blvd. and Castello Avenue frontages of the YULA facilities, in 4 inch high letters with appropriate reflective coatings so as to be easily readable from a vehicle. This phone number must be monitored 24 hours every day.”



Response to Comment Fink-225AA

Proposed Conditions 25 and 26 (former conditions 29 and 30) address the issue of neighbor complaints adequately and are not proposed to be modified.

Comment Fink-225BB

Existing Condition 32 must be retained. In light of the risk of a terrorist attack, which we have discussed ad nauseam both above and in our comments on the Museum’s DEIR, FEIR and Revised FEIR, it is imperative that the YULA facilities have a security guard on duty 24/7. It is simply reckless to do otherwise. Moreover, Existing Condition 32 should be modified to provide: “All security guards shall, prior to commencing work at the YULA facilities, receive comprehensive training in counter-terrorism techniques, including without limitation bomb detection, from a reputable provider of such training services.”

Response to Comment Fink-225BB

See Responses to Comments Fink-14 and -161. It is not necessary to maintain an on-site security guard when the premises are closed and secured. Closed-circuit television camera security (which includes approximately 18 cameras) that is remotely monitored on a 24-hour basis will be adequate for security needs during the hours when premises are closed because no persons are present.

Comment Fink-225CC

Existing Condition 44 must be retained. Residents have complained about noise from the HVAC units currently installed on the YULA buildings. The noise from HVAC units must be minimized to the maximum extent feasible.

Response to Comment Fink-225CC

Proposed Condition 39 requires that HVAC noise not exceed 55 dbA at the property line consistent with existing condition 44. Compliance with the 55 dbA requirement is achievable through the installation of available equipment and positioning an adequate distance from the property line. Refer to Response to Comment Fink-153.

Comment Fink-225DD

The restrictions of Existing Conditions 45-52 must remain and should be enforced by the City. As stated above and in much greater detail in the VTT Appeal Letter, we are strongly opposed to the annexation of the West Wing space by the SWC and its Museum of Tolerance.



Response to Comment Fink-225DD

As discussed in the Draft EIR, the so-called West Wing is no longer part of the premises leased to the applicant. Therefore former conditions 45–52 are no longer relevant.

Comment Fink-225EE

The landscape buffer required in Existing Condition 53.d. must be retained.

Response to Comment Fink-225EE

As indicated in existing condition 53.d, such landscape buffer requirement was eliminated as part of the 1999 CUP. However, the applicant proposes a 20 foot landscape buffer along the south and east property lines.

Comment Fink-225FF

The restriction of Proposed Condition 40.d., limiting construction activities to weekdays (M – F only) must be enforced. The hours are too long, however, and construction hours must be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., not 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. We note that this Condition appears to specify different hours from the construction hours mentioned in Mitigation Measure E-1. The more restrictive days and hours must apply and be enforced.

Response to Comment Fink-225FF

With regard to comments related to mitigation measures and conditions pertaining to construction hours, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-49.

Comment Fink-225GG

Existing Condition 53.f prohibiting outdoor recreation activities after 6:30 p.m. must be modified. No outdoor recreation activities, or outdoor activities of any kind, shall be permitted, except for the three Special Events, which shall be subject to the restrictions described above. The rationale for construction of the gymnasium was to bring these noisy activities indoors, to eliminate disruption to the neighborhood.

Response to Comment Fink-225GG


Comment Fink-225HH

Existing Condition 53.j must be maintained. Both the cul de sac and southbound lane closure on Roxbury Drive must be implemented and enforced before any construction is undertaken (subject, however, to the Planning Department’s written receipt of confirmation from the LAFD that the cul de sac will not impede



emergency vehicle access to homes south of the cul de sac, in any way. The comments of Associate Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green on Page 35 of the 1999 CUP are incorporated herein by reference.

Response to Comment Fink-225HH

The applicant proposes to implement the cul-de-sac improvement on Castello before undertaking construction (see proposed Condition 60). The applicant proposes to eliminate the Roxbury Drive lane closure because it is not necessary to mitigate potential impacts and because neighborhood residents have indicated that the neighborhood does not desire such changes to Roxbury. Refer to Response to Comment Fink-4.

Comment Fink-225II

Existing Condition 74 must be retained (but modified only to delete the words “new temporary” in line 14 and to insert the word “to” after the word “relate” in line 14).

Response to Comment Fink-225II

Proposed Condition 74 will retain a Plan Approval requirement. The commenter’s suggestions will be included for the consideration of decision-makers as part of the Final EIR.

Comment Fink-225JJ

Existing Condition 76, requiring the closure of the southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive, must be retained. The impacts of this required closure must be studied and reported in the revised and recirculated DEIR.

Response to Comment Fink-225JJ

See Response to Comment Fink-225HH.

Comment Fink-225KK

The requirements of Existing Condition 77 must be retained.

Response to Comment Fink-225KK

The Condition 77 from the 1999 CUP has been replaced with the new monitoring Condition 61.

Comment Fink-225LL

With regard to Proposed Condition 64, there should (if allowed by Code) be no more than one emergency exit south of the traffic diverter. The revised and recirculated DEIR must contain graphics that show what the Castello and Pico façades of the YULA facilities will look like (just as the Museum’s DEIR included graphics showing its Pico and Roxbury facades). We cannot comment on the Applicant’s proposal to



modify Existing Condition 80, without knowing anything about the appearance of the Castello façade. In any event, the language in Existing Condition 80, requiring input from the Council office and community prior to any sign-off of elevation and landscape plans, must be retained.

Response to Comment Fink-225LL

The applicant’s proposed design calls for no entrances or exits south of the cul-de-sac other than emergency exits. Buildings will also be separated from Castello Avenue and the southern property line by a 20 foot landscaped setback.

Comment Fink-225MM

The requirements of Existing Condition 81 governing use of the gymnasium by YULA Girls High School students must be retained in toto. Use by YULA Girls High School for school plays and athletic and school play practices must be prohibited.

Note: this, as well as other modifications requested by the Applicant regarding use of the YULA facilities by the YULA Girls High School, in effect DOUBLES the usage of, and the impacts of, the YULA facilities from what was intended under the 1999 CUP. The community would basically be forced to contend with TWO schools, which currently have a combined enrollment of approximately 400 students, rather than just the ONE, boys’ high school. This is a huge difference, and it is not fair or appropriate. It completely undermines the basic premise of the 1999 CUP, which was that the facility would be primarily for the use of the BOYS school, with only extremely limited and ancillary use by students of other schools (including the GIRLS school) or for any other purposes. This was because YULA is adjacent to a quiet residential neighborhood. We REPEAT Existing Condition 3: “THE AUTHORIZED USE SHALL BE CONDUCTED AT ALL TIMES WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING DISTRICT.” The modifications proposed by the Applicant evidence a complete LACK OF REGARD for the character of the surrounding district. The modifications are simply motivated by self-interest and greed. While we are all in favor of equal opportunities for the girls, the girls’ high school needs to find those opportunities elsewhere.

Response to Comment Fink-225MM


Comment Fink-225NN

The 85 parking spaces contemplated in the 1999 CUP, while increased by a de minimus 15 spaces, so as to provide 100 spaces (which we believe to be woefully inadequate for the uses being proposed by the Applicant), is not proportionate to the increase in usage of the YULA facilities that opening up such facilities to much greater use by the girls’ school will entail. (In other words, the Applicant is proposing to add 17.64% more parking spaces, but it is also proposing to hold JOINT events of the boys’ and girls schools, plus an additional 300 people, for a total of 1,000 or more people. One does not have to be a



credentialed traffic engineer to realize that 100 parking spaces cannot possibly be adequate for the proposed new uses, not contemplated in the 1999 CUP.

Response to Comment Fink-225NN

It is anticipated that the 100 parking spaces will meet the needs of high school and regularly scheduled evening operations at YULA Boys High School. Proposed Conditions 21 and 23 will ensure that off-street parking will be available for Special Events (where parking needs are anticipated to exceed 100 on-site parking spaces). Refer to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-225OO

Existing Condition 82/Proposed Condition 66, must be clarified to specify an EXACT NUMBER of occupants for the gymnasium. The Proposed Condition in theory could allow 350 YULA BHS students, an unspecified number (perhaps equally large) of YULA Girls High School students and 300 other occupants, for a total of 1,000 or more occupants! There is insufficient parking to handle this number of occupants. The existing restriction prohibiting use by students from other schools must be maintained, for the reasons previously documented.

Response to Comment Fink-225OO

Proposed Condition 66 limits gymnasium occupancy to 300 persons, excluding YULA Boys and Girls High School students under the age of 18. This reflects a maximum anticipated 300 persons for gymnasium events. Students under 18 are expected to be participants in such events and anticipated to traveling to and from the school with audience members, such as their parents. Therefore on-site parking or Special Event off-street parking is anticipated to be adequate to meet parking needs. Refer to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-225PP

The YULA BHS limit of 250 students in Existing Condition 85 must be retained, for the reasons previously documented.

Response to Comment Fink-225PP

The commenter’s views regarding the applicant’s requested enrollment modifications will be presented to the decision-maker as part of the Final EIR. With regard to comments related to enrollment, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Fink-225QQ

Existing Condition 86 should be retained essentially “as is.” There must be NO parking, loading or unloading of buses on Castello Avenue, either south OR north of the traffic diverter, for the reasons discussed above. This area is simply TOO CLOSE to peoples’ homes. The Applicant must find, and



must designate in the revised and recirculated DEIR, some other location for bus parking and loading/unloading. In addition, it must be made clear that such designated location is only for buses transporting YULA Boys High School, YULA Girls High School, and buses transporting students who are participating in athletic events with either, to the extent expressly permitted by the Conditions. NO portion of Castello Avenue, whether north or south of the diverter, shall under any circumstances be used for buses transporting visitors to the Museum. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT A BUS DEPOT!!

Response to Comment Fink-225QQ

See Response to Comment Fink-225Z.

Comment Fink-225RR

The signage described above, to prevent drop off and pick up along Alcott Street and Castello Avenue, must be specifically included in Existing Condition 87 / Proposed Condition 70.

Response to Comment Fink-225RR


Comment Fink-225SS

Comments on the Applicant’s Initial Study, which were made in a letter dated June 9, 2008, are included herein by reference. The many questions and concerns raised in this previous letter have not been adequately addressed in this DEIR. We specifically note that in its Initial Study the Applicant stated that its project would incorporate all previous mitigation measures of relevance to the Project, yet it now proposes to abrogate almost all of these protections afforded its neighbors by the existing 1999 CUP. We also note that the proposed project is approximately 2,000 square feet larger than that specified in the Initial Study. The differences between the project proposed in the Initial Study and that described in this DEIR must be explained in the revised and recirculated DEIR.

Response to Comment Fink-225SS

NOP comment letters are not comments on the Draft EIR, and responses to these comments in the Final EIR are not required under CEQA. The purpose of NOP comments is to help establish the scope of analysis in the Draft EIR and to identify potential environmental impacts and ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts of the proposed project through mitigation and/or alternatives. The NOP comments were taken into consideration in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Similarly, the Initial Study prepared by the City is a precursor to the Draft EIR. The project described and evaluated in the Draft EIR represents the project applicant’s proposal to the City. The commenter’s views regarding the 1999 CUP conditions will be presented to the decision-maker as part of the Final EIR. The applicant believes the revised conditions it has proposed adequately mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the high



school’s various operations, while allowing reasonable flexibility for operations and simplifying such conditions for compliance purposes. See also Response to Comment Fink-225E.

Comment Fink-226

APPENDIX F: CORRESPONDENCE WITH PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY AGENCIES

We note with great concern the final bit of correspondence in this section, which is a 6-line e-mail from Michael Theule, Fire Inspector II, LAFD. He writes that he has “reviewed the NOP for this project . . . .” The NOP, however, makes NO mention of the Castello Avenue cul de sac or the (required but not mentioned in the DEIR) partial closure of Roxbury Drive. This appears to be the ONLY material provided by the LAFD in connection with the proposed project.

Accordingly, as stated above, the revised and recirculated DEIR MUST include a statement from the LAFD confirming that the proposed traffic diverter on Castello and the (required) partial closure of Roxbury Drive will not impede emergency vehicle access and response times, in any way whatsoever, to homes in the area to the south of the YULA campus.


With regard to comments related to emergency access, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-187.

Comment Fink-227

APPENDIX G: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

We fully acknowledge that we are not experts in this area and, unfortunately, we lack the financial resources to hire such experts to review this report. However, it appears that there is NO analysis of the impacts of buses and large passenger vans idling, parking, loading and unloading passengers on Castello Avenue, both north and south of the traffic diverter, in close proximity to people’s homes, as appears to be the situation being proposed by the Applicant.


As discussed in Section IV.C, Air Quality, diesel particulate emissions, a known toxic air contaminant, would occur from trucks picking up garbage and recyclable materials, making deliveries to the project site and buses transporting students to the site from other high schools for sporting events, etc. No daily bus service is proposed for YULA high school student transport to and from school. To address diesel particulate emissions, statewide programs and regulations are presently being developed and implemented by the ARB and U.S. EPA to reduce the risks of exposure to diesel exhaust. These programs include emission control requirements along with subsidies for upgrading older diesel engines to low-emissions models.



The evaluation provided in the Draft EIR examined the incremental increase to risk of exposure to diesel exhaust. The project site is currently served by delivery and trash trucks. As discussed earlier, the 1999 CUP authorizes expansion of the project site and activities, and the methodology in this air quality analysis therefore overstate the operational air quality impacts of approving the modifications proposed by the Applicant. Nevertheless, based on the modifications proposed by the Applicant, the number of trucks and buses from the site would not significantly increase. Therefore, the effects of the toxic emissions from future vehicle operations at the project site are not expected to be substantial. This would be a less-than-significant impact regarding the exposure sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Comment Fink-228

APPENDIX H: NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

We note that Appendix H addresses only traffic noise. However, since the Applicant is proposing to have outdoor events at the YULA facilities, which (as currently proposed) would be virtually unlimited in both nature and in size, the revised and recirculated DEIR must include specific details of the precise nature of all outdoor events that could be held at the YULA facilities, and must also specify the maximum number of people that would be allowed at each such type of event. Based on such information, the revised and recirculated DEIR must include a noise impact analysis for each such outdoor event. Further, this analysis must take into account that many events related to Orthodox Judaism involve people singing at the top of their lungs and a lot of hand-clapping.

We again reiterate that outdoor activities and events have been a frequent and serious problem, and we URGE the Planning Department to prohibit ALL outdoor activities except for (a) the three very limited Special Events as described above, (b) outdoor dining by students and faculty during a specified lunch period only, and (c) quiet individual outdoor study and meditation.


When Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Amplified sound in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 12. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.



Comment Fink-229

APPENDIX I: TRAFFIC REPORT

Turning to the Applicant’s Traffic Study, we note that on Page ii, the “complete build out” mentioned is really 52,153 square feet of space, because the Applicant is ceding (or YOLA is retaining - - but “same difference” in practical effect) 7,153 square feet of West Wing space to YOLA and/or the Museum of Tolerance. We again note that the Applicant’s proposed modifications with respect to the number and nature of events, the extended evening hours and extended use by YULA Girls High School students, and the extended use of the facilities for orthodox religious services are radical changes from the 1999 CUP and would lead to serious unmitigated impacts on the environment and on the Applicant’s neighbors - - even without considering the cumulative impacts of the proposed Museum expansion!! The combined impacts of the expansion projects are tantamount to a declaration of all-out war on the neighborhood! The situation is truly frightening, and the residents are devastated at the prospect of what will happen to their lives if these projects are allowed to proceed.


With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28. Traffic impacts were determined to be less than significant and took into account cumulative development, including the Museum of Tolerance project (Related Project No. 53).

Comment Fink-230

Traffic from YULA students leaving for and returning from lunch must be included in an analysis in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


Food services will be provided as part of the project in accordance with proposed Condition 11, and it is speculative to assert that students would need to, or be able to, drive to eat lunch. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 11 to limit off-campus eating privileges to 11th and 12th graders. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-231

The on-site parking mentioned on Page iii is inadequate. All parking requirements of LAMC 12.24 and other relevant Code sections must be enforced.




With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Fink-232

On Page iv, we again demand that the Applicant explain, and provide all relevant documents pertaining to, the fact that it does not have possession of the West Wing. The number of trips generated needs to be better described. Is this the number of total trips, or just the number of additional trips generated by the proposed Project in addition to current trips for the existing YULA BHS operation including JSI and other activities? The TOTAL number of trips needs to be clearly specified by the Applicant in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


The number of project trips are a direct result of implementation of the proposed project and do not take into account existing project trips, consistent with LADOT methodology. The traffic analysis in the Draft EIR was reviewed and approved by the City’s expert in transportation, the LADOT. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-233

We again emphasize the need for the Applicant to study “cut through” traffic, especially on Roxbury Drive, Cashio Street, and Beverwil Drive. For example, Cashio Street runs parallel to gridlocked Pico Boulevard, and carries AM Peak Period traffic westbound from La Cienega Blvd. and from Robertson Blvd. to Roxbury Drive, and PM Peak Period traffic eastbound to these boulevards, in virtually a continuous stream of traffic during the peak commute hours. This cut through traffic has NOT been adequately studied.


As noted in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, a neighborhood traffic impact analysis was conducted for the project. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no further analysis is required.

Comment Fink-234

We also emphasize the importance of studying the impact of the Olympic West-Pico East Initiative, the Initial Study of which was just released in March 2009, on traffic for the proposed Project. These impacts have not been included in the Applicant’s traffic studies and must be analyzed.




With regard to comments related to the Olympic West-Pico East Initiative, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-176.

Comment Fink-235

We also emphasize the requirement of the Applicant’s 1999 CUP for the closure of southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive, as detailed earlier. The impacts of this road closure were not studied in the Museum’s DEIR, FEIR, or Revised FEIR, nor are they studied in the Applicant’s DEIR. These must be studied to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law.



Comment Fink-236

We also emphasize the need to better study the impact of the cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue on traffic patterns, specifically traffic (which we refer to as “race track traffic” due to the excessive and dangerous speeds typically driven by the YULA students) on Alcott Street east of and Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac. Signs needed to prevent such race-track traffic have been described earlier. We also note that Condition 85 of the Applicant’s or YOLA’s existing 1999 CUP specifies that both vehicular and pedestrian access to the Applicant’s facilities shall be from the north, i.e. from Pico Blvd. and from Castello Avenue north of the cul-de-sac. The pedestrian traffic, and perhaps a fence with a gate, with neighborhood residents to be provided with a key to the gate or a combination to a lock, need to be addressed somewhere in the revised and recirculated DEIR. This fence needs to be drawn on Figure 3, Conceptual Project Site Plan.


With regard to comments related to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59.

Comment Fink-237

On Page 11, we note that Beverwil Drive recently was “improved” and restricted to only one traffic lane southbound from north of Pico Blvd. all the way south to Castle Heights Avenue. This has severely impacted traffic at the intersection of Pico Blvd. and Beverwil Drive, on both Pico in both directions and on Beverwil in both directions. The impacts of these “improvements” must be studied and reported in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




With regard to comments related to the improvements at Beverwil Drive, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-164.

Comment Fink-238

On Page 12, we again note that we have not observed any YULA BHS students arriving by public transportation. A few have been observed waiting for the bus on Pico at Roxbury in the afternoon and evening, perhaps after extracurricular activities. The Applicant must provide documentation of how many students, faculty, staff, and visitors arrive by public transportation, in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to public transit, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-166.

Comment Fink-239

The Critical Movement Analysis in Table 3 on Page 20 must be re-done to describe accurately existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Pico Blvd. and Beverwil Drive subsequent to the construction of the medians and re-striping of traffic lanes, restricting southbound traffic to one lane only on Beverwil. This has also impacted traffic at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Beverwil Drive, which must also be studied.


With regard to comments related to the improvements at Beverwil Drive, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-164.

Comment Fink-240

The “Project Trip Generation Rates and Equations” in Table 4 on Page 22 are flawed. My personal observation shows that most cars dropping students off only have one student passenger. A few have two students, and very few have more. The ratio of inbound and outbound trips at the yeshiva is different from that specified in this Table. My December 18, 2008 traffic study is incorporated herein by reference. The Applicant has not generated any “extensive transit use.” I personally observed fewer than 10 students walking or riding bicycles to school.




With regard to comments related to project trips, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-60. With regard to comments related to public transit, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-166.

Comment Fink-241

The Applicant must provide a map showing where its students live, demonstrating that it is infeasible for them to walk or ride a bicycle or take public transportation, and that the only feasible means of the students getting to the Applicant’s facility is by private car.


With regard to comments related to public transit, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-166.

Comment Fink-242

The number of trips shown in Table 5 does not make sense. Unless people are spending the night at the yeshiva, the total number of inbound and outbound trips must be the same by the end of the day. The total number of trips per student, 1.71, as specified in Appendix C (Page C-1) of the Traffic Study, must be used to calculate trip generation and parking needs.


With regard to comments related to project trips, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-60. With regard to the distinction between inbound and outbound trips, the trip generation table distinguishes between inbound and outbound trips only for the AM and PM peak hours, not for total daily trips. Typical travel patterns at the school would not result in identical inbound and outbound trips during a peak hour. For example, some inbound cars might arrive during the AM peak hour but depart during an off-peak hour, and vice versa. See also Master Response 3, Parking.

Comment Fink-243

We again note that it is inappropriate for a synagogue to operate on the YULA BHS campus other than to provide for the religious education of its students. The discussion of the multiple synagogues nearby, including every variety of orthodox Jewish synagogue, is incorporated herein by reference. If a synagogue serving the community is allowed, it must meet ALL requirements of LAMC governing churches, including parking, since even orthodox Jews are only prohibited from driving on the Sabbath and on certain major religious holidays. Concerns about Monday and Thursday bar mitzvahs are again expressed.




With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 9 to eliminate weddings and to restrict Bar and Bat Mitzvahs to Saturdays when attendees walk to the synagogue.

Comment Fink-244

Trips of YULA BHS students leaving and returning from lunch must be specified if the students are allowed to leave campus for lunch. These must be included in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


Food services will be provided as part of the project in accordance with proposed Condition 11, and it is speculative to assert that students would need to, or be able to, drive to eat lunch. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 11 to limit off-campus eating privileges to 11th and 12th graders. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-245

In commenting on Table 6 (Page 24) we again note the requirement of Condition 86 of the 1999 CUP that ALL entrance and egress be from Pico Blvd. and from Castello Avenue north of the cul-de-sac.


With regards to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59.

Comment Fink-246

The parking spaces provided are inadequate to meet the needs of the yeshiva at its current student level. The full parking requirements of LAMC 12.24 must be met. It is imperative that sufficient parking be provided for whatever number of occupants are specified for the gymnasium. A specific number, as noted previously, must be provided. Even the 265 spaces required by LAMC (Page 30) are insufficient for 300 occupants of the gym, plus 200 or 250 or 350 YULA BHS students (depending on which enrollment is ultimately allowed) plus an unspecified number of YULA Girls High School students (estimated 200-350) which would total as high as 1,100 occupants! Sufficient parking must be provided to meet the demand.

We know that the Parking Demand Estimate in Table 7 is inaccurate. Yeshiva students and visitors already park on our neighborhood streets, especially Castello Avenue and Alcott Street and also Saturn



Street, even with the Phase I operations and a YULA BHS enrollment of 186 - - and notwithstanding the 2-hour parking restrictions - - the students simply make arrangements to move their cars every 2 hours, and enforcement is very lax in any event. A more accurate parking demand study must be included in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation (Mitigation Measure II-12 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter) to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. See also Master Response 3 (Parking).

Comment Fink-247

The off-site parking location (Page 29) must be specified, and a description of how visitors would get from this location to the yeshiva must be specified. The impacts of the Olympic West-Pico East Traffic Initiative must be studied in any description of this travel.


Various off-street parking facilities are available in the vicinity of the project. The applicant has used the large parking lot located at 9740 Pico Boulevard, which is one block from the campus, in the past. With regard to comments related to Olympic West-Pico East Traffic Initiative, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-176.

Comment Fink-248

The Neighborhood On-Street Parking Analysis on Page 31 must be repeated at other hours. We suggest 9 a.m.-10 a.m. and 5 p.m.-6 p.m. These are the hours when we have observed yeshiva visitors parking on our streets. We again emphasize that this is a quiet residential neighborhood and the only people parking on our streets are residents and occasional visitors and service or delivery vehicles.


Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. The parking occupancy counts were conducted at those times with the highest parking demand, rather than during the peak traffic hours of 9:00 – 10:00 AM and 5:00 – 6:00 PM which are cited by the



commenter. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Fink-249

The discussion of Future Traffic Conditions is speculation. Traffic is already at gridlock on Olympic and Pico Blvds. most times of the day. The impacts of the Olympic West- Pico East Traffic Initiative must be considered.


With regard to comments related to Olympic West-Pico East Traffic Initiative, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-176.

Comment Fink-250

As noted previously, “cut-through” traffic especially westbound on Cashio Street from La Cienega and Robertson to Roxbury in the AM Peak period and eastbound during the PM Peak traffic period; northbound on Roxbury in the AM Peak period and southbound during the PM Peak period; and northbound on Beverwil during the AM peak period and southbound during the PM Peak period, must be studied.


As noted in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, a neighborhood traffic impact analysis was conducted for the project. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no further analysis is required.

Comment Fink-251

The impacts of the “neighborhood improvement at the intersection of Pico Boulevard/Beverwil Drive” discussed at the bottom of Page 44 must be studied. The deleterious impacts of this so-called “improvement” have already been described.


With regard to comments related to the Beverwil improvements, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-164.

Comment Fink-252

The numbers in Table 13 Residential Street Impact Analysis do not make sense based on data provided elsewhere in this traffic study. Table 5 shows a Project Trip Generation of 257 Net Project Trips. Table 6 estimates that 30% of these trips would be on Castello Avenue (i.e., from the north and from the south.)



Thirty percent of 257 is 77 daily trips, but Table 13 only estimates 26 trips from the Project. This study must be redone to reconcile these inconsistencies.


Table 6 in the Traffic Study does not indicate that 30 percent of trips would be on Castello Avenue, but 30 percent of trips would arrive from various points north and south.

Comment Fink-253

Due to the time constraints imposed by the public comment deadline (which comes on the heels of the Passover holiday, and on the very same day as our appeal in the VTT Case is due!), we are unable to analyze the Traffic Study further at this time. Accordingly, we reserve the right to make additional comments should more flaws, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies be found in the Applicant’s Traffic Study, and with respect to any other matters not covered in this comment letter.


The Draft EIR was circulated for public review during a 45-day review period that began on February 26, 2009 and ended on April 13, 2009 in compliance with CEQA and City of Los Angeles requirements, and the Recirculated Traffic Chapter was circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. The public has the opportunity to provide additional comments at future public hearings pertaining to the project.

Comment Fink-254

We have clearly documented the many serious flaws, errors, inaccuracies, and outright lies in the Applicant’s DEIR. These must be all be addressed and corrected in the revised and recirculated DEIR so that you, on behalf of the lead agency, and the public can make an informed assessment of the proposed project.



Comment Fink-255

We emphasize that the proposed project is not just for a school expansion but is for a dramatically expanded school and community synagogue, well beyond anything approved in 1999, with much broader uses and much more deleterious environmental impacts on its neighbors, and on land currently zoned for residential use.





Comment Fink-256

We reiterate that the revised and recirculated DEIR must include plans, graphics and visual simulations showing the following: (1) the Pico and Castello facades of the proposed YULA facilities; (2) the size (height and mass) of the proposed structures relative to the adjacent single family home at 1429 Castello Avenue, drawn to accurate scale, including the proposed de minimus 20 foot setback; (3) the proposed YULA expansion project AND the proposed Museum expansion project, on the same graphic image or set of plans, in the same visual simulation, side by side, and from the east, west, north and south, in such a manner that the Lead Agency and the public can readily see what all of the buildings will look like upon completion of construction. (Ideally, as has been repeatedly requested in regard to the Museum project, a three-dimensional model will be provided by the Museum and the Applicant showing both projects in relation to their neighbors, with this model to be available for public inspection in the lobby of one of these two adjoining and interconnected institutions! )WHY have these items, which are so obviously necessary, not been provided??


With regard to comments related to aesthetics, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-16. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Fink-257

The failure in both this DEIR and in the Museum’s DEIR, FEIR and Revised FEIR, to evaluate, or to provide a proper and comprehensive analysis of, the cumulative impacts of the Museum’s proposed expansion and YULA’s proposed expansion is simply mind-boggling. We urge that the Planning Department exercise its independent judgment in the preparation of this DEIR. If it does so, there can be no “feasible alternative” (pun intended) but to reject the proposed YULA project and send it back to the drawing boards.


With regard to comments related to cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Fink-258

Thank you in advance for your close attention to and careful consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions.





Comment Fink-259

ATTACHEMENT TO COMMENTS ON YULA BOYS HIGH SCHOOL EXPANSION PROJECT

CASE NO. ENV-2008-1799-EIR

FROM: H.O.M.E., submitted by Daniel J. Fink, M.D ., April 13, 2009

TRAFFIC STUDY YULA BOYS HIGH SCHOOL 9760 West Pico Blvd

DATE OF STUDY: Thursday, December 18, 2008

Methodology: I parked on Castello Avenue just south of Alcott Street, on the side of the house at 9750 Alcott, from 0700 until 0745. Cars were counted as they stopped on Castello to drop off students, or entered the parking lot. I attempted to count cars that parked and did not enter but this count may not be accurate. Pedestrians and bicycle riders were also counted.

I also noted whether the car entered Castello from the north (i.e., from Pico Blvd.) or from the south (i.e., Cashio). I was not able to document if the cars had come from the east or west. Several cars entered Castello from the alley north of Alcott and south of the former restaurant, and one or two came down Alcott.

The parking gate was closed and was opened and closed for one car a 0702. It was then opened for the day at 0706.

Peak traffic was between 0715 and 0730 (I think the religious service before school starts at 0730. I will try to check this.) when 82 cars were counted.

The YULA bus entered the lot at 0715, carrying 8-10 students. At approximately 0720 it backed up to park, emitting a loud warning noise.

There were 115 total cars. 58 cars entered from the north, 57 from the south. Of these, 2 came to Castello via the alley, and one on Alcott. Approximately 16 cars did not enter the alley, but just dropped off the student at various locations on Castello. Most cars only carried one student, a few carried 2 students. I was unable to record this in any detail.

There were 9 students who walked (pedestrians) and 4 who arrived on bicycle.

Approximately 10 cars parked. These mainly appeared to be faculty.



Counting arriving and leaving the YULA campus each way as a trip, the total trips generated was 210 during this time period.


This comment presents anecdotal information concerning the current operation of the YULA Boys School and existing traffic patterns observed by the commenter on a morning in December 2008. The commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-60 and -Fink-169. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



COMMENT LETTER FINK-2

Daniel J. Fink 9736 Saturn Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Fink 2-1

I apologize for the format of this email but I want to send it exactly as I received it, and this is the only thing I can get my computer to do.

please investigate this outrageous violation of the YULA Boys High School Conditional Use Permit and issue a Notice of Violation immediately.

please contact Ms. Stern or me if you have any questions.

thank you in advance for enforcing the law

p.s. WHAT MORE DOCUMENTATION DO YOU NEED OF A VIOLATION THAN THIS EMAIL??? PLEASE LET US KNOW AND WE WILL PROVIDE IT !!!!!

Response to Comment Fink 2-1

Issues involving alleged illegal activities occurring on the property should be taken up with the enforcement agency, the Department of Building and Safety, and do not affect the environmental impact assessment of the proposed project as no compliance orders are in effect. With regard to comments related to a Kosher catering business being operated on the project site, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-122.



6. COMMENT LETTER GANS

Susan Gans, Co-Chair Homeowners Opposed to Museum Expansion P.O. Box 35402 Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Gans-1

Since we won’t have time to meet before April 13th, as I had explained in my email yesterday, can you please provide both us and the City Planning Department (“Lead Agency”) with a copy of the architectural plans, as well as the exterior renderings (showing what the exterior elevations will actually look like, as viewed from each direction)? One Copy would be sufficient by two or three copies would be great.

In particular it imperative that the Draft EIR include 3-D graphics of “Existing and Proposed Views” comparable to those contained in the DEIR of the MOT expansion as Figures IV. B-9, and particularly IV. B-9 (the Visual Simulation”).

Since the Yazdani Studio ( architect for the MOT expansion project) is also the architect for the YULA BHS expansion, and the Yandanzi provided such graphics for the MOT DEIR, I’m sure that these items are already available or, if not can be prepared quite easily. In addition, in order for the Lead Agency to have the information that is essential in order for to evaluate the cumulative visual impacts ( including without limitation the massing) of this project and the adjacent and fully integrated and connected MOT expansion project, please provide us and the Planning Department with the 3-D graphics and visual simulations, which show both the YULA BHS project and the MOT project in a single image (depicted in correct, accurate scale and proportion relative to other structures in the image, including all adjacent residential properties) as viewed from all possible directions, but especially from the homes to the south, east and west of these two projects. As set forth above, in order for the Lead Agency to properly evaluate and for the public to have an opportunity to fully understand and comment on, this project and its impacts, this additional information should be included in a revised and recirculated DEIR.

Response to Comment Gans-1

The commenter asserts that the architect for the modified improvement plans proposed for YULA Boys High School is Yazdani Design Studios. However, this is not correct. The architect for the modified improvement plans for YULA Boys High School is Gruen Associates.

The commenter requests the provision of 3-D graphics and visual simulations. The provision of 3-D graphics and visual simulations are not required by CEQA to analyze visual impacts of a project. The commenter is referred to Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for Figures II-4 through II-7 that illustrate the proposed project. These figures include project sections and elevations as well as a site plan, which illustrate the improvement plans currently approved by the City of Los Angeles pursuant to



the 1999 CUP for YULA Boys High School, as well the modified improvement plans proposed by the applicant for the City’s approval.

The Draft EIR adequately analyzes the potential visual impacts of approving the modified improvement plans for YULA Boys High School, and contains an extensive discussion of the Museum of Tolerance both as an existing adjacent facility and as Related Project No. 53 (addressing the Museum’s expansion plans) in Section IV.B, Aesthetics. The Draft EIR’s analysis indicates that the difference between the improvement plans approved under the 1999 CUP and the modified project plans proposed by the Applicant would not result in significant new aesthetic impacts. The Draft EIR discloses that the Draft EIR prepared for Related Project No. 53 concluded that significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to visual character would occur as a result of implementation both the proposed project and of Related Project No. 53. Given the proximity of Related Project No. 53, the Draft EIR for YULA Boys High School conservatively concluded that despite the less than significant aesthetic impacts of the modified improvement plans proposed for YULA Boys High School, implementation of Related Project No. 53 with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character.




COMMENT GANS-2

Susan Gans, Co-Chair Homeowners Opposed to Museum Expansion P.O. Box 35402 Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Gans 2-1

This letter sets forth our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the YULA Boys High School ("YULA” or "Applicant" herein) proposed expansion project (the "Project"). In addition, insofar as certain of these comments also pertain to the above-referenced Museum of Tolerance ("Museum" or "MOT") expansion project and related cases, and since the administrative record for each of these related cases is still open pending appeal to and a decision by the Los Angeles City Council, please include a copy of this letter in the files for each of the other above-referenced cases, so that it will be included in the record for all of these related cases as well.

Response to Comment Gans 2-1


Comment Gans 2-2

Please note that Daniel Fink is also submitting comments on behalf of H.O.M.E., in a separate letter. It was impossible to consolidate our comments in a single letter, due to the horrific time constraints intentionally imposed on us by YULA and the MOT, in simultaneously having to prepare for the March 26th City Planning Commission on the Museum of Tolerance expansion while reviewing the Applicant's several hundred page DEIR and writing our extensive comments, the deadline for which (also probably intentionally) falls in the middle of the busy Passover holidays - - and all while dealing with the heavy demands of our regular full-time jobs. There will undoubtedly be much overlap between Dr. Fink's comments and mine, but no doubt each of us has raised issues that the other failed to notice in our haste to respond by April 13th . Thus, both sets of comments must be reviewed carefully. In the event that there are any inconsistencies between the comments contained in Dr. Fink's letter and the comments contained herein, the comments that are more conservative (i.e., more protective of the residential neighbors of the Applicant) shall govern.


The Draft EIR was circulated for public review during a 45-day review period that began on February 26, 2009 and ended on April 13, 2009 in compliance with CEQA and City of Los Angeles requirements and the Recirculated Traffic Chapter was circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. The public has the opportunity to provide additional



comments at future public hearings pertaining to the project. This comment includes statements regarding the commenter’s review of the Draft EIR and refers to a comment letter prepared by a separate commenter, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-3

1. Unlawful Segmentation of a Single Project.

As a threshold matter, we reiterate and hereby incorporate by reference all of the comments submitted by HOME and by Chatten-Brown & Carstens, counsel for HOME, to the City Planning Department (the "Department") with respect to the proposed expansion of the adjoining Museum in Case Nos. ENV-2007-2476-EIR and CPC 2007-2622-GPA-ZC-HD-ZADSPR- PUB-PA1, and the proposed airspace subdivision in Case No. VTT-16644, with respect to the fact that the YULA and MOT expansions are a single project and should be reviewed and evaluated in a single environmental impact report. YULA's DEIR makes this even more abundantly clear.

As a result of the unlawful "piecemealing" and segmentation of this project into two EIRs, the Lead Agency has failed to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the YULA and MOT expansions adequately, as more fully explained below. Moreover, the Simon Wiesenthal Center ("SWC") and YULA have, by means of such segmentation, manipulated and subverted the EIR process in bad faith, and have conspired to contrive a rationale for YULA to claim an "entitlement" to build almost TWICE the amount of new space than was permitted under the Conditional Use Permit issued in 1999 under Case No. ZA-1999-279-CU-ZV-PA1 (the "1999 CUP") - - a "rationale" that is completely asinine and unsupportable.


With regard to comments related to piecemealing and segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Gans 2-4

The fact that YULA and the SWC are now technically separate entities, with different management, is completely irrelevant to the issue of segmentation. The only relevant factor is how the entire property will be utilized and the degree of inter-relationship of the expanded facilities. Further, it is readily apparent to everyone in the Jewish community that while YULA and the SWC may be technically distinct entities, the truth is that one person, Marvin Hier, "calls all the shots" and is the mastermind behind both expansion projects. Marvin Hier is ably assisted by a small army of very clever lawyer/lobbyists and public relations consultants and, we suspect, by real estate developer Alan Casden, a long-time member of the SWC's Board of Trustees, who made headlines several years ago when several



key executives of his company were indicted for illegal campaign contributions to (none other than) the Councilman representing the district in which the MOT is located -- Jack Weiss. (For some historical perspective, Alan Casden was the project manager when the MOT was conceived, and he was furious about several of the conditions that the City imposed on the MOT to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood).


With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Gans 2-5

YULA has no reason to have a huge new synagogue on its premises, and the community has absolutely no need for yet another Orthodox Jewish synagogue in an area that is already saturated with Orthodox Jewish synagogues (with one, the very well-established Congregation Mogen David, less than a block away). This is entirely about providing the MOT's proposed new "cultural center", "cultural resource center" and "multi-purpose areas" (collectively referred to herein as the "MOT Party Palace") with a ready client base - - "one stop shopping".


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. YULA Boys High School desires to maximize use of the site for the modern orthodox Judaic high school, increasing the permitted enrollment of the boys’ high school, while reducing but continuing permitted adult education programs. The comment provides no substantial evidence for its claim that the project’s purpose is to provide the MOT with “one stop shopping.” This comment expresses the opinion that the Jewish community is well served by existing facilities, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-6

The factors evidencing such unlawful piecemealing include, but are not limited to, the following:


This comment introduces a list of concerns the commentor has. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Gans 2-7

(a) Common Management: The YULA DEIR (Page I-1) confirms that until July of 2008 (i.e., well after the SWC initiated the EIR process with the Notice of Preparation in March of 2008), the properties were under common management. There was (and still is) considerable overlap between the management and members of the Boards of Trustees of the Yeshiva of Los Angeles ("YOLA"), which operated the Yeshiva before YULA took over in July 2008, and of the SWC, as evidenced in their respective IRS Form 990's. Copies of Part V-A of the 2007 Form 990's (for the fiscal year ending 2006 and the most recent records that are publicly available), which list the current officers, directors, trustees and key employees (collectively, "Key Persons") of YOLA and the SWC, are attached hereto as Exhibit "A". These show that in 2006/2007, when the SWC was already working on its expansion plans (see section 1(e) below), FIVE of the SEVEN Key Persons at YOLA (i.e., Marvin Hier, Susan Burden, Stuart Isen, William Belzberg and Judah Hertz) were also Key Persons at the SWC, including its CEO and Treasurer/CFO. Thus, the management of the SWC, the applicant in the Museum CEQA Case, is virtually identical to the management of YOLA, the owner, and groundlessor to YULA, of the property on which the YULA facilities are located, and also the applicant in the VTT Case!!

In addition, YOLA's 2007 Form 990 acknowledges in Part VI, in item 80a, that YOLA is "related through common membership, government bodies, trustees, officers, etc." to the Simon Wiesenthal Center Inc.

And finally, we note that the list of officers, trustees and key employees of the SWC includes Jack Nagel as a member of the Board of Trustees (see page A-5 of Exhibit "A" attached hereto), and we believe that Mr. Nagel is the father of David Nagel, who is the President of YULA Boys High School (a/k/a the Applicant herein!)



Comment Gans 2-8

(b) Common Ownership: YULA and YOLA are parties to a 99-year ground lease for the YULA premises; we commented in connection with the MOT DEIR that the Department must obtain and review a copy of this ground lease, as well as a copy of the "shared use" agreement that we have been informed exists between YULA and YOLA (and/or the SWC or an affiliated entity). We believe that these documents will help the Department to understand the complex relationship between the parties. They may also serve to corroborate the fact, as evidenced in the SWC's audited financial statements for the years ending 2006 and 2007, that the MOT has been illegally occupying space in the West Wing, in violation of Conditions Nos. 45 - 52 of the 1999 CUP, for several years.





Comment Gans 2-9

(c) Common Timeline: It is patently clear from looking at the timeline of the EIR process for the MOT and YULA expansion projects, as well as the timing of Case No. VTT66144, that the filings were carefully orchestrated in order to have the MOT "go first" and try to obtain the airspace rights to the 7,153 sq. ft. in the West Wing, and then have YULA follow suit and request approval to build an additional 9,453 sq. ft. (19,953 minus the 10,500 approved per the 1999 CUP), to compensate for the space annexed by the MOT. This is simply outrageous, as more fully explained below.


With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Gans 2-10

(d) Common EIR Consultants: As further evidence of the fact that the YULA and MOT expansions are a single project, we note that YULA and MOT have engaged the same environmental consultant, Christopher A. Joseph & Associates to prepare their EIRs and the same traffic consultant, Crain & Associates, to prepare their traffic and parking studies. Unlike other jurisdictions, such as West Hollywood, which have much more transparent processes for environmental review (i.e., where it is the Lead Agency that directly engages the environmental consultant and oversees the process in the exercise of independent judgment), it is a wellknown and much criticized fact that in Los Angeles, the developer selects the consultant who prepares the EIR, and the developer controls the process. The environmental review process thus far in connection with the YULA and MOT projects (with the sole exception of the Staff Recommendations Report prepared by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga) provides ample proof of the dangers of this practice, and how harmful it is to the public welfare.


With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-11

(e) Common Architect: Although the DEIR (which, as was the case with the DEIR and FEIR for the MOT project, has clearly been prepared entirely by the applicant) shows Gruen Associates as the



architect (Page VII-2), Yazdani Design Studio/Cannon Design ("Yazdani/Cannon") claims on its website that!.!; is the architectural firm for the YULA BHS expansion project (see Appendix "A" hereto). Gruen may be involved, but we believe that Yazdani/Cannon (which is not mentioned anywhere in YULA's DEIR) has played and/or continues to playa major role in the design of the YULA expansion. It is, of course, the architect of the MOT expansion. This cannot possibly be a coincidence, as the use of the same architectural firm will ensure that the facades of and plans for the structures will be complementary, and to facilitate circulation so that persons attending religious ceremonies and other events at YULA will be able to access the related banquet or reception at the MOT Party Palace. We also note in this regard that the materials intended to be used for the façade of the proposed new YULA construction (e.g., cement plaster, see Page I-9 of the DEIR) sound quite similar to the materials to be used for the MOT façade. If indeed Yazdani/Cannon is the architect for both the YULA and MOT expansions, the fact that this has not been disclosed in either the DEIR or in any of the EIR documents for the Museum expansion, is clearly due to concerns that such revelation will make it even more apparent that YULA/YOLA and the MOT have conspired to piecemeal the project by concealing important and relevant information that would provide compelling evidence that these are a single project.

In addition, we note that the SWC's Form 990 for the fiscal year ended 2006 refers in Part II-A (Compensation of the Five Highest Paid Independent Contractors for Professional Services) (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B") a payment for "architectural & eng" services to Cannon Design, in the amount of $548,770. Thus, we believe that the expansion plans were underway long before the so-called "divorce" between YOLA and YULA. The Planning Department must investigate (and in this regard obtain copies of all agreements for architecture, engineering and/or design services between Cannon Design and any of its affiliates, and the SWC, YOLA and/or YULA), and explain in the revised DEIR/FEIR, what services were covered by the aforementioned fees, and when Cannon Design was initially retained by the SWC and by YOLA and/or YULA.

Further in this regard, the Applicant must disclose the name of the general contractor who it has selected to construct the proposed expansion, and whether or not it is the same general contractor that the MOT intends to use for the MOT expansion project.


With regard to comments related to the architect of the project, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Gans-1.

Comment Gans 2-12

(f) Common Construction Period: The Applicant admits (see Page I-18) that "construction periods [of the YOLA and MOT projects] are projected to overlap." "Intentionally planned to overlap" would be closer to the truth!




The analysis of construction impacts in the Draft EIR provides for a worst-case scenario where construction of the Museum of Tolerance and the proposed project occurred simultaneously. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-13

(g) Shared and Conjoined Premises: The West Wing, which is located on property leased by YULA from YOLA (which has common management with the SWC) is physically connected to the MOT by a pedestrian bridge and a seldom-mentioned elevator. Thus, people attending events (such as wedding and bar/bat mitzvah ceremonies) at the proposed new "YULA" synagogue, will be able to go straight to the party/banquet/reception next door, without even exiting the building.


As shown on Figure II-4 of the Draft EIR, there is no internal access between the YULA Boys School and the Museum of Tolerance. With regard to comments related to piecemealing and segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Gans 2-14

(h) Mutual Contingency: You have previously expressed the opinion, in connection with the DEIR for the MOT, that the MOT and YULA expansions are not a "single" project because they are not "contingent" upon each other - - i.e., each project could proceed independently of the other. Putting aside the fact that this is not a valid legal test under CEQA for whether a single project has been "piecemealed", and it therefore has little or no relevance, the fact is that the two expansion projects ARE contingent upon each other, for at least two reasons (which are made even more clear in the YULA DEIR): (i) YULA's claim of an entitlement to build 19,953 sq. ft. of new construction rather than the 10,500 sq. ft. approved in the 1999 CUP is premised on the MOT's annexation of 7,153 sq. ft. in the so-called "West Wing" - - i.e., absent such expansion by the MOT (which is an integral part of the plans described in the MOT's EIR), YULA would not have any claim to build 7,153 sq. ft. of the additional 9,453 sq. ft. for which it is seeking approval; and (ii) while the MOT is quick to point out that it will not have religious ceremonies on its premises, and YULA likewise proclaims that it will not have wedding or bar/bat mitzvah parties or banquets, the obvious fact is that the religious ceremonies will be held in the new (and unlimited in

size, as explained below) Orthodox synagogue on the YULA campus, and the parties will be held next door at the MOT Party Palace. Thus, the proposed YULA synagogue provides a vital, built-in "client base" for the MOT Party Palace. There is clearly no need for YULA to have a synagogue on its campus. There are many other Orthodox synagogues within walking distance of YULA, and no apparent need for yet another one. Moreover, while many synagogues have started schools (indeed, we are unaware of any schools having started synagogues), the school and the synagogue are often not in the same location - - as evidenced by Wilshire Boulevard Temple near Hancock Park, which opened its



Hebrew day school many miles away in West Los Angeles. There is serious doubt as to whether the MOT Party Palace would be financially viable without the built-in business from the YULA Synagogue. In this regard, we repeat the request made in our comments on the MOT's Draft EIR, for copies of the MOT's financial projections, to show the extent to which it is relying on revenue from third party rentals relating to weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs and other life cycle events.


The comment provides no substantial evidence for its claim that the project would provide “a built-in client base” for the Museum of Tolerance. With regard to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to piecemealing and segmentation, as well as the West Wing, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-15

(i) Rabbi of the YULA/YOLA congregation: While this may seem to be an unusual request, the Planning Department should require the Applicant to disclose the name(s) of the rabbi(s) who will head or be employed by the proposed expanded synagogue. If such name(s) include any of the rabbis affiliated with the SWC (e.g., Marvin Hier, Meyer Mayor Abraham Cooper), this will be further strong evidence of the inter-relationship between the YULA and MOT expansion projects, and the fact that they are a single project.


This comment includes a request to disclose the names of the rabbi(s) who will be employed by the proposed project, but the comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regards to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Gans 2-16

2. Description of Project Background is Misleading

Please note that I was personally involved to a very large extent in the negotiating and drafting of the conditions contained in the 1999 CUP, sending numerous drafts back and forth with Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green ("Green" or the "Zoning Administrator" herein). Back then, the City had a Planning Department that worked. It actively solicited public input on proposed conditions, in a series of public hearings held conveniently in West Los Angeles, and it incorporated this input into conditions that



protected, rather than destroyed, neighborhoods, and then the Department's recommendations were actually adopted and implemented - - rather than, as is the case in the City Hall of today - - summarily rejected by a misinformed and politically motivated panel of the Mayor's appointees.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. As provided in Appendix E of the Final EIR, the applicant proposes to retain many of the conditions in the 1999 CUP.

Comment Gans 2-17

Key to the 1999 CUP was Condition No.3, which states: "The authorized use shall be conducted at all times with due regard for the character of the surrounding district .... " The changes now

proposed by YULA, however, show absolutely NO regard for the character of the surrounding district, which is a very quiet neighborhood of single-family homes.


With regard to comments related to the land use consistency, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15. This comment expresses opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-18

The DEIR mentions several times that the project site currently operates a "religious sanctuary," implying that the proposed changes are merely a continuation of such use. However, after MUCH discussion of this leading up to the 1999 CUP, the Zoning Administrator very intentionally limited the use of this facility to a enrolled students, their family, and school faculty, plus a maximum of 25 "neighbors", which could double to 50 "neighbors" on religious holidays, with "neighbors" understood to mean people who live in the immediate area and who would walk to the site and thus not need to park a car. The very clear intention was that the school could hold religious services on an extremely limited basis, which would have very little impact on its neighbors because there would be no increase in traffic. What YULA is proposing, however, is something radically different. (See "Comments on the Proposed Changes in Conditions" below).

The DEIR/FEIR must explain what days are "religious holidays" and provide the actual, total number of such days in each year, using the defined term "Religious Holidays" to be very explicit about what that includes. In particular, the Applicant must indicate whether the term "Religious Holidays" includes every Friday and Saturday (i.e., Shabbos). We note in this regard that Orthodox Jews observe an



extraordinary number of holidays that less observant Jews do not, and that the number of days that the Applicant will deem to be "Religious Holidays" is probably a very high number, especially if Fridays and Saturdays are included.

Further, with respect to the Applicant's proposed modifications to the conditions relating to the size of the synagogue's congregation, note that the only way to control the size of the congregation, and to be able to enforce such a condition, is to have a fixed number of seats in the designated synagogue area and to require that all synagogue activities, including all religious services, take place in the designated synagogue area. (Also in this regard, the synagogue area is not shown in any of the figures in the DEIR; the location of this area must be shown in the DEIR/FEIR, and the square footage of the synagogue area must also be shown). It is likewise impossible to enforce any limits based on whether someone is or is not "affiliated" with YULA. The conditions should provide for a maximum number of synagogue members/users (and we request that this number be no more than 100 people), and then have a corresponding amount of fixed seats (i.e., no more than 100 seats) in the synagogue area. In addition, events and activities occurring in other areas of the YULA campus (e.g., in the gymnasium) on a "Religious Holiday" must be limited in size so that all events occurring during the same time period can be accommodated by the existing on-site parking of 100 spaces.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. The commenter is referred to Master Response 3. This comment expresses opinions regarding restrictions for religious services, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-19

The DEIR (Page I-1) says that the facilities are currently being used by YULA Girls High School, but if so, this is a violation of the 1999 CUP, which provided (in Condition No.2) that the facilities could, during the current "Phase I", be used only by students in the BOYS high school, YOLA University and the Jewish Studies Institute.

The DEIR (Page I-1) also says that the facilities are used by students, families (NOT "their families", as it should read, because use is currently limited to the students' families), faculty, neighbors "and others" for Orthodox Jewish prayer and services. If any "others" than students of YULA, their family, and faculty are using the facilities for religious services (as we believe is the case), then that, too, is a violation of the Conditions (specifically, Condition No.7). In fact, Dr. Daniel Fink has on several occasions notified various City agencies that YULA openly advertises its "synagogue" as being open to anyone, which clearly violates Condition No. 7.



In each place in the DEIR where there is a reference to use of the religious sanctuary by "persons not affiliated with the school", or "the use of the facilities for religious services by individuals", the words "a very limited number of' should be inserted before "persons" and "individuals". Absent these additional words, the DEIR is very misleading.


With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP and the use of the facilities by the YULA Girls High School, the commenter is referred to Response to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-20. With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment expresses opinions regarding restrictions for religious services, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-20

Although the DEIR mentions in several places (e.g., Pages I-1, I-3 and I-9) the cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue (which is an unfortunate and unwanted necessity if this project is ultimately approved), it does not mention what has become of the partial closure of Roxbury Drive, which was also required by the conditions of the 1999 CUP. This omission must be explained in either a revised DEIR or the FEIR. Many homeowners on Roxbury Drive still feel that there is a need for this closure. The DEIR/FEIR must explain why this requirement has been eliminated and why there is no discussion of why it has been eliminated.



Comment Gans 2-21

The DEIR/FEIR should include the date that the 99-year ground lease between YULA and YOLA (top of Page I-2) commenced. The Lead Agency must also demand and review copies of said ground lease and the "shared use" agreement relating to portions of the YULA/YOLA/SWC/MOT property(ies), and make such documents available for the public to review as well.


With regards to comments related to the 99-year ground lease and the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.



Comment Gans 2-22

The circuitous rationale for YULA to build out 19,953 sq. ft. rather than the maximum of 10,500 sq. ft. in Phase II, as approved in the 1999 CUP, is absurd. It is irrelevant who is using the 7,153 sq. ft. in the West Wing, or who technically owns it. The ISSUE of great concern to the neighborhood, both then and now, is density and floor-to-area ratio ("FAR") which is dictated by the applicable zoning, absent a specific variance. This space has not vaporized with the "airspace" subdivision. It is still there, on the property, and it MUST still be calculated as part of the permitted square footage on the property. The analysis set forth in the DEIR, by which the applicant makes a lame attempt to make the case that it is somehow "entitled" and has a "vested right to complete build-out of the [previously approved] project" (Page I-4) and to add new space totaling 19,953 sq. ft., rather than 10,500 sq. ft. (which is a NINETY PERCENT INCREASE) would, in less polite circles, be labeled "total B.S."). It is an insult to our intelligence.


With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage and FAR, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Gans 2-23

While the fact that YULA proposes to maintain the same total enrollment cap, and "only" increase the high school enrollment by 100 students (an increase of FORTY PERCENT) does not at first blush seem too unreasonable, the fact is that it is the high school students who cause all the problems in the neighborhood. Many of them drive to school and drive too fast. Those who do not drive must be dropped off and picked up, increasing traffic on the narrow residential streets (please see below, and Dr. Daniel Fink's comments, as to why the proposed cul-de-sac will not adequately address our concerns regarding the increase in traffic). The high school students loiter, talk loudly and smoke in front of our homes, often illegally parking their cars and coming out every two hours to move to another spot to avoid getting a ticket. They have been seen to drop litter on our lawns, and several months ago went on a rampage in the neighborhood, vandalizing the "Stop the Museum Expansion" signs in our yards. An increase in the JSI or college student enrollment would not have nearly as detrimental an impact on the neighborhood.


Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the condition as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.



Comment Gans 2-24

At the bottom of Page I-4, the DEIR says that the Applicant has "volunteered" to process a Draft EIR. More B.S. The only reason that YOLA was able to get away with a Mitigated Negative Declaration in 1999 was that THERE WAS NO CONCURRENT MUSEUM EXPANSION contemplated then. No one would ever have imagined such a thing were possible. We still can't, but unfortunately that is what we're dealing with. Also, perhaps the community was a bit unsophisticated back then, and certainly more trusting of YOLA than it now is, after almost ten years of putting up with its many violations of the 1999 CUP. In any event, there was nothing "voluntary" about preparing an EIR. YULA's attorneys quite rightly predicted that the plans would be too easy to shoot down in court, without an EIR.



Comment Gans 2-25

Page I-8: The DEIR must also consider, and analyze fully, the "YULA Boys High School ONLY" alternative, whereby activities on the YULA premises are, as they have been since 1999, strictly limited to those in which YULA high school and YULA university students from the Pico/Castello campus only, actively and substantially participate, and must be customary school-related activities. (See Condition No. 7 of the 1999 CUP). The modifications proposed by YULA would open up use of the premises to virtually anyone, for any purpose, as long as the activity or event is "sponsored" by the school. It would be difficult to come up with language that is broader than this, and the applicant's proposal is completely unacceptable. This language could encompass protest rallies, demonstrations, any kind of fundraising event, carnivals - - and any of which could, as proposed by the Applicant, be held outdoors, causing extreme disturbance to local residents. This is not hypothetical; it has happened on too many occasions, and enough is enough. We do NOT want to be woken up from our comfortable weekend morning sleep, by some obnoxious loud activity at YULA.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR needs to evaluate a “YULA Boys High School Only” alternative. In accordance with §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative but a range of reasonable alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives but that would substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant effects of the project. A “YULA Boys High School Only” alternative would involve implementing restrictions that currently do not exist under the existing 1999 CUP and it would not meet one of the project’s basic objectives to expand permitted use of the existing orthodox sanctuary during evening hours, holidays, and weekends. Furthermore, the commenter provides no information indicating that a “YULA Boys High School Only” alternative would avoid or lessen any of the significant effects of



the project. Therefore, a "YULA Boys High School Only” alternative is not a feasible alternative and it was not considered in the Draft EIR.

Comment Gans 2-26

Page I-8: The DEIR must include specifics of how long the "temporary" aesthetic impacts during construction will last. In other documents, we have read that construction is anticipated to last two years. Is this correct? If so, that technically is "temporary", but it is still a very protracted period, especially if you are in your 80's or 90's, as many of YULA's neighbors are, and this is the very unpleasant way they'll be forced to spend the last few years of their lives.


Construction activities will occur over approximately two years, however, it is anticipated that construction activities visible from public and private viewpoints would be reduced during the finishing and paving stage of construction. The temporary construction impacts associated with implementation of the modifications to the 1999 CUP would be similar to changes that would occur during construction of the 1999 CUP full build-out improvements.

Comment Gans 2-27

Mitigation Measure ("MM") B-2 on Page I-10: The DEIR/FEIR should provide details regarding the outdoor lighting and low level security lighting and in addition to not creating glare, no such lighting shall increase illumination levels on any adjacent residential properties.


With regard to comments related to light and glare, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-93. As illustrated in Appendix B to the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, this measure was provided in the 1999 CUP as Condition 53(i). No changes to this condition are proposed and the requirements of this condition are retained as proposed Condition 40(f).

Comment Gans 2-28

Regarding MM B-4, for the record please note that maintaining the property "free of trash and debris" has been a HUGE problem. Trash and debris frequently overflows YULA's trash bins, which it keeps as far away from the school buildings, but as close as possible to the adjacent home on the southerly side of the YULA property, increasing the risk of rat and vermin infestation. We will submit photographs of this. This is yet another violation of the conditions of the 1999 CUP, and it is a truly disgusting situation. Pigs aren't kosher, but there are pigs at YULA.




With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Gans 2-29

MM B-5 is hardly a mitigation measure. It simply belies the fact, as discussed above, that the same architectural firm that is designing the MOT expansion has been engaged to design the YULA expansion, so these "metal panel and pre-cast concrete or cast-in-place or fabricated wall surfaces" sound suspiciously like those to be used on the MOT, or at least designed to coordinate well with the MOT façade.


With regard to comments related to the design firm, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Gans-1.

Comment Gans 2-30

Re: "Cumulative" on Page I-10, it appears that the MOT (a/k/a "Related Project No. 53) keeps growing in height. Here it is 64' 8 "high. Does the Applicant know something that no one else knows yet? It's our understanding that the City Planning Commission rejected the Planning Department's recommendations on March 26th and approved a 63 ft. height. Where did this extra 20 inches come from?


The height of Related Project No. 53, as analyzed in the Draft EIR for that project, is 63 feet eight inches. This text is revised in the Draft EIR for the YULA project as noted in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. The Draft EIR for the YULA project was released for public review on February 26, 2009, one month prior to the City Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 2009 regarding the Museum of Tolerance project. Any changes to the proposed height made as part of the City review process are irrelevant to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as the height analyzed is higher than the approved height; the Draft EIR analyzed a worst-case scenario.

Comment Gans 2-31

The Applicant acknowledges that "implementation of Related Project No. 53 with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character." This is one of the few truthful statements in this DEIR. Yet the DEIR does not include a single graphic that shows both the YULA project and Related Project No. 53, as they would actually look together, in terms of visual character and massing. No doubt Yazdani Design Studio has already prepared such graphics to show to its clients. They MUST be included, and are so essential that I have previously stated



that the omission of such graphics in the DEIR makes it necessary to revise and recirculate the DEIR, incorporating such graphics.


With regard to comments related to aesthetic impacts and design firm, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Gans-1.

Comment Gans 2-32

Re: "Air Quality/Construction" on Pages I-10 to I-13, it cannot possibly be true that the cumulative impacts with the construction of "Related Project No. 53 would be less than significant. This is simply a conclusory statement with no support. These are two massive construction projects, and the cumulative impacts on air quality to the immediately adjacent homeowners, at the very least, will be substantial. One doesn't even need an expert to figure this out.


The commenter is referred to Section IV.C, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, which provides a thorough analysis of air quality impacts associated with cumulative development to support the conclusion of no significant impact. This comment provides the opinion that the conclusions of the cumulative air quality analysis are incorrect, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-33

Construction MM No. C-17 on Page I-13: Delete "as feasible." Construction activity that affects traffic flow on the arterial system shall be limited to off-peak hours, PERIOD. The Pico/Olympic corridor is already gridlocked as it is.


This comment expresses the opinion that the words “as feasible” be removed from Mitigation Measure C-17, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Gans 2-34

Land Use Planning (top of Page I-14): Change the second sentence to read: "The modifications proposed by the Applicant would be inconsistent with the physical arrangement of the project site as authorized by the 1999 CUP." Building 19,953 new square feet of space, instead of the 10,500 sq. ft. authorized by the 1999 CUP, and adding new classroom space (to compensate for the space being officially annexed by the MOT), in the area that would have been a parking area under the 1999 plans, is a completely different arrangement of the site.


With regard to comments related to consistency, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Gans 2-35

Explain why the gymnasium now "needs" to be 45 ft. high when it was previously designed to be 40 ft. high. (Page I-14). Explain what the additional 5 ft. contributes, other than to it being an eyesore to the homeowners who will look out their windows right at it. The height limit for structures in this R1 zone is 33 feet, so 40 ft. is already excessive.


The gym height was increased to allow for a ceiling height that is appropriate for proposed athletic activities, including basketball and volleyball. Furthermore, the increased height allows for the location of mechanical equipment on the roof where it will have the least noise impact to neighbors. With regard to proposed height, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15.

Comment Gans 2-36

Page I-14 (3rd Paragraph): This is false. There is a tremendous difference in "the type of use" between a small prayer/study hall intended for use by students and their families, faculty, and no more than 50 neighbors, and a large synagogue which could have a virtually unlimited number of congregants. The impact on the surrounding neighborhood of the latter is enormous. In addition, the Applicant now proposes an unlimited number of Special Events, an unlimited number of which could take place outdoors. Moreover, rather than limiting use of the project site to customary school-related activities in which the YULA boys substantially participate, the Applicant is proposing that the premises could be used by virtually anyone, for virtually anything. All of these modifications would allow an entirely different, and much more intense and disruptive, type of use. All of these modifications are unacceptable to YULA's residential neighbors.




With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities and special events the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-51 and -225. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-37

Page I-14: The 4th paragraph is likewise false, for the reasons set forth above. The proposed modifications are INCONSISTENT with the existing use of the premises. Yes, the proposed modifications "further the existing use" - - but in the same manner that constructing a new Disneyland on the site of a merry-go-round ride would be a furtherance of such use. The proposed use of the YULA facilities is FAR more intense, and will be FAR more disruptive to the adjacent residential community. YULA already is a disruptive, annoying presence. Any growth must be coupled with extreme measures to keep that disruption to an absolute minimum.


With regard to comments related to consistency, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Gans 2-38

Page I-14 (5th Paragraph/"Cumulative"): The 1999 CUP may have determined that the land use impacts would be less than significant, but if it did, it's irrelevant. At the time that the 1999 CUP was granted, no one contemplated that the MOT would one day break the agreement it made in 1986 regarding the 100 foot buffer zone, and then launch its own absurdly aggressive expansion. Further, the 1999 CUP envisioned a much smaller total buildout on the property. Phase II was to be a total of 10,500 sq. ft. The Applicant wants to build 19,953 sq. ft. - that is a NINETY PERCENT increase in density on this small piece of property.


With regard to comments related to cumulative land use impacts, the commenter is referred to Section IV.D, Land Use Planning, of the Draft EIR. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Gans 2-39

The proposed modifications would result in very significant new land use impacts. The operation of a large synagogue goes well beyond the operation of a school, or even of a small, school-based house of worship. It is a significant new land use. A 40% increase in high school enrollment will have a significant impact in itself. Almost doubling the density of the project site, by building 19,543 sq. ft. rather than 10,500 sq. ft., will have a very significant impact. Implementation of the YULA project WOULD contribute to the impacts of "Related Project No. 53" and vice versa.


With regard to comments related to land use impacts, the commenter is referred to Section IV.D, Land Use Planning, of the Draft EIR. As noted on Page IV.D-15 of the Draft EIR, the CEQA and City significance thresholds for land use impacts take into account more than simply the new land use itself. The change in land use must be determined to result in conflicts with applicable adopted land use policies or create inconsistencies with adopted environmental goals in existing planning documents. Alternatively, new land uses that would physically divide established communities, disrupt existing neighborhoods, or cause extensive secondary impacts to neighboring land uses could be determined to result in significant land use impacts under the CEQA and City significance thresholds. Given the findings of the Draft EIR and Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the impacts of the proposed project fail to meet any of the thresholds for finding a significant land use impact. With regard to comments related to enrollment, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28. With regard to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is Response to Comment Fink-21.

Comment Gans 2-40

The Applicant proposes to eliminate the requirement in current Condition No. 25, that YOLA coordinate the scheduling of its events with the MOT, so that adequate free and convenient parking is available. Without any such coordination, there could be many hundreds (or even thousands) of people attending either separate events, or an event cosponsored by the MOT and YULA, descending upon this minute parcel of land and the surrounding quiet neighborhood. It is ABSURD to say that the cumulative impacts would be less than significant.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 21 to add “YULA will use reasonable efforts to coordinate the scheduling of Special Events with the Museum of Tolerance’s Special Events so that parking impacts to residential neighborhoods from YULA Special Events are avoided.”



Comment Gans 2-41

RE: cumulative impacts of the YULA and MOT projects - - it is of great concern to us that neither YULA here, nor the SWC in the EIR documents for the MOT expansion, have furnished any visual renderings that show what the YULA and MOT projects will actually look like, side by side. Particularly in light of the fact that YULA and MOT are using the same architectural firm, each should provide a copy of the architectural plans and exterior renderings, showing what the exterior elevations of both premises will actually look like, when viewed from all directions, but especially from the homes situated to the south, east and west. The graphics should include 3D graphics of "Existing and Proposed Views" of both YULA and the MOT, comparable to those contained in the DEIR for the MOT expansion as Figures IV.B-1 through IV.B-9, and particularly IV.B-9 (the "Visual Simulation"). Moreover, these images must be shown in correct, accurate scale and proportion relative to other structures, including all adjacent residential properties. The failure to include such graphics is a glaring omission and must be rectified, as stated in my e-mail to Allan Abshez and you, dated April 2, 2009, which is incorporated herein by this reference.


With regard to comments related to 3D graphics, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Gans-1. With regard to impacts related to cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. As noted on Page IV.B-8 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project, in conjunction with Related Project No. 53 (the Museum of Tolerance expansion) would result in a significant, unavoidable impact with respect to visual character.

Comment Gans 2-42

Page I-15: The construction noise and vibration impacts, especially when considered on a cumulative basis with such noise and impacts from the possibly simultaneous construction of the MOT expansion, will be absolutely unbearable. The "sensitive receptors" (also known as human beings) who have the great misfortune to live CLOSEST to the MOT and YULA, are all very elderly and will not be able to survive under such conditions. Every single person on the west side of Castello Avenue, is over the age of 70, and many are now in their 80's. Mrs. Cetner, who lives in the house next door to YULA, is 84 and confined to a wheelchair following a stroke several years ago. The noise will kill her, and quite possibly other residents of Castello Ave. and Roxbury Drive. It just astonishes us that leaders of a Jewish institution would inflict such pain and suffering on their fellow Jews. It is cruel, heartless and disgusting.

Most homes in the vicinity are older homes with single-glazed windows and no insulation that might buffer some of the noise. Many of these homes do not have central A/C, so the residents leave their windows open during the summer months, which will greatly exacerbate the problem. Close the windows and suffocate (and only muffle the noise a little at best) - - or open them and have the noise drive you nuts? Not a good choice to force people to make.




The significant and unavoidable construction noise and vibration impacts are disclosed in the Draft EIR. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-43

We are requesting that the Applicant and/or the SWC make arrangements to relocate those who are most impacted and endangered by the noise, for the duration of construction, to a comparable living environment in the vicinity. Alternatively, the Applicant and/or SWC should pay a settlement fee to each impacted homeowner, in an amount to be determined, but upwards of $20,000 per household, which could be used, as the homeowner elects, to cover the cost of moving expenses and temporary housing, or to make home improvements to increase soundproofing, or to purchase new landscaping material to try to block out the massive visual blight that would result from construction of the MOT/YULA project.


This comment suggests that, as mitigation for construction noise impacts, the applicant should relocate persons most impacted by noise or provide a settlement fee, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-44

With respect to operational noise, the DEIR fails to consider the impact of the outdoor activities proposed by way of YULA's modifications of the 1999 CUP. There are no limits on the nature or size of outdoor activities. It is quite likely that outdoor activities "sponsored" by YULA could and would include large protests and rallies (both YULA and the MOT have been involved in such activities before, and these are extremely noisy and irritating - - especially since such events are almost always on Sundays, which is a day of rest for most people, when they are most likely to be home and looking forward to, and have a right to expect, a quiet peaceful afternoon.

I can speak from personal experience of living diagonally across the street from the YULA campus. We can hear EVERYTHING that goes on outdoors at YULA, and it is very annoying.


The commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-7 and -51. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Gans 2-45

Page I-16: MM E-1/ CONSTRUCTION FROM 8:00 AM TO 6:00 PM ON SATURDAY IS TORTURE, NOT MITIGATION!!! It is also absolutely disgusting and offensive for a Jewish institution to even contemplate having construction done on the Sabbath. Are these people SO greedy and selfish that they have somehow figure out a way to get around the very fundamental tenets of Judaism, forbidding Jews from being involved in any way with work on Shabbos?



Comment Gans 2-46

MM E-3: The DEIR provides that construction will be "restricted" to the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM. Since when is ELEVEN HOURS A DAY "restricted"?? And that's not restricted, although the Applicant would like one to think that - the fact is that the LAMC won't let anyone work beyond those hours. Trust us, if the LAMC permitted YULA/MOT to have construction 24 hours a day, it would do it!



Comment Gans 2-47

MM E-8: Note that the southerly property line, where impact driving will be permitted, is only about 20 to 30 feet away from the bedroom windows of the 84-year-old stroke victim. What is she supposed to do???


The significant and unavoidable construction noise and vibration impacts are disclosed in the Draft EIR.

Comment Gans 2-48

MM E-9: top of page - - the DEIR must explain how long is "temporary."


The length of each construction phase of construction is discussed in the Draft EIR. The commenter is referred to Section IV.E, Noise, of the Draft EIR for a discussion of noise impacts associated with construction.



Comment Gans 2-49

MM E-10, E-12, E-13 and E-14: DELETE "to the extent feasible", "as possible", "to the extent feasible" and "unless technically infeasible." These mitigation measure can and should be ABSOLUTE requirements. The language written by the Applicant (and there is NO DOUBT that this entire DEIR was written ENTIRELY by the Applicant) is nothing but a large loophole through which you can drive a Mack truck.


This comment expresses the opinion that the words “to the extent feasible” and “as possible” be removed from Mitigation Measures E-10, E-12, E-13, and E-14, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-50

MM E-15: THE ENTIRE RATIONALE PROVIDED BYYOLA IN 1999 FOR BUILDING THE GYM WAS THAT IT WOULD TAKE ALL OUTDOOR RECREATION INDOORS AND THUS SILENCE THE NEIGHBORS' COMPLAINTS ABOUT NOISE. THAT IS WHY WE DID

NOT OBJECT TO THE ADDITION OF THE GYM IN 1999. THERE MUST BE NO OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES WHATSOEVER ON THE YULA PROJECT SIDE. NOTHING.

NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER, AND THAT EXTENDS TO ALL OUTDOOR AREAS INCLUDING CASTELLO AVENUE NORTH OF THE PROPOSED CUL DE SAC.

Accordingly, delete E-15 in its entirety and substitute "Outdoor recreation, activities or events

(including without limitation Special Events) shall be strictly prohibited on the YULA project site and on any nearby residential streets (provided, however, that small groups of students may jog in the neighborhood as part of their gym classes, provided that they are accompanied by a faculty member at all times.


When Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. No events are anticipated for the Castello Avenue roadway. Amplified sound in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 12. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the



surrounding neighborhood. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51.

Comment Gans 2-51

MM E-17: There shall be NO outdoor public address or paging systems of ANY kind, on the YULA campus. The adjacent homes are simply too close. There is NO public address system that can not be heard from these homes.


With regard to comments related to outdoor public address or paging systems, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-52.

Comment Gans 2-52

MM E-18: Even though YULA is offering no to have amplified music outdoors, there is still an enormous problem with people SINGING. Jews, especially Orthodox Jews at any kind of a celebration, always SING, and they SING at the TOP of their lungs. The neighborhood simply will not tolerate this. There must be NO outdoor activity, so that there can be NO outdoor SINGING. (And note, YULA has violated Condition No. ___, most recently with a torah dedication on the YULA campus, with loud sound amplification, at which none other than Marvin Hier officiated.


With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51. With regard to comments related to outdoor public address or paging systems, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-52. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-53

MM E-19: High school students should be able to tell time, and they all use cell phones to see what time it is. There is NO REASON TO HAVE EXTERIOR BELLS. The overall message of Condition #3 must be respected - - the premises must be used with due regard for the character of the surrounding district ..." - - and "due regard" precludes ringing bells in a residential neighborhood.


Mitigation Measures E-19 is a measure required by the 1999 CUP as Condition 16 that is proposed to be retained by the Applicant, provided as Condition 13 in Appendix B of the Draft EIR and Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR. This measure is intended to reduce noise impacts associated with the operation of the school. With implementation of these measures, operational noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. Schools are typically found in residential neighborhoods and bells



are an ordinary part of school operation. When Phase II is completed, outdoor areas on the campus will be enclosed by surrounding buildings. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-225. This comment expresses opinions about whether or not exterior bells should be allowed, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-54

Page I-18 (Cumulative/Construction): The area surrounding YULA is NOT an "already urbanized area". It is an extremely quiet (except for disruptions from YULA students and MOT visitors) residential neighborhood of single-story ranch-style homes. In addition, please note that the "sensitive receptors" referred to here are very elderly and ill people who have lived in their homes for 50 years.


The existing noise environment is discussed in the Draft EIR. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-55

Page I-19: The DEIR should provide a letter or memo from the LAFD's local department, confirming that the cul-de-sac will not interfere with emergency access in any way. My neighbor, Jean Colton, has informed me that she spoke directly to the captains at the two fire stations closest to YULA, who both told her that even the types of curbs contemplated could nonetheless interfere with emergency access. This is a VERY important point, and there must be proof for this assertion. If the construction noise and impacts are going to kill us, at least assure us that the ambulances and paramedics can get to us in time to try to save us.

MM F-1: If there is going to be a cui de sac (and the neighborhood is very divided on this issue), then a letter from the Fire Dept. confirming that the cui de sac will not interfere in any way with emergency access, or cause any delay in emergency RESPONSE time, must be included in the revised DEIR or FEIR.


With regard to comments related to emergency access, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-187. With regard to comments related to recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.



Comment Gans 2-56

Page I-20 (Police Protection): The Applicant must provide graphics and/or other visual images, showing what these "internally oriented buildings" will look like to neighborhood residents whose views include YULA and the MOT. In particular, we need to see graphics or photos that will show the MOT and YULA after dark, with lights blazing.


With regard to comments related to the provision of additional graphics, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Gans-1.

Comment Gans 2-57

This is a SCHOOL, and especially because of its location in a residential neighborhood, it must adhere to a far stricter code of conduct than other, better situated facilities. There is no need for, and there should not be, any Special Events on the SCHOOL campus that are so large that they require additional security.


Schools are typically found in residential neighborhoods and special events are an ordinary part of school operation. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-58

Page I-23/MM G-8: DELETE "to the extent feasible" (see above).


This comment expresses the opinion that the words “to the extent feasible” be removed from Mitigation Measure G-8 of the Draft EIR (Mitigation Measure II-8 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-59

Page I-25: The traffic analysis described here must be completely REDONE, because it does not take into account, as it must, the project trips of Related Project No. 53. While we may not be "experts" like the so-called experts-who-are-paid-to-say-exactly-what-they're-told-to-say at Crain & Associates, we know our local streets and driving patterns better than any "expert". The fact is that Museum traffic will



either go south on Roxbury and thread through the neighborhood looking for a shortcut or for parking, or exasperated drivers will give up on the long wait to go through security to park at the MOT, and they will take the first right (onto Castello), and then have to turn around and go back to Pico and then turn down Beverwil down to Cashio.


With regard to comments related to cumulative traffic trips, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-7. This comment provides the opinion that the traffic study is flawed, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-60

The Applicant's proposed modifications to the 1999 CUP would allow occupancy in the gym to include 300 people plus all YULA Boys and Girls high school students. If there are 350 boys and an equal number of girls, that adds up to 1,000 people. The DEIR/FEIR must include the maximum occupancy of the gym. If that number exceeds 200 people (we will generously estimate an average of two people per car, putting aside the fact that this is one car/one driver Los Angeles) then WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE GOING TO PARK??? Especially since there would no longer be any overflow parking available at the MOT.


With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83.

Comment Gans 2-61

MM G-9: DELETE "to the maximum extent feasible." Again, YULA's representatives assured us in 1999 that the reason for the cui de sac was to enable ALL loading and unloading of students to be conducted on-site. If YULA wants to expand, then they must require the students and their parents to comply. The traffic control monitor must remain at the parking area entrance for longer than 30 minutes, and anyone caught loading and unloading a YULA student outside of the YULA campus should get a ticket and pay a fine.

In this regard, we are greatly concerned that, in order to avoid the long queue of cars waiting to drop off and pick up passengers, drivers will race up Castello Avenue, and dump their passengers along the south side of the cui de sac, and then speed away via Alcott Street. The impact of this traffic on Alcott will be extreme.




With regard to comments related to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. This comment expresses the opinion that the words “to the maximum extent feasible” be removed from Mitigation Measure G-9 of the Draft EIR (Mitigation Measure II-9 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-62

Page I-26: Factoring in only a one percent ambient annual growth is patently absurd in light of all of the development in the area, particularly nearby Century City.


The traffic analysis for the project utilized a one percent ambient growth rate consistent with LADOT procedures. LADOT, the City’s traffic expert, reviewed and approved the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project. This comment expresses the opinion, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-63

Page I-27: The DEIR/FEIR must provide an explanation as to why is no mitigation required with respect to cumulative impacts regarding Aesthetics?


The Draft EIR’s analysis indicates that the difference between the improvement plans approved under the 1999 CUP and the modified project plans proposed by the Applicant would not result in significant new aesthetic impacts. The Draft EIR discloses that the Draft EIR prepared for Related Project No. 53 concluded that significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to visual character would occur as a result of implementation of Related Project No. 53. The Draft EIR prepared for Related Project No. 53 indicated that no feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the impact of said project with respect to visual character. Given the proximity of Related Project No. 53, the Draft EIR for YULA Boys High School conservatively concluded that despite the less than significant aesthetic impacts of the modified improvement plans proposed for YULA Boys High School, implementation of Related



Project No. 53 with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character.

Comment Gans 2-64

Page I-28, MM C-17: see above


It is assumed that the commenter is referring to comment Gans 2-33. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment Gans 2-33.

Comment Gans 2-65

Page I-29 (Land Use): see above


It is assumed that the commenter is referring to comments Gans 2-34 through Gans 2-39. The commenter is referred to Response to Comments Gans 2-34 through Gans 2-39.

Comment Gans 2-66

Page I-29, MM E-1: see above



Comment Gans 2-67

Page I-30, MM E-3: "Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday." This contradicts MM E-1, which further provides for construction on Saturdays from 8 AM to 6 PM.

As stated above, THERE MUST BE NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WHATSOEVER ON SATURDAY. First, because it is offensive to the observant Jews who reside in the area for a Jewish institution to condone construction on the Sabbath. Second, because this shows NO REGARD for the neighborhood; it is the weekend, we are home, and it is a day of rest and relaxation for us.

Moreover, as I recall, the 1999 CUP prohibited any outdoor construction work before 8 AM. Given that the type of heavy and noisy construction involved in the MOT and YOLA projects is entirely inappropriate for a residential neighborhood, "due regard" for the neighborhood mandates that outdoor construction work not commence until 8 AM.





Comment Gans 2-68

MM E-8 and E-9: Isn't it ironic that it's prohibited to playa portable radio 20 feet away from an elderly neighbor's home, but IMPACT PILE DRIVING is NOT??



Comment Gans 2-69

MM E-10/12/13: see above



Comment Gans 2-70

MM E-15: see above. There must be NO outdoor recreation whatsoever on the site. The students can be heard hollering outdoors for a very long distance. YOLA received approval for the gym based on its promise that it would put an END to the very annoying noise from students playing basketball and other sports outdoors. Instead, YULA wants to be able to annoy and aggravate its neighbors until even later in the evening, through the dinner hour. Again, NO "DUE REGARD."


When Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Amplified sound in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 12. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51.



Comment Gans 2-71

MM E-18: again, just to note that Marvin Hier himself presided at a Sunday morning event (the dedication of a new Torah) that took place in YULA's parking area on August 27, 2007, with amplified music. When I read him the conditions of the 1999 CUP that were being violated, he replied with a smirk, "We'll see about those conditions." We certainly have, haven't we? It is very disturbing to this Jewish writer, and to this Jewish community, that a rabbi could be so disrespectful of his neighbors and of the law.

Again, we repeat that there should be NO amplification of any kind, voice or music, and no events, "special" or otherwise, in any outdoor area (including without limitation the YULA campus and any portion of Castello Avenue). The campus is simply much too close to a residential neighborhood, and there is NO amplification that won't be heard by its neighbors.

Any amplified sound will be audible beyond the site's boundary lines; thus NO amplified sound can be allowed.


With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51. With regard to comments related to outdoor public address or paging systems, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-52. With regard to comments related to the event in August 2007, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-7.

Comment Gans 2-72

MM E-19: see above. NO EXTERIOR BELLS, PERIOD!!!


With regard to comments related to exterior bells, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Gans 2-53.

Comment Gans 2-73

Page I-32 (Cumulative Construction): It is NOT true that "no additional mitigation is available." The MOT and YULA, if they want this damn Party Palace and Orthodox Jewish Disneyland so badly, should either give each adversely impacted household a sufficient sum of money to pay either for relocation expenses and moving costs, as well as security service for homes whose owners elect to temporarily relocate (since vacant homes are prone to break-ins) or, alternatively, for the installation of double-paned windows, air conditioners and filters, and other sound-proofing measures. They can mitigate to a substantial degree, but they're too damn cheap to pay for it. Will YULA and the MOT at



least agree to pay for the funeral expenses of the kind elderly Jews who won't be able to endure all the noise and dirt?


This comment suggests that, as mitigation for construction noise impacts, the applicant should relocate persons most impacted by noise or provide a settlement fee, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-74

Page I-33 (Fire Protection): EXPLAIN the "access concerns" which are referenced here.


Mitigation Measure F-1 provides for the LAFD to review and make recommendations for revision to the plot plan at their discretions in the event that they were to identify an access concern during their review. This Mitigation Measure is equivalent to Condition 53(o) in the 1999 CUP and is proposed to be retained as Condition 40(k).

Comment Gans 2-75

Page I-33 / F-2: Please note for the record that the "reputable security firm" used by both YULA and the MOT is Guardsmark, which has a very lucrative contract with both institutions, and whose CEO is a long-time member of the Board of Trustees of the MOT and was (and perhaps still is) chairman of the Compensation Committee, which determines the salary of the MOT's CEO, Marv Hier.



Comment Gans 2-76

Page I-34 / G-1: conflicts with E-3, with respect to hours for construction (8 a.m. vs. 7 a.m. start - - we INSIST on no earlier than 8 AM). If construction is allowed to start at 7 a.m., workers will begin to arrive, and make a lot of noise, closer to 6 a.m. The Yamtoubs, who reside at 1428 Roxbury Drive, can verify this, since they complained of workers arriving as early as 5 AM - - and waking them all up -- when the MOT was recently being remodeled.





Comment Gans 2-77

Page I-35/ G-7: When will this Construction, Staging and Management Plan be prepared? It should be done as early on as possible, and a copy must be made available to interested parties in the neighborhood, with an opportunity for them to provide input.


The Construction, Staging, and Management Plan will be prepared in accordance with City requirements and available for review as applicable.

Comment Gans 2-78

Page I-36 / G-8: Delete "to the extent feasible" in the 3rd line of the page.


This comment expresses the opinion that the words “to the extent feasible” be removed from Mitigation Measure G-8 of the Draft EIR (Mitigation Measure II-8 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-79

Page I-37/ G-9: Delete "to the maximum extent feasible." Also, the hours for a traffic control monitor are too long.


This comment expresses the opinion that the words “to the maximum extent feasible” be removed from Mitigation Measure G-9 of the Draft EIR (Mitigation Measure II-9 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter), but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Gans 2-80

Page I-37 / G-10 & G-11: Please advise regarding the status of the traffic and parking management plan and parking and driveway plan Have these plans been completed? If so the plans must be made available to interested parties in the neighborhood, with an opportunity for them to provide input.


As indicated in Mitigation Measure II-10 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, a traffic and parking management plan, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for its review and approval. This Mitigation Measure is equivalent to Condition 27 in the 1999 CUP and is proposed to be retained as Condition 23. As indicated in Mitigation Measure II-11 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, the applicant shall submit a parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation. These documents will be available for review as applicable. This Mitigation Measure is equivalent to Condition 53(l) in the 1999 CUP and is proposed to be retained as Condition 40(h).

Comment Gans 2-81

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Project Background. The words "a very restricted-size" or the like, should be inserted before "religious sanctuary" and "orthodox Jewish prayer" in each of the many places these words appear, to avoid giving the impression that YOLA/YULA has run a synagogue in the past. This would be a big stretch of the truth.


This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. In regard to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21.

Comment Gans 2-82

As stated above, if YULA Girls High School is using the premises currently, this is an admitted violation of the YULA CUP. The premises are limited to use for activities in which the YULA boys "substantially" participate.


With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP and the use of the facilities by the YULA Girls High School, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-14 and Fink-20.



Comment Gans 2-83

As stated above, it is IRRELEVANT for purposes of calculating FAR, whether the Applicant is "operating" the 7,153 sq. ft. in the West Wing. What MATTERS is how much development and density is currently on the site, vs. how much is contemplated with the proposed expansion. This information (the FAR for the entire parcel, including all of the space in the west wing (including the 7,153 sq. ft. that is there, but that the MOT hopes to annex), MUST be provided. In addition, in order to evaluate the cumulative impacts in general, but specifically with respect to land use and visual impacts, the FAR must be calculated on an aggregate basis, for all of the property between Roxbury on the west and Castello Ave. on the east, and from the structures' northern façade on Pico to the southerly property line. For purposes of comparison, the DEIR must also mention the maximum FAR allowed on R1-zoned property.


With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage and FAR, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Gans 2-84

Simply because YOLA, YULA and the MOT engaged in this SHAM transaction, for the MOT to annex officially the space that it has ILLEGALLY been occupying in violation of the 1999 CUP (we have already submitted hard, irrefutable written evidence of this fact, but the City refuses to do anything to enforce CUPS), and for YULA then to claim that it is "entitled" to add almost 10,000 more sq. ft., to compensate for the space that YOLA "retained", is NOT the neighborhood's problem. And the burden of this much-too-dense, over-developed tiny parcel of land, should not fall on its neighbors.


With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP and enforcement, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to the relationship between the YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.

Comment Gans 2-85

Simply put, YOLA HAS ABSOLUTELY NO "RIGHT', LEGALLY OR MORALLY, TO BUILD ANYTHING MORE THAN THE 10,500 SQ. FT. AUTHORIZED IN THE 1999 CUP. FURTHER, PHASE II UNDER THE 1999 CUP MUST BE RE-EVALUATED AB INITIO BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, TO DETERMINE WHETHER YULA SHOULD BE PERMIITED TO UNDERTAKE ANY EXPANSION AT ALL, IF THE MOT PROJECT IS ALLOWED TO PROCEED, since the YULA expansion was approved on the premise and assumption that the MOT was not going to



be able to expand into the Memorial Garden/buffer zone, which was intended to be there as long as the MOT remained in operation.


The Applicant has a vested right to complete and operate the facilities authorized by the 1999 CUP, regardless of the proposed expansion plans of the Museum of Tolerance. The proposed project that is the subject of this EIR consists of an application to modify the previously approved development covered by the 1999 CUP.

Comment Gans 2-86

Page II-2: First full sentence on the page - - Note that the 1999 CUP ALSO included a partial closure of Roxbury Drive. What happened to that closure? Why is it not mentioned in the DEIR? Does the Applicant think we are that stupid that we wouldn't notice this omission? The DEIR/FEIR must explain why there is no mention of the Roxbury closure that was EXPRESSLY required in the 1999 CUP.



Comment Gans 2-87

The DEIRIFEIR must define "the area" that has only two modern orthodox secondary schools. Please provide the geographical boundaries of "the area."


With regard to comments related to the area assumed, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-27.

Comment Gans 2-88

The DEIRIFEIR must provide actual numbers in support of its statement that "demand for modern orthodox Judaic high schools FAR exceeds the available space ... " and YULA's claim of "growing need". How many is "far"? Provide data (hard numbers) to support the claim of "unmet" demand. The letter from Dr. Gil Graff that appears in Appendix F to the DEIR does not contain the requisite "hard" data. It is highly speculative. YULA should provide accurate data with respect to the size of its current high school enrollment by grade level, and documentation from its admissions office to verify that it is turning away a large number of prospective students, due to lack of space.




The comment questions the applicant’s objectives rather than the analysis of the Draft EIR. With regard to comments related to the demand for modern orthodox Judaic high schools, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-26. Whether to approve the applicant’s proposed modifications is within the discretion of the decision-maker. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts of such requests. The commenter’s comments will be presented to the decision-maker as part of the Final EIR.

Comment Gans 2-89

While it is true (page II-2) that YULA is "located in the heart of a long-established Jewish community", it is not by any means an Orthodox Jewish community, and that is an enormous difference. The immediate neighborhood is absolutely not largely Orthodox, and this sentence is misleading. Unfortunately, what little diversity we still have in our neighborhood is rapidly disappearing, because no one who is NOT Orthodox wants to move into the neighborhood now. The West L.A. Community Plan encourages and strives to protect diversity. Because of the outrageous aggressiveness of institutions like YULA and the MOT, diversity is rapidly disappearing in this part of West Los Angeles, and that is not healthy for the neighborhood or for the City of Los Angeles.


In regard to consistency with the West Los Angeles Community Plan, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15. The Draft EIR, as noted by the commenter, does not indicate that the project site is located in an Orthodox Jewish community. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-90

As stated above, it is the high school students who cause most, if not all, of the problems experienced by the neighborhood. Thus, any growth of the high school student body must be very incremental, gradual and well-planned, so as to minimize impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. And the neighborhood cannot withstand the combined impacts (particularly with respect to parking, traffic and noise) if there is not only a 40% increase in the high school enrollment but also a new synagogue with a potentially unlimited number of worshippers.


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.



Comment Gans 2-91

Page II-2: The fact that the Lead Agency has failed to exercise any independent oversight with respect to the DEIR is evidence in the sentence that begins "The project adds some square footage to offset the elimination of the approximately 7,153 square foot West Wing area ... " SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE?? The project almost doubles the square footage from what was allowed for Phase II in 1999. It is almost 20,000 more sq. ft., and we feel that anyone who was exercising any kind of reasonable, independent review of this document would not permit such an intentionally vague statement to be made.



Comment Gans 2-92

Page II-3: The proposed 20 foot buffer is completely inadequate, positioning the school buildings much too close to the adjacent single family home (1429 Castello Avenue). Note that this is a reduction of 44 ft. in the size of the setback (according to the 1999 CUP Site Plan, there would have been a 64 foot setback).


With regard to comments related to setbacks, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-15, -38, and -44.

Comment Gans 2-93

The DEIR does not indicate the total square footage of the proposed plans for the Beit Midrash (originally 1,500 sq. ft., per the 1999 Site Plan), or where it will be located on the project site, or what its maximum occupancy will be. Accordingly, such information must be provided in the revised and recirculated DEIR.


With regard to comments related to synagogue use and the Beit Midrash, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Gans 2-94

The DEIR also does not indicate where the new synagogue space will be located (if there is any such space other than in the Beit Midrash), nor its maximum occupancy, as it should. Accordingly, such information must be provided in the revised and recirculated DEIR.




With regard to comments related to synagogue use and the Beit Midrash, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Gans 2-95

Figure II-4: The Applicant must explain what the inner courtyard will be used for. It is our position that this outdoor area, if allowed, can be used only as a quiet study area.

For the sake of accuracy, the words "a very limited number of' should be inserted before "individuals not affiliated with the high school" on Page II-3 and in any other place where there is a reference to individuals not affiliated with YULA participating in services at the proposed synagogue.


The inner courtyard is intended for quiet study. With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment requests wording revisions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-96

Page II-3, Page II-19, and Page II-21: Delete the word "full" before "20 foot landscape buffer" because it erroneously suggests that such a buffer area is more than the absurdly de minimus space that it is.


This comment expresses the opinion that the word “full” be removed, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-97

Page II-19: The square footage proposed by the Applicant is actually 5,053 more sq. ft., because the 7,153 sq. ft. is not vaporizing, it's still there. See above.





Comment Gans 2-98

Re Par. 4, note that the LAMC requires 265 parking spaces.


With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3.

Comment Gans 2-99

Par. 5, change "will forseeably" to "will definitely" and add "and create inappropriate and excessive levels of traffic and noise on heretofore quiet residential streets."


This comment suggests wording changes, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-100

The revised & recirculated DEIR should describe in detail the multiple purposes of the "multi-purpose facility." It should also include PLANS for this facility, showing the seating arrangement and the maximum seating and standing capacity.


Restrictions on the types of potential activities that may occur at the YULA Facilities under the proposed project are presented in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, of this Final EIR (see proposed Conditions 7 through 9). With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83. The provision of interior plans showing the seating arrangement inside the gymnasium are not required by CEQA to analyze the impacts of a project.



Comment Gans 2-101

Page II-20: note that an 11 foot "landscape buffer" is so de minimus as to be meaningless and certainly does not provide a meaningful "physical barrier". The buffer along the western property line adjacent to residences must be far more substantial - - at least 35 feet.


This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to comments related to setbacks, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-15, -38 and -44.

Comment Gans 2-102

The revised and recirculated DEIR should specify the number of "religious holidays" in a year, and whether this term includes Shabbos.


With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. The term “religious holidays” does not include the Sabbath; there are approximately 25 major religious holidays during each year, depending upon when specific holidays fall on the calendar. With regard to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21.

Comment Gans 2-103

Note that "consistent with the 1999 CUP" would require including the partial closure of Roxbury Drive, which was a requirement of the 1999 CUP.



Comment Gans 2-104

Page II-21: The revised and recirculated DEIR must specify where the other parking location within 750 feet, and where the off-site shuttle system, would be located. It should also specify where the valets will park the cars, and what route they will take to an off-site location so as to avoid cutting through residential streets to the south of the YULA campus. It should also indicate how YULA will force people to use valet parking and an off-site shuttle system.




Various off-street parking facilities are available in the vicinity of the project. The applicant has used the large parking lot located at 9740 Pico Boulevard, which is one block from the campus, in the past. With regard to comments related to parking, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Gans 2-105

Note Applicant's (and we say "Applicant" because this DEIR was clearly NOT prepared, nor was the preparation even supervised by, the Lead Agency) statement that "the recreational area will be indoors" when the project build-out is completed. Why then does the Applicant seek to continue to have outdoor recreational activities? This abrogates the promises made by YOLA in 1999.


When Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51. The existing conditions of the 1999 CUP provide for outdoor activities.

Comment Gans 2-106

Page II-22: Applicant fails to provide sufficient and verifiable hard DATA of "community needs". The conditions of the 1999 CUP are quite clear and streamlined. The only thing lacking is ENFORCEMENT on the part of the City and a willingness to comply with the conditions on the part of the school and its management.


With regard to comments related to the demand for modern orthodox Judaic high schools, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-26. With regard to comments related to enforcement, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Gans 2-107

"more secure facility design" would appear to acknowledge and confirm our concerns that YULA is a terrorist target.




With regard to comments related to terrorism, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Gans 2-108

It is NOT an "objective" to add square footage to "compensate" for the elimination of the West Wing". It IS, however, outrageous!



Comment Gans 2-109

The "permitted use" of the sanctuary is extremely limited, and should stay that way.


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-110

The project does NOT mitigate environmental effects - - it severely contributes to them!


The Draft EIR discloses the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. This comment provides an opinion, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-111

Page III-13: We note that the DEIR describes what the northern façade of the Museum currently looks like. This is ridiculous. It should describe what it WILL look like if the Museum expansion project is proposed. This ignorance of the "elephant in the room" is an absurd attempt to deny and ignore the cumulative visual/aesthetic impacts of the Museum expansion.




Section III, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR describes the existing conditions in the project area. A discussion of cumulative impacts, including impacts associated with the proposed Museum of Tolerance project, is included in Section IV.B, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR discloses that the Draft EIR prepared for Related Project No. 53 concluded that significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to visual character would occur as a result of implementation of Related Project No. 53. Given the proximity of Related Project No. 53, the Draft EIR for YULA Boys High School conservatively concluded that despite the less than significant aesthetic impacts of the modified improvement plans proposed for YULA Boys High School, implementation of Related Project No. 53 with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character.

Comment Gans 2-112

Page III-14: As a reminder, the ONLY reason WHY YOLA "got away with" an MND in 1999 was that there was NO Museum expansion contemplated (at least by the community or the City Planning Department) at that time.



Comment Gans 2-113

Pages IV.A-15 to IV.A-23: All references to the project being "substantially consistent with the projected development and enrollment levels analyzed in the MND" should be DELETED. There is almost NOTHING consistent with the project that was analyzed in the MND. As we have said elsewhere, this is like saying that building a new Disneyworld on the site of a carnival merry-go-round is a "consistent" use because both are entertainment park uses.


This comment provides an opinion, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-114

The statement on Page IV.A-16 that "students and staff would most likely remain on site" during school hours is patently false - - and inconsistent with the Applicant's proposal to modify the conditions so as to allow students to eat lunch off-site!




Food services will be provided as part of the project in accordance with proposed Condition 11, and it is speculative to assert that students would need to, or be able to, eat lunch off the proposed project site. In response to comments, the applicant has volunteered to revise proposed Condition 11 to limit off-campus eating privileges to 11th and 12th graders. This comment provides an opinion, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-115

The revised and recirculated DEIR should provide hard DATA of the alleged "existing need" (mentioned twice on this page alone) for religious education in the Jewish community.


With regard to comments related to the demand for modern orthodox Judaic high schools, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-26. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

Comment Gans 2-116

Page IV.A-18 and Page IV.A-19: All subjective, self-serving" and biased modifiers and phrases, such as "only approximately 19,953 square feet" (repeated THREE times on page IV.A-19 and again on page IV.A-22) (or, as mentioned above, "a FULL 20 feet"), should be DELETED in the revised and recirculated DEIR. This drafting technique is completely obnoxious and extremely misleading and offensive. Does CAJA honestly think that repeating the same idiotic phrases over and over again will make this drivel any more credible??


This comment provides an opinion, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-117

Regarding A-32 on page IV.A-22, note that trash on the YOLNYULA site has been a constant problem, and we have no reason to expect that the situation will improve. We can provide the Department with photographs showing the disgusting mounds of garbage from overflowing trash bins, in the YULA



parking area, located (in violation of the Conditions of the 1999 CUP) in the area closest to the adjacent residences!


With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP and enforcement, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Gans 2-118

For the balance of comments on the DEIR (Sections IV.B through VI, and Appendices A through I) I will defer for the time being to Dr. Fink's comment letter, which is being submitted concurrently herewith. However, I reserve the right to furnish further comments to complete my review of the DEIR and will endeavor to do so shortly. It has been simply impossible, as YULA and the SWC are well aware, to deal simultaneously with all of the issues, documents, decisions and appeals, which arrive like an almost daily tsunami.


The Draft EIR was circulated for public review during a 45-day review period that began on February 26, 2009 and ended on April 13, 2009 in compliance with CEQA and City of Los Angeles requirements. The Recirculated Traffic Chapter was circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. The public has the opportunity to provide additional comments at future public hearings pertaining to the project. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Gans 2-119

We again urge the Planning Department to see through this ridiculous charade and recognize and acknowledge that THE MUSEUM EXPANSION AND THE YULA EXPANSION ARE A SINGLE PROJECT and should have been evaluated in a single environmental review. We further urge the Department to prepare a revised and recirculated DEIR which is TRULY an independently prepared document that accurately describes and analyzes the impacts of this project and the cumulative impacts of both projects.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding these comments.


With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. With regard to comments related to segmentation and cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.



7. COMMENT LETTER BERK

Susan W. Berk

9190 Olympic Blvd., #275

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Comment Berk-1

As a resident of Beverly Hills living just North of Pico Blvd, I have concerns regarding the environmental impact of the Yeshiva expansion. It seems that the Yeshiva expansion and the Museum of Tolerance expansion should have been studied in one environmental impact report.

Response to Comment Berk-1


Comment Berk-2

The cumulative effects of both projects will have significant impacts on the residential streets in Beverly Hills between Pico and Olympic Blvds. For example, the intersection of Roxbury/Olympic and Camden/Olympic were not part of the traffic study. These intersections will be impacted by the additional cars going to and from both the Yeshiva and Museum.


Those intersections most likely to be significantly impacted by the proposed project were selected by the LADOT. The intersections identified by the commenter were not anticipated to be significantly impacted by the project. Furthermore, the project would not significantly impact any of the studied intersections and therefore there is no reason to believe the project would significantly impact these other intersections. With regard to comments related to cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. This comment provides the opinion that the traffic study should have analyzed additional intersections, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Berk-3

Your DEIR is defective and must go back for further studies to the streets North of Pico Blvd.


With regard to comments related to adequacy of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. Refer to Response to Comment Berk-2.



Comment Berk-4

Please keep me informed of your progress regarding further studies to the DEIR. I wish to be placed on the Notice list regarding this project.


The commenter will be added to the interested persons list. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



8. COMMENT LETTER CETNER

Sydney Cetner 1439 Castello Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Cetner-1

DEAR DIANA,MYNAME IS SYDNEY CETNER AND I LIVE AT 1439 SO. CASTELLO AVE. I AM THE FIRST HOUSE AFTER THE PARKING LOT FOR YULA.ALL OF OUR BEDROOM WINDOWS FACE THE YULA PARKING LOT.NEEDLESS TO SAY,WE HAVE SUFFERED A LOT.PEOPLE PARK AGAINST THE WALL BY MY HOUSE WHEN THEY COME AT 10 PM TO PRAY. THEY LEAVE AT 12-1 AM WITH LOUD RADIOS PLAYING AND HORNS HONKING.MY MOTHER IS 85 YEARS OLD AND HAS HAD A STROKE. THE SOUNDS OF THE CARS,HORNS AND PEOPLE TALIKNG ALWAYS WAKE HER UP.SHE CANNOT FALL ASLEEP UNTIL HOURS LATER. IF THERE IS A GYM TO BE BUILT HERE,IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE.

Response to Comment Cetner-1

The modifications proposed by the applicant will eliminate some features of the approved project, such as surface parking, and therefore will foreseeably result in reduced impacts to adjacent uses. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Cetner-2

WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PARK OUR CARS? THEY DO NOT HAVE ROOM FOR OUTSIDERS TO PARK THEIR CARS ON OUR BLOCK. I SOMETIMES HAVE TO PARK A BLOCK AWAY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ROOM TO PARK MY OWN CAR.CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO BE M-S 8 AM TO 6PM,MONDAY-SATURDAY.


With regard to comments related to parking and parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to construction hours, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-49.

Comment Cetner-3

HOW CAN AN ORTHODOX INSTITUTION ALLOW WORK ON A SATURDAY!!!!!!!!THIS IS A DISGRACE FOR ALL THE RELIGIOUS NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA.I CANNOT IMAGINE GOING THROUGH TWO YEARS OF THIS. HOW WILL MY MOTHER SURVIVE THIS? WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PUT THE PORTABLE TOILETS THE WORKERS ARE GOING TO USE.



NO WAY WILL THEY PUT THEM UNDER MY WINDOWS. FOR CERTAIN I WILL CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY.


With regard to comments related to construction hours and differing mitigation measures, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-49.

Comment Cetner-4

WE CANNOT HAVE OUTDOOR EVENTS HERE. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA ,THERE ARE A LOT OF ELDERLY PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE VERY SICK AND CANNOT TOLERATE NOISE. WE HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 46 YEARS.A FEW WEEKS AGO THERE WAS SO MUCH NOISE NEXT DOOR,ALL YELLING AND SCREAMING AT ABOUT 1 AM. THE SCHOOL HAD RENTED A SWIMMING POOL AND KIDS WERE SWIMMING AND YELLING AT 1 AM. WHAT RIGHT DO THEY HAVE TO DO THIS IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEXT MORNING I SPOKE TO A SECURITY GUARD, AND HE SAID THE NEIGHBORS CALLED THE POLICE AND FOUR POLICE CARS CAME OUT.DOESN'T THE SCHOOL HAVE ANY BRAINS IN THEIR HEADS!!!!!! THE SECURITY GUARD SAID THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AS THEY HAVE ALREADY ORDERED IT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. WHY DO WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS? WHY DO MY MOTHER AND I HAVE TO LOOSE SLEEP EVERY NIGHT?


When Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With regard to the swimming pool the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-225O.

Comment Cetner-5

NOW YULA WANTS TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THEY WANT TO HAVE CLASSES,ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES,CLASSES AND SPECIAL EVENTS WHICH COULD BE HUGE IN SIZE FROM 830AM TO 1030 PM EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.THEY WANT TO ALLOW VOICE AMPLIFICATION WITH NO LIMIT ON HOURS.THERE MUST BO NO OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES OF ANY KIND BECAUSE THESE WOULD BE VERY,VERY DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD,ESPECAILLY THE ELDERLY THAT LIVE HERE.




With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51. With regard to comments related to voice amplification, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-52. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Cetner-6

WE CONSTANTLY HAVE TRASH IN THE STREETS,KIDS DRIVE DOWN THE STREETS SCREECHING THEIR BREAKS AND RACING WITH OTHERSTUDENTS. I HAVE SEEN THE STUDENTS WALKING DOWN MY STREETS AND JUST THROWING TRASH ON MY LAWN. HOW MUCH MORE OF THIS DO I HAVE TO TAKE??????


With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Cetner-7

ONE DAY IN COURT THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE I DID NOT KNOW. I FINALLY SAW ONE WOMAN I KNEW AND WENT UP TO HER TO TALK. I ASKED HER WHAT SHE WAS DOING THERE, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT LIVE IN THE AREA OF MOT AND YULA. SHE SAID TO ME"THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THEY CAME UP TO US AND TOLD OS THAT IF WE AGREED TO TAKE A BUS RIDE DOWNTOWN THEY WOULD GIVE US A FREE LUNCH. THEY TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOLPE. IT WAS A FREE LUNCH,SO WHY SHOULDN'T I GO" THIS IS A SAMPLE OF WHAT ALL OF US HAVE BEEN PUTTING UP WITH.YOU HAVE TO HELP US FROM LETTING THEM BUILD OR YOU HAVE TO PUT A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS ON THEM. PLEASE.PLEASE HELP ALL OF US. WE WILL REALLY SUFFER WITHOUT YOUR HELP. THANK YOU SO VERY,VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS LETTER.-SYDNEY CETNER



9. COMMENT LETTER COLTON

Jean and Fred Colton

1461 So. Castello Ave.




Comment Colton-1

Our peaceful residential neighborhood is under attack. YULA BOYS HIGH SCHOOL is proposing to revoke virtually every important condition that we negotiated in 1999 to protect our neighborhood from their new building.

Response to Comment Colton-1

With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. As provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the applicant proposes to retain many of the conditions in the 1999 CUP.

Comment Colton-2

After two years of writing letters, attending Planning Committee meetings and trying to make our voices heard, the MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE in a pre-arranged, political and money fueled effort, received almost everything they wanted from the Los Angeles Planning Commissioners. The vote was 8 to nothing in favor of the MOT.

Now we are faced with a marble and concrete monolith, 65 ft. high overwhelming our residential neighborhood. It makes us wonder if our voices are heard or if 'the fix is in' with YULA and our effort and letters are for naught. The staff members on the Planning Committee presented a fair and balanced report on the MOT proposal which would have provided a measure of protection to our neighborhood. Their recommendation was completely ignored by the Planning Commission and our Mayor. Clearly it was all pre-arranged and fixed before we ever got to the meeting. It is our sincere hope that the YULA proposal does not succumb to the same fate as the MOT proposal and allow money and politics be the deciding factor. But, we digress.


This comment states opinions regarding the City approval process associated with the Museum of Tolerance, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Colton-3

YULA BOYS HIGH SCHOOL has been a nuisance in our neighborhood, on Castello Avenue, since the day it was built. The behavior of the students, the noise, the trash and the additional traffic created by parents to pick up and deliver the kids to school have all contributed to a major disturbance to our neighbors. At various times. students have been seen running around on the school's roof. Their cars



have driven across neighbors lawns. A portable swimming pool was placed in the basketball court for a late night party. God forbid, if the enrollment is increased, chaos will prevail.

Response to Comment Colton -3

With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With regard to the swimming pool the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-225O.

Comment Colton-4

YULA proposes 19,500 sq. ft. of new construction instead of the 10,500 sq. ft.which was approved in the 1999 CUP while at the same time it is 'giving up' 7153 sq. ft.of space to the MOT. This is mind boggling. We haven't found anyone who could explain this oxymoron to us. Rabbi Hier (MOT) and YULA always seem linked in some unknown yet mutually detrimental ways as it relates to its neighbors.

Response to Comment Colton -4


Comment Colton -5

A larger gym with a height of 45 feet and only set back 20 feet from the nearest home (Cetners, 1439 Castello Ave.) is all in violation of the 1999 CUP agreed by everyone.


With regard to comments related to setbacks and heights, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-15, 38 and 44. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Colton-6

As for the cul-de-sac - no one on our street wants it. We have signatures from100% of the residents on Castello Ave. opposed to it as well as the Fire Captain from the Pico/Prosser station and the Fire Captain from the Robertson/Cashio station. We anticipate that the side steets, Alcott and Saturn would become clogged as parents try to avoid the cul-de-sac when delivering and picking up the students.


With regard to comments related to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. With regard to comments related to emergency access, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-187. The list of signatures



referred to by the commenter can be forwarded to the City for inclusion in the administrative record and consideration by the decision-making bodies. However, the issues referenced in the comment pertaining to the cul-de-sac were determined not to have a significant impact in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Traffic Chapter.

Comment Colton-7

Extending the hours for the school operation plus allowing 'special events' to as late as 11:00 P.M. is frightening to the neighbors.


Condition 20 in the 1999 CUP provided for special events to conclude as late as 11:00 pm. As such special events are currently allowable until 11:00 pm per the existing CUP. The applicant is proposing to retain, and not extend this time, as provided in proposed Condition 16. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Colton-8

An increase in the number of students from 250 to 350 with no ceiling on future enrollment means more noise, more traffic, more trash, and more disturbing episodes.


With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. The proposed modifications would maintain permitted enrollment at the maximum of 450 students, but would alter the composition of permitted enrollment to a maximum of 350 high school students (100 more high school students than permitted by the 1999 CUP) and 100 JSI/YOLA University students (100 less adult education students than permitted by the 1999 CUP). These enrollment levels would not allow for additional future enrollment above the maximum allowable and an increase in maximum enrollment is not proposed.

Comment Colton-9

God Bless our young people, the future of our country, who at this stage of their life are uncontrollable by the faculty at YULA.





Comment Colton-10

Police records at the WLA Station will disclose all the disturbances that have occurred causing some neighbors to fear a terrorist attack taking place.



Comment Colton-11

We are concerned and apprehensive that the Yeshiva expansion and the MOT expansion are very clearly being planned as one huge single complex and that YULA's proposal will be pre-arranged the same as the MOT. Are we wasting our time writing to you because 'the fix is in' again? We hope not.


This comment states opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



COMMENT LETTER COLTON 2

Jean and Fred Colton 1461 So. Castello Ave. Los Angeles, CA 9005 (REVISED) April 13, 2009

Comment Colton 2-1

Our peaceful residential neighborhood is under attack. YULA BOYS HIGH SCHOOL is proposing to revoke virtually every important condition that we negotiated in 1999 to protect our neighborhood with the new building proposal it has submitted.

Response to Comment Colton 2-1

With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. As provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, of this Final EIR, the applicant proposes to retain many of the conditions in the 1999 CUP.

Comment Colton 2-2

After two years of letter writing, attending Planning Committee meetings and trying to make our voices heard, the MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE, in a pre-arranged, political and money fueled effort, received almost everything they wanted from the City Planning Commission. Now we are faced with a cement and concrete monolith, 65 ft. high overwhelming our residentialneighborhood. It makes us wonder if our voices are heard or if 'the fix is in' with YULA, and our effort and letter writing is all for naught. The members of the Planning Committee staff presented a fair and balanced recommendation on the MOT proposal, which would have provided a measure of protection to our residents. However, their recommendation was completely ignored by the City Planning Commission and our Mayor. Clearly it was all pre-arranged and 'fixed' before we ever got to the hearing. It is our sincere hope that this YULA proposal succumb to the same fate as the MOT proposal and allow money and politics to be the deciding factor. But we digress.


This comment states opinions regarding the City approval process associated with the Museum of Tolerance, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Colton 2-3

YULA BOYS HIGH SCHOOL has been a nuisance in our neighborhood on Castello Avenue since the day it was built. The wild behavior of the students, the trashing of our street, the additional traffic involved all create a major disturbance in the neighborhood.



Comment Colton 2-4

YULA proposes 19,500 sq. ft. of new construction instead of the 10,500 sq. ft. which was approved in the 1999 CUP, while at the same time 'giving up' 7,153 sq. ft. of space to the MOT. This is mind boggling.



Comment Colton 2-5

A larger gym, with a height of 45 feet and set back only 20 feet from the nearest home (Cetners, 1439 Castello) is all in violation of the 1999 CUP which was agreed to by all the parties.


With regard to comments related to setbacks and heights, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15 and Fink-38. With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Colton 2-6

As for the cul-de-sac -- we have signatures from 100% of the residents on the 1400 block of Castello Avenue opposed to it plus signatures against it from the Fire Captain at the nearest station on Pico Blvd. in West L.A. and from the Fire Captain at the Robertson/Cashio station. We don't want it.


With regard to comments related to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. With regard to comments related to emergency access, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-187.



Comment Colton 2-7

Extending the hours for the school operation plus allowing 'special events' to as late as 11:00 P.M. is frightening to the nearby residents.



Comment Colton 2-8

An increase in the number of students from 250 to 350 with no ceiling on future enrollment, means more noise, more traffic, more trash on our streets and additional activities every night of the week.


With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. The proposed modifications would maintain permitted enrollment at the maximum of 450 students, but would alter the composition of permitted enrollment to a maximum of 350 high school students (100 more high school students than permitted by the 1999 CUP) and 100 JSI/YOLA University students (100 less adult education students than permitted by the 1999 CUP). These enrollment levels would not allow for additional future enrollment above the maximum allowable and an increase in maximum enrollment is not proposed.

Comment Colton 2-9

God Bless our young people, the future of our country, who at this stage of their life are uncontrollable by the faculty at YULA or the security people on duty.



Comment Colton 2-10

Without a watchdog agency in City Government, there has been no way to monitor or enforce past conditions imposed on YULA nor is there a method of enforcement of future conditions.




With regard to comments related to enforcement, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. The City Department of Building and Safety, in conjunction with the LAPD, are the agencies responsible for enforcement of the existing CUP conditions at the project site.

Comment Colton 2-11

We are concerned and apprehensive that the Yeshiva expansion and the MOT expansion are very clearly being planned as one huge complex and that approval of YULA'S expansion proposal will be 'fixed' and pre-determined, just the same way that the MOT's expansion proposal clearly was. We hope our fears are unfounded.


This comment states opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



10. COMMENT LETTER CRASNICK

Gerald and Sylvia Crasnick 1450 Roxbury Drive Los Angeles, CA 900035

Comment Crasnick-1

Once again we are writing you to help us protect our neighborhood, bounded by Pico Blvd. on the north, Horner St. on the south, Beverwil Dr. on the east and Roxbury Dr. on the west. The Planning Commission, to our great dismay, has allowed the Museum of Tolerance (MOT) to expand much more than was advised by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga. Construction of the Yeshiva University (YULA) will overlap with the MOT expansion, so the VERY heavy construction noise and vibration from jack hammers, pile drivers, etc. will be unbearable.

Response to Comment Crasnick-1

The Draft EIR discloses that cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Comment Crasnick-2

The estimated two years of construction, six days a week (Monday - Friday from 7:00am – 6:00pm and Saturday from 8:00am – 6:00pm) will be more than many of our elderly residents can bear and the City will have their ill health and, in some cases, death on their consciences. The constant noise six days a week, the dusty air from the construction vehicles will all take its toll on all of the residents, young children as well as the elderly.


With regard to comments related to construction hours, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-49. With regard to air quality impacts during construction, the commenter is referred to Section IV.B in the Draft EIR.

Comment Crasnick-3

The report makes no mention of the partial closing of Roxbury Dr. that was required in the 1999 Plans. Our street (1400 block) has so many problems with traffic and parking from those attending MOT and YULA events as well as those parking for Physical Fitness around the corner on Pico Blvd.


Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. In



addition, on-street parking demand studies were conducted to determine if spillover parking from the campus was resulting in a shortage of on-street parking near the project site. As indicated in Table II-19 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, two-thirds of the on-street parking spaces remained available at all times. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. With regard to comments related to the Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4. The parking situation at Physical Fitness is a separate matter from the proposed project and, to the extent that this business is in violation of its CUP, local residents can contact the City Department of Building and Safety to report such violations.

Comment Crasnick-4

Although we have District 25 Permit Parking ( 2-hour 8:00am – 6:00pm Monday – Saturday, permit only 6:00pm – 8:00am Mon – Sat and permit only on Sundays (all day and night), it is to no avail – people park for more than 2 hours, evenings and Sundays. When we call parking enforcement, we get NO REPSONSE. It appears Roxbury Dr. is off limits.

I have purchased 18 $1.00parking permits for guests to come to dinner, but the street does not have one empty space. I am out $18.00 and my guests have to park in the bank lot at the corner of Pico & Roxbury, if it is not full of MOT and gym people. We are property owners and pay our taxes; we deserve better than not being able to park in front of our own house or at least in front of next door.


Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. In addition, on-street parking demand studies were conducted to determine if spillover parking from the campus was resulting in a shortage of on-street parking near the project site. As indicated in Table II-19 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, two-thirds of the on-street parking spaces remained available at all times. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. It should also be noted that Roxbury Drive is a public street and that the project applicant has no control over the number of available spots on the street at any given time. If neighboring residents feel that this is an issue, they should contact the LAPD’s Parking Enforcement Division.



Comment Crasnick-5

YULA plans on increasing enrollment by 40% although they assured us in our last go-round that they “would never increase the enrollment”. For 18 years we have nothing but lies from both the MOT and YULA! How can they increase enrollment which means more staff and not increase their parking which presently is 100 spaces when Code requires 265 spaces? Why would the City go against its own Code to allow this?


The proposed modifications would maintain permitted enrollment at the maximum of 450 students, but would alter the composition of permitted enrollment to a maximum of 350 high school students (100 more high school students than permitted by the 1999 CUP) and 100 JSI/YOLA University students (100 less adult education students than permitted by the 1999 CUP). With regard to comments related to parking requirements, the commenter is referred to Master Response 3. With regard to comments related to enrollment, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Crasnick-6

Plans for the gym, now to be a “multi-purpose facility”, call for double the amount of construction planned in 1999, from 7500 square feet to 9100 square feet, able to be used for events by any sports league in which either the Girls High School students or YULA students are playing. The area could literally be used by any school “in their league” who wants to use it, which translates into use EVERY night of the week except Friday.


This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Crasnick-7

An unlimited number of “Special Events” will be allowed OUTDOORS 8:30 am – 9:30 pm weekdays and Sundays, 10:30pm on Saturdays with indoor events until 11:00 pm. It has been limited to 8 events; this would be an unbearable change. What are “Special Events”? It seems it could be anything from any type of rally to a large Purim holiday carnival, with a Ferris Wheel, other rides, musicians, food being cooked with the odors permeating the neighborhood. The southern outdoor boundary is only feet from the nearest neighbor. It is beyond anyone’s imagination what horrors this will bring to our peaceful neighborhood.




When the Proposed Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to comments related to outdoor events, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51. Special events were described in Condition 8 of the 1999 CUP (shown in Appendix B of the Draft EIR with proposed revisions presented in Appendix E to this Final EIR). The proposed modifications to the CUP have not included revisions to the description of types of special events allowable.

Comment Crasnick-8

We have high-school aged youngsters walking around our streets all the time during the day. Why aren’t they kept on campus where they belong? They are the responsibility of the YULA from the time they leave home in the morning until they return home at the end of the day; how can YULA be responsible if the youngsters are off campus un-chaperoned by staff?


With regard to the issue of YULA students being allowed to leave the campus during the school day, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-30, -41, and -89. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Crasnick-9

And then we come to the increase in people attending synagogue services from a maximum of 50 neighborhood residents to an UNLIMITED number of people who are somehow “affiliated” with YULA, plus 200 persons “not affiliated” with YULA. This basically means an UNLIMITED number of people, as how is anyone, to know or enforce, who is or isn’t “affiliated”? The YULA and MOT EXPANSIONS ARE ONE SINGLE MASSIVE PROJECT!!!!!


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2.



Comment Crasnick-10

YULA, as the MOT is doing, is proposing to revoke virtually every important condition the was negotiated, in 1999, to PROTECT the neighborhood.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. As provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the applicant proposes to retain many of the conditions of the 1999 CUP and to strengthen others to address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood.

Comment Crasnick-11

We ask you to not only read our letter and those of our neighbors, not only to hear what the letters are saying, but also to listen to what we and the other residents are saying. This project is TOO LARGE for a residential neighborhood. We ask that you respect the existing CITY codes and NOT ALLOW this projected expansion to continue.





11. COMMENT LETTER DIAMOND

Scott Diamond, President Beverlywood Homes Association Los Angeles, CA 900035

Comment Diamond-1

I am President of the Beverlywood Homes Association (“BHA”), one of the largest homeowner associations in West Los Angeles. The more than 1,350 single family residences that comprise BHA are located between Robertson on the east to Roxbury on the west and from Beverlywood on the south to its northern border just a few blocks south of Pico and the proposed project site. I am writing on behalf of BHA with respect to the above referenced project that I will collectively refer to herein as either the “YULA Development” or “the above project.”

Response to Comment Diamond-1


Comment Diamond-2

BHA would like to formally submit our objections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above project, based upon numerous community impacts and a flawed analysis relating thereto, including, but not limited to traffic and parking. Moreover, BHA believes that it would be more appropriate to analyze this project concurrently with the related Museum of Tolerance expansion (ENV-2007-2476-EIR), since it appears that the proposed projects will be connected, will share each others facilities and thus, will collectively impact the community. (It even appears that approximately 7,000 square feet of YULA related property will be transferred to or otherwise utilized by the Museum of Tolerance). BHA thus objects to these projects being considered separately in that their collective impact will be greater than their individual impact.



Comment Diamond -3

TRAFFIC

As anyone who regularly drives the streets of the Westside knows, traffic on local streets has reached unbearable levels. A November 26, 2007, press release from the office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, expressed the necessity of the “Olympic-West Pico-East” Initiative –– spear-headed by the



mayor and endorsed by Councilmember Weiss –– to relieve the unbearable traffic congestion that afflicts the Westside. In the press release, the mayor referred to the Westside as the “gridlock epicenter” of Los Angeles. According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, Supervisor Yaroslavsky, has advised his staff not to schedule any appointments on the Westside after 2:00 PM because of the horrific traffic that grips the Westside each and every workday. Rush hour commuter traffic continues to increase as more and more large projects have been developed, leading to gridlock conditions most times during peak rush hours while only trying to travel a few short miles.

While the traffic study states that the impact of the above project would be less than significant, once again, the study fails to take into account the cumulative impact of this and other projects under construction or being proposed, such as the related Museum of Tolerance request for expansion. (ENV-2007-2476-EIR.)


With regard to comments related to Olympic-West Pico-East Initiative, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-176. The traffic analysis adequately addressed the impacts of the project. Furthermore, the Museum of Tolerance was included in the analysis of traffic impacts as Related Project No. 53, as discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter.

Comment Diamond-4

In addition, the DEIR fails to analyze the impact of the above project at Beverwil and Monte Mar, Castle Heights and National, Beverly and Monte Mar, and Monte Mar and Robertson. Nor does the traffic study account for the proposed increase of approximately 40% additional daytime students at YULA (from 280 to 400), and the related impact on traffic in our community.


Those intersections most likely to be significantly impacted by the proposed project were selected by the LADOT. The intersections identified by the commenter were not anticipated to be significantly impacted by the project. Furthermore, the project would not significantly impact any of the studied intersections and therefore there is no reason to believe the project would significantly impact these other intersections. The proposed increase in high school enrollment (from 200 to 350) was analyzed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, as discussed in Response to Comment Fink-60 and in Section IV, Corrections & Additions, of this Final EIR. JSI and YOLA classes would not begin prior to 7 p.m.

Comment Diamond-5

Moreover, the cumulative effect of the past 10 years of development in Century City, Beverly Hills and along the Wilshire corridor must be assessed and considered in light of the additional adverse impacts of the above project on neighborhood and arterial vehicular traffic, noise and pollution.




Development that has occurred in the past is included as part of the existing condition. The existing condition of the study area is described in Section III, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the air quality, noise, and traffic analyses include the existing condition as the baseline for analysis of impacts.

Comment Diamond-6

With respect to the construction route that has yet to be approved, any construction truck trips or worker truck trips traveling through any residential community must be prohibited. Furthermore, it would be detrimental to Westside traffic to allow any construction truck trips or worker truck trips during peak rush hour periods. Such trips should be mandated to occur before 7:30 AM in the morning and either before 4:00 PM or after 7:00 PM in the evening. As such, the proposed Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan should be prepared and circulated as part of any revised DEIR so that the public can have an opportunity to assess the impact of this additional environmental burden.


With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1. With regard to comments related to construction parking, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-57. The Construction, Staging, and Management Plan will be prepared in accordance with City requirements.

Comment Diamond-7

PARKING

While the YULA development proposes to add 15 parking spaces, this would still leave YULA 156 spaces short of code requirements (100 v. 256). This is will place an unacceptable burden on neighboring communities, including BHA.



Comment Diamond-8

NOISE

A forty percent increase in daytime class size will result in additional noise. The impact of this additional noise on our local communities needs to be more thoroughly analyzed.




The commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-48. This comment provides the opinion noise impacts need to be studied further, but the commenter does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of this assertion. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Diamond-9

ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS

BHA hereby incorporates herein joins in all other objections submitted to the DEIR and incorporates herein by reference all such objections.

In conclusion, the DEIR for the above project is flawed. These inadequacies must be corrected in order for the EIR to meet CEQA’s minimal requirements. On behalf of BHA, I strongly recommend that a revised DEIR be prepared and circulated that fully and adequately addresses the additional analysis requested herein. However, even with mitigation, it appears that the project will have to be modified to avoid further burdening neighborhoods that are already overburdened by traffic, noise and pollution from intense development in Century City and elsewhere on the Westside, not to mention a city and a state that are facing an extreme water crisis. Once the additional analysis has been prepared and circulated, BHA will be in a better position to analyze what modifications will be necessary.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please continue to include me on your mailing lists for any future documents and public hearing notices.


The commenter will be included on the interested persons list. With regard to comments related to adequacy and recirculation of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referred to Master Response 1.

12. COMMENT LETTER ENGEL

Lillian & William Engel 9736 Alcott Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Engel-1

The school wants to expand beyond the numbers allowed by the 1999 CUP report. The students are rowdy, litter our streets. They park illegally and when told they are back again the next day.



Response to Comment Engel-1

Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Engel-2

YULA wants to extend evening hours and religious services and disrupt our quiet evenings.



Comment Engel-3

The noise from the expansion by the school and the museum will be intolerable. Help us keep our neighborhood peaceful and desirable.





13. COMMENT LETTER GOMPERTS

Philip S. Gomperts 315 N. Swall Drive, #302 Beverly Hills, CA 90211

Comment Gomperts-1

While I have commented before on this case I believe that I have to re-iterate my concerns regarding the YULA and Museum of Tolerance (MOT) expansion plans. My main concerns are:

Response to Comment Gomperts-1


Comment Gomperts-2

1) That the YULA expansion must be evaluated in conjunction with the proposed expansion plans of the MOT.



Comment Gomperts-3

2) These expansions will take a number of years to complete. Therefore, together with all the noise, dust, pollution and associated work, there will be huge disruptions to normal residential life for 6 days a week from dawn to dusk. This is absurd, especially since the proposed expansion should have been rejected by the City Planning Department for many reasons, including the following:



Comment Gomperts-4

a) There has been a complete disregard of many of the conditions contained in the 1999 Conditional Use Permit.




With regard to comments related to alleged violations of the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.

Comment Gomperts-5

b) Parking will be an absolute mess. The YULA expansion only provides for 100spaces out of a total of over 250 that should be required under the L.A. Municipal Code. This in addition to the shortage of parking projected in the MOT expansion will turn the residential neighborhood into a traffic and parking hazard, and a total mess will ensue. I cannot understand why the City Planning Dept. has not insisted that adequate parking be a major stipulation of the plans.



Comment Gomperts-6

I fear for the residents and their small children in the neighborhood. Surely their lives and safety should be of prime concern. As it is, the buses and cars that currently bring visitors to the MOT and YULA create hazards under the present conditions.



Comment Gomperts-7

c) The increased traffic and the construction vehicles will increase the pollution in the surrounding area and this should also be of major concern especially in the environmental impact study. Items (b) and (c) should in themselves be adequate grounds for rejection the proposals outright.


With regard to comments related to air quality from construction and traffic, the commenter is referred to Section IV.C, Air Quality of the Draft EIR.

Comment Gomperts-8

d) Furthermore, I cannot understand why the proposals have not been rejected in the light of the proposed operating hours and the noise and disruption to residential life that they will cause. The proposed so-called "special events" at both YULA and the MOT will go on until late in the evening and sometimes



very late into the night. These events will be unlimited in number and the noise and other associated disruptions to family residential life will be intolerable.



Comment Gomperts-9

There are many other reasons why these proposals should be rejected. I am sure that if these proposals were to affect your own neighborhood, you would be as outraged as I am.

These two combined projects will not only be massive in themselves but will disrupt the lives of a large number of homeowners in a massive way and should not be allowed to proceed on the massive scale that they have proposed – two huge projects on the same site in the same neighborhood!!I would like to know why these disgusting projects are being pushed through without any regard to previous agreements and conditions and without regard for the rights of the local residents!!!

Why is it that the profiteering motives of a few well-connected individuals are being allowed to take precedence over the rights and lives of ordinary decent residents of a heretofore quiet neighborhood (and without regard to any of the important concerns of the neighborhood). What is the City Planning Dept doing to protect the rights of the citizens in this case??? As a taxpayer I would like some answers to these questions.





14. COMMENT LETTER GRANT-MILLER

Rita Grant-Miller

9735 Saturn Street


Comment Grant-Miller-1

Please record the Rita Grant-Miller and her family are strongly OPPOSED to the expansion of the Yula project on Pico Blvd. I live at 9735 Saturn Street.

Response to Comment Grant-Miller-1



Whenever they boys are out playing during the day, the racket can be deafening now. Imagine what it will be like with additional students, cars, night time events, events that are unrelated to the Yeshiva? Not to mention that the working people of Los Angeles who travel on a daily basis from east to west enroute to their work and families -- note the rush hour traffic from 7:am though 10:30 and from 3:pm until after seven pm. These are hard working people who will also be hampered by unnecessary student and parent cars from YULA that already speed constantly on the side streets even now, and will further congest the Pico and Beverly Hills traffic flow.


The commenter is referred to Section IV.E, Noise, of the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Traffic Chapter for a discussion of noise and traffic impacts associated with the proposed modifications. When Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.


As it is, these parents' and student drivers have no respect nor concern for anyone outside of their "community," they are oblivious to the greater needs of the population. I have lived here for 24 years and can attest to that. The greed to build on such a small piece of land is an insult not only to us but to the



greater population of this city. Please do not allow this city to ruled by the men who flagrantly abuse the wealth they have collected from donations and tax payer funds in order to become more powerful at the expense of the tax payers who are trying to use public transportation and or have to drive on the already over crowded streets. We urge you not to support this project.





15. COMMENT LETTER HOLLANDER

Selda & Victor Hollander

Comment Hollander-1

This is to comment on the Draft EIR for the Yeshiva expansion project. My husband and I are elderly, and we live on the corner of Alcott and Castello, directly opposite the Yeshiva's driveway. The proposed expansion will have very serious impacts on us and our neighbors, which cannot be mitigated.

I am shocked, stunned, and bewildered that the LA Dept of City Planning is even considering this outlandish proposal for the above-referenced Yula Boys High School Expansion project.

Response to Comment Hollander-1


Comment Hollander-2

It totally violates our rights as homeowners and citizens and taxpayers. I believe we never had a chance to state our rights!!!!! Just like the related Museum expansion, this appears to be a "FIXED", "done" deal by people with lots of money and lots of pull, who contributed lots of money to the politicians who are trying to ram these two outrageous projects down our throats. These two projects, which are really a SINGLE project, as all of us are well aware, will simply destroy this neighborhood.

I see and understand that we, as honest, law-abiding, tax-paying homeowners, do not have a chance to voice our opinions or be heard . . . a horrible injustice to us, who do not have the wealth, the power, or the political connections with the Mayor, our so-called Council representative, Jack Weiss (who does not represent us at all), the Planning Commission members, City Council, etc.


With regard to comments related to segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. This comment states opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Hollander-3

I don't believe the people who are supporting this project have any idea what this is going to do to us - - or if they do, then they just don't care, and that is disgraceful for a Jewish institution to do to its own people. My husband and I are Jewish, as are almost all of the Yeshiva's neighbors.



Comment Hollander-4

For example: A few weeks ago, we had an incident that started about 11:00 PM, where we heard a lot of noise, students had been on the roof of the school, covered their heads with hoods and were running around. Several of us neighbors went out and were very scared. We thought they were terrorists attacking the school, we called the police, we had squads of police arrive, and they were there until 2:00 AM on Sunday morning. We were all petrified. That same Sunday morning, we were awakened at 7:00 AM by a lot of noise coming from the schoolyard. The students, as a prank, had put up a temporary swimming pool in the parking area (which is a serious violation of the school's CUP!), and the students were jumping in and out and running around the area, out of control. I went to the school and complained about what was happening....but the pool remained there for several days.



Comment Hollander-5

We also have constant problems with cars that block the alley that runs parallel to Alcott Street, or park at the corner of Alcott and Castello while picking up and dropping off students - - and we, the homeowners, cannot get into our homes. WE get out of our cars and plead with them to move, but they say, "we have a right to be there, it's a free country, and there is no sign that says we can't be here."


With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. Additionally, as provided in Condition 26 of the 1999 CUP,



the loading and unloading of students should occur on-site to the maximum extent feasible. This condition is retained as Condition 22.

Comment Hollander-6

When there is prayer time every night for the adults, it starts around 9:00 PM. They race down Alcott from Beverwil and go right into the YULA parking lot or park on our streets. On one occasion I almost got run over while crossing the street, and the driver wouldn't stop to talk to me. I had to go into the prayer room and told them what had almost happened to me. I asked the driver to stand up, but he would not.!!!!


The school regularly advises students and parents to encourage compliance with parking restriction conditions pertaining to the school. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Hollander-7

This is just a brief sample of what we go through and have to put up with all the time. It will get much worse if YULA expands. The proposed cul de sac will not keep the traffic off of Alcott Street. It may well make the traffic and other problems worse.



Comment Hollander-8

My neighbors across the street spend most of their time complaining to the school about the noise, the traffic, and the parking. They have also called the police for help.

The school does not listen to us. The security guard who works at the school has told me, "The students don't listen to me, The parents don't listen to me." This is all documented. The guard came to my house during the last incident, with the swimming pool that was not supposed to be there, with the students running on the roof after midnight, and again told me that the students would not listen to him.


With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP



Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14 and 30. With regard to the swimming pool the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-225O. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Hollander-9

Multiply this by 7 days a week, and all hours of the day, plus the Museum that is open on Sundays, whose visitors don't want to have their cars searched or who cannot use the Museum garage because it is full, or because their car is too high to fit under the low entrance to the garage, and then park on our streets.


Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Hollander-10

This is what we NOW live with. Yet, they want to expand their facility, build a gym where they can host large functions 7 days a week, have the YULA Girls School - - and other schools - - come and use their facilities.... Can't the City Planning Department understand what a disaster this will be??........ As it is now, we have a very difficult time using our streets. It is not a safe place to live. The students drive recklessly, racing their cars down Castello from Pico or the school's driveway. I have even seen students sitting on the roof and trunk of cars that are moving!


With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. When neighborhood residents observe a traffic violation, the LAPD should be notified. With regard to comments related to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Hollander-11

Most of us in this area have lived here over 50 years. We are all Senior Citizens, we have all kinds of health issues, we can't afford to move, we are looking for a peaceful ending to our lives....... PLEASE HELP US!!!

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please pass this on your team.



16. COMMENT LETTER LERMAN

Harry and Sharon Lerman 9743 Cashio St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Lerman-1

We live at 9743 Cashio Street and we are impacted with the Yeshiva expansion and also the expansion of the Museum of Tolerance. The Yeshiva expansion overturns all the conditions as previously stated in the 1999 CUP’s which were so carefully crafted to protect our neighborhood.

Response to Comment Lerman-1

With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. As provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR, the applicant proposes to retain many of the conditions of the 1999 CUP.

Comment Lerman-2

We are opposed to the expansion of the number of students proposed from 250 to 350. These students have no regard for our property and as the race their cars from Cashio St. to Castello Avenue in order to park; they have no consideration for our very lives. The proposed cul de sac near Pico Blvd. will not alleviate the school traffic which will be significantly increased on Cashio St. and on Castello Avenue. In fact, we feel many students driving will avoid the inconvenience of the cul de sac and drive down Castello, and continue on to exit on Alcott east to Beverwil Drive.


With regard to comments related to enrollment and the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With regard to comments related



to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR.

Comment Lerman-3

There is inadequate parking for this student body expansion as only 100 parking spaces are being planned thus avoiding the Los Angeles City Code requiring 265 parking spaces.



Comment Lerman-4

The Yeshiva also plans on voiding the 1999 agreement by constructing an addition of 19,953 sq. ft. as opposed to the previous allowed 10,500 sq.ft. The Gym is now being considered as a multipurpose facility for 9,100 sq.ft. as opposed to the previously allowed 7,500 sq.ft.



Comment Lerman-5

This gym will be able to hold not only the students of the Yeshiva, but also the Girls High School events and their respective sports league members for not only sports, but dances, rallies, carnivals and other special events both schools desire every night of the week. Previously, special events were limited to eight events per year, now the Yeshiva wants to have an unlimited amount of events lasting until 11:00 P.M.





Comment Lerman-6

Additionally the Yeshiva wishes to have an Orthodox Synagogue within its walls to accommodate at least 250 persons. They can then have all their religious services such as Bar Mitzvahs and Weddings and go through the attached west wing to the Museum of Tolerance for a massive Banquet. These side by side expansions were meant to act together to produce large crowds, more traffic, noise and parking problems.


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Lerman-7

These dual expansions cannot be labeled as for the greater good, but labeled as power and greed.



Comment Lerman-8

It is also shocking and offensive that these powerful and so called religious organizations would have their construction six days a week thereby desecrating the Sabbath. This is extremely offensive.

Please consider and protect our neighborhood.

Thank you.



17. COMMENT LETTER RUBIN

Tatayana and Victor Rubin

9751 Alcott St.




Comment Rubin-1

I do not have a computer, so Mrs Hollander has kindly offered me the use of her computer to let you know how this proposed expansion will be affecting us ...worse than what it is today. I will also be faxing you an additional letter.

Response to Comment Rubin-1


Comment Rubin-2

You already have read about the traffic situation, the noise that goes on all day and night, the parking, etc. the scare that we had the night we thought terrorists were attacking the school, where my husband and I were awakened at 11:00 PM and saw hooded humans running on the roof the school, we called the police and were with them till 2:00AM. This is all documented.


With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. It should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Rubin-3

My house backs into the alley, where the students and parents use to pick up and drop the kids off. The entry to my garage is from the alley, and on numerous occasions I have been unable to get in and out of my garage. Talking to them is "out of the question". They tell you its a free alley, free country, nothing posted, etc.


With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. Additionally, as provided in Condition 26 of the 1999 CUP, the loading and unloading of students should occur on-site to the maximum extent feasible. This condition is retained as Condition 22. This comment is



acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Rubin-4

Also, one of the worst problems that I don't know if you aware of, is their air conditioning unit that is close to the street on Castello that goes on all the time. The noise vibrates into our homes.


The analysis of noise impacts associated with the schools HVAC system was analyzed in Section IV.E, Noise, of the Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Proposed Condition 39 requires that HVAC noise not exceed 55 dbA at the property line consistent with existing condition 44. Compliance with the 55 dbA requirement is achievable through the installation of available equipment and positioning an adequate distance from the property line. As part of the proposed modifications, HVAC systems would be moved further away from adjacent uses.

Comment Rubin-5

This has been going on for years . We were promised that it would be corrected. Have spoken to Susan Burden and the rabbis who promised that it would be fixed and moved. Now, they state that they are on commercial property!!!, and are ignoring us..... With the expansion that they are requesting, can you imagine what the noise will be with the new air conditioning units!!!!!


Refer to Response to Comment Rubin-4 and Fink-153.

Comment Rubin-6

Years ago, the existing building and property was used by a clinic facility for disturbed children. When the present owners bought the property, we were told that they were going to use it for a small special school for rabbinical studies. We were happy to help, but this has turned out to be a nightmare. They have not kept their promises to us. They keep adding and adding and adding without any regard for the neighbors.

Thank you for your time. Please help us out.

Response to comment Rubin-6




COMMENT LETTER RUBIN 2

This letter is virtually identical to Comment Letter Hollander-1 above.

Tatayana and Victor Rubin

9751 Alcott St.


Comment Rubin 2-1

This is to comment on the Draft EIR for the Yeshiva expansion project. My husband and I are elderly, and we live 2 houses from the corner of Alcott and Castello, directly opposite the Yeshiva's driveway. The proposed expansion will have very serious impacts on us and our neighbors, which cannot be mitigated.

I am shocked, stunned, and bewildered that the LA Dept of City Planning is even considering this outlandish proposal for the above-referenced Yula Boys High School Expansion project.

Response to Comment Rubin-2-1


Comment Rubin 2-2

It totally violates our rights as homeowners and citizens and taxpayers. I believe we never had a chance to state our rights!!!!! Just like the related Museum expansion, this appears to be a "FIXED", "done" deal by people with lots of money and lots of pull, who contributed lots of money to the politicians who are trying to ram these two outrageous projects down our throats. These two projects, which are really a SINGLE project, as all of us are well aware, will simply destroy this neighborhood

I see and understand that we, as honest, law-abiding, tax-paying homeowners, do not have a chance to voice our opinions or be heard . . . a horrible injustice to us, who do not have the wealth, the power, or the political connections with the Mayor, our so-called Council representative, Jack Weiss (who does not represent us at all), the Planning Commission members, City Council, etc.

Response to Comment Rubin 2-2

With regard to comments related to segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. This comment states opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Rubin 2-3

I don't believe the people who are supporting this project have any idea what this is going to do to us - - or if they do, then they just don't care, and that is disgraceful for a Jewish institution to do to its own people. My husband and I are Jewish, as are almost all of the Yeshiva's neighbors.



Comment Rubin 2-4

For example: A few weeks ago, we had an incident that started about 11:00 PM, where we heard a lot of noise, students had been on the roof of the school, covered their heads with hoods and were running around. Several of us neighbors went out and were very scared. We thought they were terrorists attacking the school, we called the police, we had squads of police arrive, and they were there until 2:00 AM on Sunday morning. We were all petrified. That same Sunday morning, we were awakened at 7:00 AM by a lot of noise coming from the schoolyard. The students, as a prank, had put up a temporary swimming pool in the parking area (which is a serious violation of the school's CUP!), and the students were jumping in and out and running around the area, out of control. I went to the school and complained about what was happening....but the pool remained there for several days.



Comment Rubin 2-5

We also have constant problems with cars that block the alley that runs parallel to Alcott Street, or park at the corner of Alcott and Castello while picking up and dropping off students - - and we, the homeowners, cannot get into our homes. WE get out of our cars and plead with them to move, but they say, "we have a right to be there, it's a free country, and there is no sign that says we can't be here."


With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. Additionally, as provided in Condition 26 of the 1999 CUP, the loading and unloading of students should occur on-site to the maximum extent feasible. This condition is retained as Condition 22. With regard to comments



related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Rubin 2-6

When there is prayer time every night for the adults, it starts around 9:00 PM. They race down Alcott from Beverwil and go right into the YULA parking lot or park on our streets.


The school regularly advises students and parents to encourage compliance with parking restriction conditions pertaining to the school. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Rubin 2-7

This is just a brief sample of what we go through and have to put up with all the time. It will get much worse if YULA expands. The proposed cul de sac will not keep the traffic off of Alcott Street. It may well make the traffic and other problems worse.



Comment Rubin 2-8

My neighbors across the street spend most of their time complaining to the school about the noise, the traffic, and the parking. They have also called the police for help.

The school does not listen to us. The security guard who works at the school has told me, "The students don't listen to me, The parents don't listen to me." This is all documented. The guard came to my house during the last incident, with the swimming pool that was not supposed to be there, with the students running on the roof after midnight, and again told me that the students would not listen to him.


With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP



Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999 CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With regard to the swimming pool the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-225O. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Rubin 2-9

Multiply this by 7 days a week, and all hours of the day, plus the Museum that is open on Sundays, whose visitors don't want to have their cars searched or who cannot use the Museum garage because it is full, or because their car is too high to fit under the low entrance to the garage, and then park on our streets.


The school regularly advises students and parents to encourage compliance with parking restriction conditions pertaining to the school. Parking on neighborhood streets by students, faculty and staff is currently prohibited by the 1999 CUP in Condition 24, which prohibition is proposed to be retained by the applicant as proposed Condition 20. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Rubin 2-10

This is what we NOW live with. Yet, they want to expand their facility, build a gym where they can host large functions 7 days a week, have the YULA Girls School - - and other schools - - come and use their facilities.... Can't the City Planning Department understand what a disaster this will be??........ As it is now, we have a very difficult time using our streets. It is not a safe place to live. The students drive recklessly, racing their cars down Castello from Pico or the school's driveway. I have even seen students sitting on the roof and trunk of cars that are moving!


With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. With regard to comments related to access of the project site via Castello Avenue south of the cul-de-sac, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-59. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment Rubin 2-11

Most of us in this area have lived here over 20 years. We are all Senior Citizens, we have all kinds of health issues, we can't afford to move, we are looking for a peaceful ending to our lives....... PLEASE HELP US!!!

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please pass this on your team.





18. COMMENT LETTER SPEIR

Ira Speir 9722 Saturn St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Speir-1

I have been a local resident for the past 9 years and I believe that my family and I will be adversely impacted by the proposed expansion of the Yula Yeshiva. Please note that I am truly a “local resident”, living only one block east of the Yeshiva. We are a family of four with two children ages 5 and 7.

Response to Comment Speir-1


Comment Speir-2

My main concerns are as follows:

Increased traffic on Pico and nearby streets. Our street (Saturn) is currently innundated with overflow traffic from both the Yeshiva and the Museum of Tolerance. Other nearby streets Alcott, Horner, Cashio, and Castello are similarly affected. I have often witnessed Yeshiva students race down our block at excessive speed. This will only increase if the Yeshiva substantially expands their size, occupancy and hours of operation


With regard to comments related to traffic, the commenter is referred to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. With regard to comments related to the alleged behavior of YULA Boys High School students, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30.

Comment Speir-3

Noise. If the Yeshiva expands its operations, it will inevitably lead to a huge increase in noise pollution in our quiet, residential neighborhood. Our young family starts the day at 5:30AM…we do not want to be disturbed by the increased car and foot traffic of more kids attending a larger school for expanded hours. The Yeshiva’s request to have outdoor “special events” until late evening will be especially disruptive




With regard to comments related to noise, the commenter is referred to Section IV.E, Noise, of the Draft EIR. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51.

Comment Speir-4

Security. An increase in size and scope of the Yeshiva will certainly mean increased security threats to the facility. Reccent world events show that Jewish organizations are often targeted. I am not convinced that the Yeshiva can provide effective measures to protect a larger building with expanded hours.



Comment Speir-5

I invite you to visit our neighborhood to experience a vanishing Los Angeles scene; on many blocks bordering the Yeshiva, you’ll see young children playing on quiet, safe streets. You might be surprised to find that there are 10 kids under the age of 14 living on our street alone. This expansion project in its present form would effectively destroy our peaceful neighborhood. We don’t care to turrn our residential area into “West Hollywood” in order to satisfy the expansion whims of YULA. This is why the original conditions were put into place a decade ago.





19. COMMENT LETTER STERN

Marilyn Stern 9757 Cashio Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Stern-1

I live at 9757 Cashio Street, one block south on the west side of Castello Ave. from the YULA Boys High School. I have lived here for more than 39 years; my children went to Hillel Hebrew Academy and my daughter attended YULA Girls School for one year, 1983-4.

Response to Comment Stern-1


Comment Stern-2

First, I want to say, we the neighbors of both YULA and MOT are having to address both these issues separately, when they should be reviewed together by the Planning Department and Planning Commission, but we are also having to once again address the issue now regarding YULA in the midst of the Passover holiday. In my opinion, this has been done on purpose as they know many people will be too busy to respond to the DEIR.


With regard to comments related to segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review during a 45-day review period that began on February 26, 2009 and ended on April 13, 2009 in compliance with CEQA and City of Los Angeles requirements. The Recirculated Traffic Chapter was circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010. The public has the opportunity to provide additional comments at future public hearings pertaining to the project. This comment includes statements regarding the review period of the Draft EIR, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Stern-3

YULA received approval from the City in 1999 to build a gymnasium for 10,500 sq. ft. of new construction. Now, they are asking to build new construction of 19,953 sq. ft.



One of the main reasons why YULA got approval from the City in 1999 to build such a gym was that it promised to move all of the athletic activities inside; this would then alleviate the noise the neighborhood contends with from the students playing outdoors including yelling back and forth to one another on the outdoor area they now use. By allowing this new requested over construction, YULA wants to change the current Conditional Use Permit.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14. With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51.

Comment Stern-4

There is no maximum occupancy mentioned for the new gym, which could potentially hold several hundred or perhaps a thousand people;


Proposed Condition 66 limits gymnasium occupancy to 300 persons, excluding YULA Boys and Girls High School students under the age of 18. This reflects a maximum anticipated 300 persons for gymnasium events. Students under 18 are expected to be participants in such events and anticipated to traveling to and from the school with audience members, such as their parents. Therefore on-site parking or Special Event off-street parking is anticipated to be adequate to meet parking needs. See also Response to Comment Fink-83.

Comment Stern-5

there are only 100 parking spaces in the YULA lot even though the L.A. Municipal Code requires it to have 265 spaces.



Comment Stern-6

There is no limit on the number of special events and the definition of special events is very broad. This means anything that YULA sponsors which could include carnivals, protest rallies, demonstrations, outdoor weddings, torah dedications could be held in the outdoor space. All these type of events will invite hundreds and hundreds of people at one time.




Special events were described in Condition 8 of the 1999 CUP. The proposed modifications to the CUP have not included revisions to the description of types of special events allowable. This comment speculates on potential special events, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Stern-7

The current hours for the outdoor area are 8:30 a.m. to 6 P.M. Now, they are requesting use of outdoor activities and special events, which could be interpreted in many ways, to go until 9:30 p.m. on weeknights and Sundays and until 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays. The outdoor space needs to have the same time frame as now, 8:30 a.m. to 6 P.M.

I feel that for Sundays, (and Saturdays) is too much even for the present hours as the neighborhood is very quiet and the noise of a dozen or so boys/people carries down the blocks, particularly for those living on Castello, Alcott and the west part of Saturn Street.


When the proposed Phase II is completed, the only outdoor areas will be the main courtyard that will be enclosed to south and west by buildings that are one to three stories in height, and a small atrium courtyard that is surrounded by buildings on all four sides. It is expected that athletic events will be held in the gymnasium, but there may be some ancillary aspects that occur in the courtyard outside. Hours of events in the courtyard will be restricted pursuant to Condition 10. With these mitigation measures, events in this enclosed area are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Stern-8

Why do they need to build a synagogue on their premises that is so large? There are many synagogues in the area; in fact, there is an orthodox synagogue across the street, on Pico, called Mogen David. Up and down Pico, between Roxbury Drive and La Cienega Blvd., there are many orthodox synagogues; there is no need for another synagogue for hundreds of people. They can accommodate the school’s needs for prayer with a small synagogue on the campus, not one for outsiders. The large synagogue request is for Bar Mitzvahs, Weddings for third party rental and then the guests can go to the MOT for their parties. This is not a commercial street; there are residences up and down the streets directly adjacent to these properties.




With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment expresses an opinion regarding the current synagogues in the area, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Stern-9

The construction is anticipated to take 2 years six days a week which includes Saturdays.

This is shocking that an orthodox Jewish institution, would allow work on the Sabbath.

This is offensive and hypocritical for orthodox Jews to behave in such a manner.



Comment Stern-10

The requested construction by YULA is completely unacceptable and violates the fundamental deal that was made in 1999. Again, the purpose of the gym was to bring all outdoor activities inside and there must be no outdoor activities of any kind whatsoever because these are very disruptive to the adjacent neighborhood. This means no outdoor athletic activities, no outdoor events or special events, no outdoor classes, and no outdoor religious ceremonies (Kiddush, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.)

Thank you for reading my letter.


With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51.



20. COMMENT LETTER SNYDER-KEYS

Joyce Snyder/Matthew L. Keys 1495 Roxbury Drive Los Angeles, CA 90035-2814

Comment Snyder-Keys-1

Even though we live at 1495 Roxbury Drive I am, nevertheless, opposed to the YULA expansion.

Response to Comment Snyder-Keys-1



The CONDITIONS that we negotiated in 1999 to protect our neighborhood are basically being ignored.


With regard to comments related to the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-14.


The fact that we want a CUL DE SAC at the Pico end of Roxury Drive hasn't even been discussed.


With regard to comments related to a Roxbury Drive partial closure, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-4. As is noted on page IV-1 in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR, the condition requiring the partial closure of Roxbury Drive has been removed by the applicant.



21. COMMENT LETTER VARADI

Ivan Varadi 9713 Saturn St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Varadi-1

This is to register my strong opposition of the approval of the planned YULA Boys High School Expansion Project, Case No. ENV-2008-1799-EIR.for the following reasons:

Response to Comment Varadi-1


Comment Varadi-2

1. Construction to overlap with the proposed Museum of Tolerance expansion, so construction noise and vibration will be excessive, heavy construction: jack hammers, pile drivers, etc.


The Draft EIR discloses that cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Comment Varadi-3

2. Construction estimated to take two years, and will be six days a week (7 AM to 6 PM, Monday ? Friday and 8 AM to 6 PM Saturday).



Comment Varadi-4

3. Cul de sac on Castello Ave., north of Alcott (but will have rolled curb to allow emergency access).


With regard the cul-de-sac and emergency access, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-7 and -187.



Comment Varadi-5

4. 40% increase in the number of high school students, from 250 to 350 students, with no limit on future enrollment.


With regard to comments related to enrollment, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-30. The proposed modifications would maintain permitted enrollment at the maximum of 450 students, but would alter the composition of permitted enrollment to a maximum of 350 high school students (100 more high school students than permitted by the 1999 CUP) and 100 JSI/YOLA University students (100 less adult education students than permitted by the 1999 CUP). These enrollment levels would not allow for additional future enrollment above the maximum allowable and an increase in maximum enrollment is not proposed.

Comment Varadi-6

Only 100 parking spaces provided although Code requires 265.



Comment Varadi-7

5. Almost double the amount of construction that was planned in 1999 (19,953 sq. ft.of new construction vs. 10,500 sq. ft. approved in 1999.



Comment Varadi-8

6. Gym is now a “multi-purpose facility”, to be used for school dances, Special Events, etc.

7. Gym is now 9,100 sq. ft. instead of 7,500 sq. ft., and 45 ft. high instead of 40 ft.

8. Gym occupancy will be 300 excluding Boys HS and YULA Girls HS students under the age of 18 (so that could be 1,000 or more people!!).

9. Gym no longer for use only by the Boys HS, but now also by the Girls HS, and any sports league in the city in which either school is a member - - regardless of whether YULA students are playing! Basically, it



would be the gym for every school that wants to use it, so it will probably be in use every night of the week!


With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28. This comment states opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Varadi-9

10. “Special Events” can be held outdoors between 8:30 AM and 9:30 PM on weekdays and Sundays, and until 10:30 PM on Saturdays. Indoor Special Events can go until 11:00 PM. unlimited number of Special Events (previously limited to 8 per year).

11. Special events now defined very broadly, to include any “community event” Sponsored by YULA - - for example, an outdoor rally, protest or carnival.


Special events were described in Condition 8 of the 1999 CUP. The proposed modifications to the CUP have not included revisions to the description of types of special events allowable. Condition 20 in the 1999 CUP provided for special events to conclude as late as 11:00 pm. As such special events are currently allowable until 11:00 pm per the existing CUP. The applicant is proposing to retain, and not extend this time, as provided in proposed Condition 16. This comment states opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Varadi-10

12. Huge Orthodox synagogue (increase from a maximum of 50 neighborhood residents, to an unlimited number of people who are somehow “affiliated” with YULA, plus 200 persons “not affiliated” with YULA - - which is basically an unlimited number of people, because there is no way to know, or enforce, who is or isn’t “affiliated”. Have the services here, then have the party next door at the MOT!




With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. This comment states an opinion, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Varadi-11

My mother is a victim of the holocaust. I support the institution and what it is stand for. However, this project simply not belongs to a residential neighborhood.





22. COMMENT LETTER VITOLO

Richard K. & Bozena H. Vitolo 9728 Horner St. Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Vitolo-1

We are members of the Beverlywood Homeowners Association and live at 9728 Horner Street, Los Angeles, in the corner house at the end of Castello Place and Horner Street. We have a direct line of sight to the entrance of Yeshiva High School on Castello Street.

In 1985,when we moved into this house, we participated in the discussions surrounding the building of the Museum of Tolerance. At that time, the Simon Weisenthal Center(SWC) was located at the corner of Pico and Castello and several portable classrooms behind the Center served as Yeshiva High School. There were fewer than 50 students but, the activity around the school had a significant impact on the neighboring residences.

My wife and I, being public school administrators, recognized that the property was not appropriate for a high school and that the needs of the students would soon outlive the property. In the intervening years, the school has grown in population and built a permanent structure where the SWC was originally located. But, the property is still too small for a high school and its potential impact on the surrounding community.

High schools require interaction with other schools, they sponsor after-school, night and weekend activities, have critical needs for parking and transportation flow, must provide for staff parking, student drivers and their cars, parent drop-off and pick-up, and must provide for school bus drop-off and pick-up several times a day. In addition, there must be appropriate space for the students for outdoor activities as well as classrooms and administrative space. This property was wholly inadequate to its intended use in 1985, and with its growth in student and staff population, has become more so.

The SWC has made specific decisions since 1985 to expand the school in the face of strong community opposition; they have even moved the SWC to the northwest corner of Pico and Roxbury to make way for a permanent high school building. Now there are proposed plans to expand the physical structure on the school site, extend the operational hours, and increase the size of the high school. The Commission should note the change in name to "University", suggesting that it will expand programs for adults into evening hours by this proposal.

Response to Comment Vitolo-1

With respect to problems associated with the high school’s operations, it should be noted that there are numerous conditions in the amended and restated conditions (provided in Appendix E, Proposed CUP Conditions, to this Final EIR), which remain substantially unchanged from the conditions in the 1999



CUP, that provide mechanisms for the neighborhood to report any alleged behavior. Additionally, as provided in Condition 26 of the 1999 CUP, the loading and unloading of students should occur on-site to the maximum extent feasible. This condition is retained as Condition 22. The proposed modifications would maintain permitted enrollment at the maximum of 450 students, but would alter the composition of permitted enrollment to a maximum of 350 high school students (100 more high school students than permitted by the 1999 CUP) and 100 JSI/YOLA University students (100 less adult education students than permitted by the 1999 CUP). These enrollment levels would provide for fewer adults in the evening hours. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Vitolo-2

It is impossible to separate this YULA proposal from the proposed expansion of the Museum of Tolerance currently under consideration by the Commission. Both of the proposals are offered by the SWC and aim to further overbuild and overuse these parcels. These proposals will have a direct and ominous impact on our neighborhood. We urge the Commission to review these proposals together with a view to the potential impact of both these developments. The MOT proposal wants to take over 7000+ sq.ft. of the West Wing of YULA while YULA asks to add an additional 9000 sq. ft. for the loss of space. THESE PROPOSALS MUST BE REVIEWED TOGETHER.


With regard to comments related to segmentation, the commenter is referred to Master Response 2. With regard to comments related to the total proposed square footage, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-28.

Comment Vitolo-3

We ask the Commission to uphold the current CUP conditions for YULA as well as the MOT.





23. COMMENT LETER WIZELMAN

Edward Wizelman 9700 Saturn Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment Wizelman-1

The YULA distributed DEIR has uncanny similarities to the neighborhoods impalement from the MOT FEIR and city planning decision. To say that this project was not knowingly piecemealed by the applicant and the MOT to lessen the EIR findings is unjust.

The applicant is requesting the same extensions and exemptions to the detrimental effects of building massing, increased traffic, construction and demolition noise, disruptive evening utilization, parking leniencies, automobile queuing, and reclassification of purpose. This case ENV-2008-1799-EIR must not be thought as an independent project from the environmental factors dismissed as ‘less-than-significant’ in the recent ENV-2007-2476-EIR findings.

As I have learned from the MOT’s companion project, several of these issues are not covered by the urban application of EIR categories. It again falls upon the City Planning Department to recognize that these projects create a massive complex that is inappropriate to the neighborhood and additional scrutiny should be applied. I am hopeful that the YULA EIR will examine the compounding factors brought about by the MOT’s project involving overlapping construction plans, noise of evening operations, traffic increases, parking inadequacies, and re-characterization of business use.

Once again I find myself at the mercy of the City Planning Department to consider, protect and value the character, livelihood and homeowners in an urban neighborhood by producing a report free of political bias towards unbridled business district growth.

Response to Comment Wizelman-1




24. COMMENT LETTER YAMTOV

Johnny Yamtov 1428 s Roxbury Dr Los Angeles, Ca 90035

Comment Yamtov-1

Please STOP these projects (EXPANSIONS).

We are the very immediate neighbor to the YULA and MOT. Our house at 1428 south Roxbury Dr, located from the north side next to MOT and from the west side of YULA.

Response to Comment Yamtov-1


Comment Yamtov-2

This proposals going to have the worst impacts on our neighborhood . YULA and MOT are indeed as one huge single complex and they should be reviewed in a single environmental impact report City has failed to evaluate the cumulative impact . these expansions and now YULA proposal for expansion brings nightmares of noise from morning to the late night hours parking problems and heavy traffic to our neighborhood . these enormous buildings going to surround our house will block our sunrise and bringing noise and pollutions and hardships to our family and the neighborhood and again causing serious parking problems and heavy traffics around and in our neighborhood .



Comment Yamtov-3

In the last hearing of MOT while I did asked some of those people whom came in favor of expansion

"non were willing to live next to the YULA and MOT "

Even The head of YULA and MOT not wishing to live next to such projects.

This is what rabbi Mervin Hier said to me a year ago "I didn't want to live next to the expansion that is why I bought my house else where.



I wish it was that easy for many neighbors after so many years even way befor MOT were built up they were living in here it is not possible just go and live elsewhere.

I also want to live with my enter family in nice quiet neighbor hood exactly like rabbi Hier.And I do not mined to move out if MOT and YULA finde me another place to live or pay us the fair market value.

IT would be fair if MOT and YULA would respect the buffer zone which were set many years ago by the city for very good resones.

YULA is trying to revoke almost all of the conditions that were imposed by the city to protect the neighborhood .


With regard to comments related to setbacks, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-15. This comment expresses opinions, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Yamtov-4

YULA expansion features unlimited occupancy for the synagogue and gym which could potentially brinks hundreds of people and just thinking about PARTIES and the different and gathering and ceremonies would be held every day .


With regards to comments related to synagogue use, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-21. With regard to comments related to gym occupancy, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-83. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment Yamtov-5

There is no limitation on the numbers of large special Events wich could be all sort of incidents, like demonstrations protest rallies concerts carnival and all kind of parties and found raising ets.

With no limit on how long these events can last there could be amplified speech going on all day long. there should not be out door activities of any kind whatsoever because these are truly destructive to the adjacent neighborhood.




With regard to comments related to outdoor activities, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-51. Special events were described in Condition 8 of the 1999 CUP. The proposed modifications to the CUP have not included revisions to the description of types of special events allowable. Condition 20 in the 1999 CUP provided for special events to conclude as late as 11:00 pm. As such special events are currently allowable until 11:00 pm per the existing CUP. The applicant is proposing to retain, and not extend this time, as provided in proposed Condition 16. Condition 13 in the 1999 CUP is proposed to be modified (in Condition 10) to allow outdoor special events to end at 9:30 pm versus 6:00 pm and to provide for start and end times on Saturday and Sunday.

Comment Yamtov-6

these expansion has to be stoped or limited way befor it's massive size would also be largely attracting terrorist act and causing fatality to neighborhood and guest and staff of YULA and MOT.Some might laugh at this but I can assure you even in united state of america trajedies by the terorist can happend at any moments ,right ; it sounds very quiet now but from where I came from what I am hearing it is not very hard to predict these insidents .

We live ina world where four little kids out of coast of Somalia kidnapping huge shipps and can fight the NAVY just couple of days ago or couple of mounths ago at mumbay Ten little terorist killed over hundreds of people and so on. these are some of our very serios concerns in this neighborhood and specially my family whom will be just couples of steps away from MOT and YULA.



Comment Yamtov-7

I mean litteraly our bedrooms windows would be just couples of steps away from these massive complexes.

I wish somebody out there had some mercy for our concerns.

I don't know how me and my family can survive through the noise and polutions of close to two years of constructions that takes for these buldings but certainly I belive my old parents can not make it I affraid.

The constructions will start every days from early morning to late afternoon six days a week including saturdays make this so hard for those of us whom are in poor health.

PLEASE STOP THESE EXPANSIONS.




This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. With regard to construction hours, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment Fink-49. Additionally, the commenter is referred to Sections IV.C, Air Quality, and IV.E, Noise, of the Draft EIR regarding impacts associated with construction.



25. COMMENT LETTER YARIS

Greg Yaris 478 Daniels Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Comment Yaris-1

I am a neighbor of the Yeshiva (our home address is 478 Daniels Dr., Beverly Hills). I am writing to oppose any change to the existing CUP. I also previously wrote a letter opposing any changes to the CUP for the Museum of Tolerance, directly next door to the Yeshiva.

Response to Comment Yaris-1


Comment Yaris-2

The first, most obvious comment is that these two developments must be looked at together. Besides the interlocking Boards and interlocking uses, they will be developing their properties at the same time. Therefore, the development impacts of one cannot be viewed without considering the development impact of the other.



Comment Yaris-3

Second, and most importantly, “a deal is a deal”. With respect to both the Museum and the Yeshiva, the City, representing homeowners, and the applicants reached a deal in which the applicants received the right to develop in exchange for the limitations contained in the CUP’s. Now, both the Museum and the Yeshiva want to undo the deal, and both are asking for approvals which most certainly would not have been granted previously. What would happen if the homeowners would come to you and say that we don’t like the deal by which the City agreed to on our behalf, and we want the Yeshiva and the Museum to knock down their buildings? Imagine the absurdity of such a request. Why are the requests from the Yeshiva and the Museum any different? What stops the Yeshiva and the Museum from coming back for a third, and fourth, bite at the apple?


The commenter is referred to Responses to Comments Fink-14 and -15.



Comment Yaris-4

Unlimited people, unlimited noise, unlimited uses, all of this is what we can expect if you agree to the redevelopment of the Yeshiva and Museum site. Subject to appeal and the obvious to come lawsuit against the approval recently granted to the Museum, we can only hope that you see the light and not grant the Yeshiva any changes to the existing CUP.





3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE RECIRCULATED TRAFFIC CHAPTER

In response to the questions and comments received during the circulation period for the Draft EIR, additional traffic analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project. To allow the public opportunity to comment upon the revised traffic analysis and mitigation recommendations, it was determined that the Traffic/Transportation/Parking chapter of the Draft EIR should be revised to present the revised traffic analysis and mitigation recommendations and that such revised Traffic/Transportation/Parking chapter should be recirculated ("Recirculated Traffic Chapter"). No other chapters of the Draft EIR were recirculated. The Recirculated Traffic Chapter was circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days between May 17, 2010 and July 1, 2010, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15105.

This section includes only those comments to the Recirculated Chapter. Responses to Comments on the previously circulated Draft EIR are provided in Section III.2, Responses To Comments On The Draft EIR. Comment letters received in response to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are included in Appendix A-2 (Bracketed Comment Letters on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter) of this Final EIR. Each letter is identified by the last name of the commenter, and each comment is delineated and numbered by comment. The text of the individual comments is included below and is followed by a response to the comments in corresponding order. Corrections and additions resulting from comments on the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are presented in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR.

COMMENT LETTER RTC-FINK-1

Daniel J. Fink, M.D. 607 Walden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Comment RTC-Fink-1-1

I am writing to comment on the above referenced project and on the Recirculated Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter. I have moved away from my house at 9736 Saturn Street, Los Angeles, CA 90035 from which I can see the YULA campus, where I can hear the noisy, disruptive, and unruly students, and see them dangerously speed past the house especially at afternoon dismissal, but I still own that property and therefore am still a very interested party. Please note my new mailing and email addresses.

I incorporate all previous communications about the YULA Expansion Project and the affiliated and interconnected Museum of Tolerance Expansion Project in this letter. As noted previously, both institutions were founded and led by the same individuals; they are physically interconnected; the “West Wing” space which the Applicant now cedes to its landlord, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance, was specifically built to meet the educational needs of the Applicant’s students, which its leaders emphasized in public statements and written documents could ONLY be met by this



space; and the Applicant would not need so much space in its proposed project (in fact, it could reduce the proposed space by almost half) if it were not giving away needed educational space to its landlord.

Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-1

This comment expresses opinions regarding the operations and relationship between YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Regarding the commenter's previous communications, refer to Response to Comments Fink-1 through Response to Comment Fink-259. Refer also to Master Response 2, Segmentation/Relationship between the Yeshiva and the Museum.


We are glad that the many serious deficiencies in the prior Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) have been recognized and acknowledged. Unfortunately, major deficiencies remain in the current Recirculated Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter. My comments are referenced to the new document but again I emphasize that all relevant comments on previous documents are included herein by reference. Two important aspects of the documents are emphasized. First, despite my repeated emphasis of the fact that the Applicant’s 1999 Conditional Use Permit calls for blockage of southbound traffic on Roxbury Drive south of the entrance to the bank parking lot south of Pico Blvd, this requirement and its impact on traffic is not mentioned in the Recirculated Chapter. This serious deficiency must be remedied to meet CEQA requirements. This deficiency is especially noteworthy in light of the Olympic/Pico traffic plan discussed on Page II-24. The environmental impact of one-way traffic on Pico Blvd. combined with the closure of southbound traffic on Roxbury must be evaluated.


Implementation of Condition 76 to the 1999 CUP, which provides for the partial closure of Roxbury Drive to southbound traffic, would not alter Project traffic distribution. Because the school driveway is located on the section of Castello Street that is parallel to the segment of Roxbury Drive where the blockage would be installed, Project trips would not use that segment of Roxbury, regardless of whether Condition 76 were implemented. Accordingly, the analysis in both the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Traffic Chapter assumed that there would be no southbound Project trips on Roxbury. Because Condition 76 was not imposed to mitigate any traffic impacts created by the high school or its proposed expansion as described in the 1999 CUP, and because the community may not favor the implementation of Condition 76, the Project proposes that this condition be removed.



Regarding the proposed “Olympic-West Pico-East” plan, as discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (Pages II-24-25), because CEQA review and analysis of this plan has yet to be completed and relevant details of the plan are not known, the plan is not assumed in the analysis of future conditions. See also Response to Comment Fink-176.


Second, recommendations for needed street signage to eliminate what I call “racetrack” traffic patterns on Castello and Alcott south and east of the proposed cul-de-sac during morning student drop off and evening student pick up times are referenced. The fact that there is no mention of this “racetrack” traffic in the Recirculated Chapter is another serious deficiency which must be corrected to meet CEQA requirements.


The cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue, south of the Project driveway, combined with restrictions on student loading and unloading and accompanying enforcement mechanisms, were identified as the most effective measure to reduce project-related residential traffic intrusion (or “cut-through” traffic). The loading restrictions and enforcement mechanisms are provided in Mitigation Measure II-9 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (Mitigation Measure G-9 of the original Draft EIR and proposed project Condition 22) to address this potential impact:

All loading and unloading of students shall be conducted on-site to the maximum extent feasible. To facilitate traffic movement, to prevent double-parking and to ensure the enforcement of these and any other related traffic control provisions, YULA shall provide a traffic control monitor at the entrance of the parking area during regular YULA Boys High School days' morning drop-off hours (7:15 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.) and afternoon pick-up hours (5:15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.).

Proposed project Condition 69 also addresses the restriction and enforcement of student loading and un-loading. Proposed project Condition 69 prohibits pedestrian access to the school on Castello south of the cul-de-sac. Refer also to Response to Comment Fink-59.


I also request that the LADOT or other independent agency or organization, at the Applicant’s expense, make a confirmatory study of the parking situation and especially the traffic situation as it currently exists at YULA. There do not appear to be sufficient parking spaces for those attending the proposed “functions” at the Applicant’s proposed gymnasium, especially including the hundreds of additional students from the YULA Girls High School. CEQA requires more than vague promises that off-site parking will be arranged. Details of where the cars will be parked, how visitors will get from the remote parking to the Applicant’s campus, what route shuttle buses will follow, etc., must be described in detail to meet CEQA requirements. Moving the parking problem from the Applicant’s campus to another



location is still a serious adverse environmental impact which must be considered to meet CEQA requirements.


With respect to the traffic analysis, the analysis in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter was conducted consistent with LADOT practices and policies. As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (page II-9), the revised analysis used actual trip generation rates for the school derived from counts conducted on April 23, 2009, which represented a typical general school day at the project site. All traffic counts were reviewed by LADOT and accurately reflect conditions observed in the field.

As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, all parking for daily operations will be on-site and the proposed parking should be sufficient for typical daily uses. Table II-17 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and Appendix A of the Traffic Study (pages 24-30) provides an allocation of parking consistent with the exiting Conditional Use Permit. The heading of Table II-17 has been revised to reflect the nature of the information provided therein (see Section IV, Corrections & Additions, of this Final EIR). The 100 spaces proposed by the project, combined with the various parking regulations proposed by the applicant, including but not limited to Proposed Conditions 18 through 21, will adequately protect the neighborhood from potential parking impacts from the education and religious activities at the Project site.

The LADOT is the City’s transportation expert; the Planning Department defers to the judgment of LADOT with respect to traffic impact assessments. LADOT has reviewed the revised Traffic Study for the proposed project, upon which the Recirculated Traffic Chapter is based and has approved the study and the findings in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, thus meeting CEQA requirements.


With regards to traffic, we request that time-lapse video recording be performed to document the heavy traffic counts and dangerously excessive vehicular speeds of vehicles driving to and from the YULA campus. The Applicant’s vehicle counts are so low as to be laughable!


The traffic counts for the school were conducted by a professional traffic engineering company, used standard vehicle counting techniques, and were found to be higher than ITE published rates based on similar counts at other schools.

The LADOT is the City’s transportation expert; the Planning Department defers to the judgment of LADOT with respect to traffic impact assessments. LADOT has reviewed the revised Traffic Study for the proposed project, upon which the Recirculated Traffic Chapter is based and has approved the study and the findings in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, thus meeting CEQA requirements.



Further, CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (Section 15204(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines). However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.


I will now comment on specific portions of the Recirculated Chapter.

Page II-3 In regards to Beverwil Drive, it should be specifically noted that major so-called “improvements” at the intersection of Beverwil Drive and Pico Blvd. were made approximately a year ago. These changes reduced southbound traffic on Beverly to one lane from just north of Pico Blvd. southward all the way to National Blvd. This has led to severe congestion, especially at the evening rush hour, with southbound traffic backing up into the intersection, blocking eastbound and sometimes even westbound traffic on Pico Blvd. This is a gridlock condition, which is perhaps a Condition G in Table II-2 on Page II-7. This Condition should be added to the Table. The traffic study of this intersection needs to be repeated to assess the environmental impact of the new “traffic mitigation” lane changes and median planting strips, to meet CEQA requirements.


The improvement at the intersection of Beverwil Drive and Pico Boulevard was neither part of the Project nor mitigation to reduce Project impacts, but was a separate project undertaken by the City and was approved and under construction during the preparation of the original Traffic Study and the revised traffic analysis presented in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. As shown in Appendices B and D of the Traffic Study, all future year CMA calculations assumed this reduction to a single through lane for southbound traffic as part of the analysis and thus no further analysis of this improvement is required.


Also on Page II-3 and II-4, under Public Transportation, it should be noted that almost none of the YULA students arrive by public transportation. Our observation is that most either drive or are dropped off by parents who drive. A few students and faculty live close enough to walk. It appears that YULA uses 2 buses to deliver students. The Applicant should be required to state how many (and what percentage) of its students, faculty, and other employees take public transportation. Otherwise, these paragraphs including those about the Metro Bus Service and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus are irrelevant.


The project trip generation in the revised traffic analysis was based on actual trip generation based on counts taken at the school in April 2009 and no transit credit was assumed in analyzing potential impacts.



Mitigation Measure II-10 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter requires that the school create a traffic monitoring and demand management plan (TMDM) to limit the net project trip generation to 62 AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips. Adding these net project trips to the project site’s existing trip generation data, the maximum number of trips the expanded school could generate shall be capped at 281 AM peak hour trips and 153 PM peak hour trips. Traffic demand management measures employed to achieve the required trip reduction may include without limitation, carpooling strategies, busing, shuttles, and public transit incentives. Use of available public transportation is one of several options for reducing the number of trips.


On Page II-8, we demand that the traffic study conducted three years ago in 2007 be re-done. We doubted the accuracy and validity of this study when the Applicant first submitted it and certainly think it is irrelevant and inaccurate today, three years later!


It typically takes years to complete CEQA analysis, process an application and render a final decision on a project. Traffic counts need to be conducted at an early stage of the impact analyses in order to inform this analysis and decision process. For these reasons, impact analyses routinely estimate future conditions, with and without project trips, well into the future. The traffic impact analysis for this project was based on expected 2012 conditions. In accordance with LADOT practices and policies, 2012 pre-project conditions were forecast by first increasing existing traffic volumes (2007 and 2008 count values) by the observed ambient growth rate of 1% each year (a factor based upon review of past trends for area traffic growth and SCAG modeling projects), and then by adding the expected trip generation from related projects, without mitigation. As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (page II-24) this method of estimating future traffic conditions is likely to overstate potential future conditions. This conservative methodology is the standard for traffic impact analyses since it is considered more than adequate to account for the time required for the review, approval and construction process that follows the initial data collection process. The project is proposed to be in operation by 2012. Therefore, the traffic analysis remains valid.


As expressed in previous communications, we are concerned about “racetrack” traffic on Castello Avenue and on Alcott Street. Specifically, rather than have all YULA traffic enter from the north, i.e., from Pico Blvd., as emphasized in the 1999 Conditional Use Permit of YULA’s predecessor Yeshiva of Los Angeles or YOLA, we think that parents dropping off students will either a) turn from Beverwil west on to Alcott, race down Alcott, stop on the southern side of the proposed cul-de-sac, drop off their student passenger(s), and proceed down Castello Avenue to Cashio Street or b) will turn north on Castello Avenue from Cashio or travel west on Horner, then north on Castello across Cashio, drop off the student passenger(s) on the southern portion of the proposed cul-de-sac, and proceed east on Alcott to Beverwil. This possibility still does not appear to have been adequately studied and constitutes a serious deficiency



in this analysis. This is not a theoretical possibility. It is already a common traffic pattern at this time, and will only be exacerbated by the installation of the cul-de-sac, especially if Pico Blvd. becomes a one-way street in the Mayor’s proposed traffic plan discussed below.


The cul-de-sac will prevent vehicular access to the school site from the south and the east and vehicular access will be available only from the north, on Castello via Pico Boulevard. No pedestrian access to the facilities will be provided south of the cul-de-sac and student loading and unloading south of the cul-de-sac is expressly prohibited (see Proposed Conditions 69, 22, 23). Proposed conditions provide for monitoring and enforcement of these restrictions, including reporting of violations and a progressive disciplinary system that includes temporary suspension from school (see Proposed conditions 20, 22, and 23). It is anticipated that these measures will prevent project traffic intrusion into the residential neighborhood to the south. In addition, vehicular trips will be reduced as a result of the trip cap and TMDM program required by Mitigation Measure II-10 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. See also Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-3.


On Page II 9-10, the analyses do not pass a basic “smell test.” These estimates do not appear to have any truth to them. Why doesn’t the Applicant, its consultant, or the LADOT put a counting device on Castello north and south of the Applicant’s driveway, and on Alcott Street and Saturn Street, to actually measure traffic? Why were only 15 minute interval counts done, rather than a complete count such as I performed and previously submitted? What is the Applicant trying to hide from the public? Incomplete and inaccurate data fail to meet CEQA requirements.


The trip generation referenced by the commenter does not consist of “estimates” but represent actual traffic counts performed at YULA Boys High School in April 2009. These were manual traffic counts, which are more accurate than automated counting machines and can distinguish between turning movements at an intersection. Manual counts were used for the study per standard traffic engineering practice and LADOT policy. These counts were conducted during the entire 2 hours for AM peak period (7-9 AM) and PM peak period (4-6 PM), and only sub-divided into 15-minute increments in order to identify the 60-minute portion of the peak period that comprised the peak hour at each intersection.


On Page II-10, we again question the validity of using 2 year old statistics and 3 year old statistics. Traffic has increased enormously in both directions on Pico Blvd. between Roxbury Drive and Beverwil Drive, especially eastbound towards Century City in the AM peak hours and westbound away from Century City in the PM peak hours. Traffic has also increase enormously on Beverwil Drive between



Pico and Horner, and on Roxbury Drive between Pico and Cashio Street, in the last few years. These studies must be repeated to meet the CEQA requirements.


Refer to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-8.


On Page II-11, we question the validity and accuracy of the data listed in Table II-5. Northbound traffic on Roxbury Drive (most of it heading for the overdeveloped land in Century City) frequently has to wait for 3 or 4 traffic light cycles to make a left hand turn on to Pico Blvd. westbound during the AM peak hour. Similarly, at the intersection of Pico and Beverwil, traffic takes at least 2 and sometimes 3 traffic light cycles to go through the intersection. This problem is worse during the AM peak hours. These intersections would more accurately be rated D or E LOS.


The comment expresses an opinion that the data presented in Table II-5 is not valid or accurate, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Notwithstanding the above, the following response is provided for the record. The project traffic study was reviewed and approved by LADOT and found to be consistent with professional standards and LADOT practices and policies. In particular, LADOT carefully reviewed and agreed upon the CMA calculations in Table II-5. Those calculations describe the average intersection conditions and are the average for all of the critical movements at an intersection. Some individual turning movements have a lower or higher LOS value than the average value for the entire intersection. The traffic study accurately describes project and cumulative traffic impacts. No further analysis is required.


On Page II-16, we think that the DEIR significantly understates the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed project, especially when considering YULA’s requested increase in high school student enrollment, the increased number and the change in the nature of events contemplated at the expanded campus, the extended use of the facilities by YULA Girls High School, and the extended use of the facilities for religious observances. We note that under California law, “the permit travels with the land”, so if the Applicant claims that on major Jewish holidays attendees at functions will walk, there is no guarantee of this if the facilities were to be rented, sold, transferred, or otherwise used by followers of



other religions. Again, all detailed and specific comments about parking in previous communications are incorporated here by reference.


The comment expresses an opinion that “the DEIR significantly understates the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed project”, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Notwithstanding the above, the following response is provided for the record. The analysis in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter uses a trip generation based on actual counts taken at the school in April 2009 and did not assume any project weekday traffic generation reduction as a result of Jewish holidays, but rather examined the worst case. Implementation of traffic Mitigation Measure II-10 would impose a limit on the school’s allowed traffic generation, i.e., a ‘trip cap’ of 281 AM peak hour trips and 153 PM peak hour trips. Mitigation Measure II-13 provides for monitoring to ensure compliance with the trip cap. With respect to the use of facilities for non-school religious purposes, such uses are narrowly restricted to non-peak hour evenings and orthodox holidays where driving is not permitted. Refer to Response to Comment Fink-21. Both the trip cap in Mitigation Measure II-10, the monitoring in Mitigation Measure II-13 and the proposed conditions limiting use for non-school religious purposes, are proposed to become part of any CUP approval. With respect to parking, see also Master Response 3 (Parking) and Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-4.


I am unable to follow the mumbo-jumbo on Pages II-16 to 19 about “thresholds of significance” and would appreciate an explanation that a layperson can understand. We live in fear that regardless of what the Applicant states, the peace of our homes will be disrupted beyond repair.


Under CEQA, thresholds of significance are the level above which an environmental impact would be considered significant and below which the impact would be considered to be less than significant. Thresholds of significance are established by public agencies (here the City of Los Angeles). This section sets forth the standard numeric criteria used by the City of Los Angeles to determine if a traffic impact is significant. Tables II-6 and II-7 within the Recirculated Traffic Chapter summarize the criteria that the City uses to evaluate potential traffic impacts.




On Page II-19, the haul route and staging areas must be specified BEFORE any realistic analysis of the environmental impacts of construction can be evaluated by the City or anyone else! Allowing the Applicant to offer such an incomplete filing violates CEQA and is equivalent to giving the Applicant a blank check for construction practices. It is IMPERATIVE that truck traffic be restricted to entering the project site only from Pico Blvd., and that it not go south of the driveway entrance to the project site.


While the ultimate destination of exported site materials has not yet been determined, potential hauling and staging impacts to the school vicinity have been addressed. Mitigation Measure II-2 provides that all excavation and demolition debris truck traffic shall be limited to Pico Boulevard. It further provides that trucks utilized for hauling of exported soil and construction equipment be staged on the property and prohibits staging in residential areas. It prohibits trucks and other construction vehicles on Castello Avenue south of Alcott Street, and on Saturn Street, Alcott Street and Roxbury Drive, at any time. Once the specific destination of exported site materials has been identified the applicant will apply for a haul route permit, which will be reviewed and processed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Refer to Response to Comment Fink-31.


On Page II-20 and II-22, the Applicant needs to specify in detail where the construction workers will park their cars. Again, a “blank check” approval for an Applicant with a history of continuous, deliberate, and flagrant violations of its Conditional Use Permit in the past, mocks any form of protection of the public by a governmental agency.


Mitigation Measure II-3 requires that:

Construction workers shall be prohibited from parking in residential neighborhoods. During the construction and remodeling period, off-street parking shall be provided for construction personnel. Construction workers shall be required to park at designated off-site parking areas and shall walk or be transported to the construction site by vanpools. Construction workers may also park on-site when the parking structure is available to accommodate such parking. The contractor shall implement procedures adequate to enforce the restrictions set forth herein, including but not limited to posting signs with these instructions at the construction site, printed in both English and Spanish, which shall be legible from a distance of 50 feet.

The location of off-site parking will be identified in the Construction Staging and Management Plan required by Mitigation Measure II-7.




The so-called “improvement” to Santa Monica Blvd. mentioned on Page II-24 may speed eastbound traffic from the San Diego Freeway to Avenue of the Stars, but at most times of the day traffic just gridlocks at the Beverly Hills border. I know this from personal experience since I now drive this portion of Santa Monica Blvd. frequently. I am not certain why this is mentioned here, as Santa Monica Blvd. is so far from the Applicant’s location as to be irrelevant.


This comment expresses opinions regarding recent roadway improvements made to Santa Monica Boulevard, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.


Also as noted on Page II-24, the Mayor’s ill-begotten Olympic West/Pico East traffic project is currently in the courts because of the City’s failure to file an Environmental Impact Report. The traffic impacts of the proposed project CANNOT be adequately evaluated without considering the impact of having Pico Blvd. be eastbound only. This serious deficiency MUST be addressed for this DEIR to meet the CEQA requirements.


The decision of whether or not to switch to a one-way couplet has not yet been made by LADOT and the City, nor are the detailed lane configurations known at this time. It is unlikely that the couplet would be in-place by the study year of 2012. Further, this couplet (if approved) would increase roadway system capacity and thereby reduce project traffic impacts. Therefore, in order to be conservative, the traffic analysis did not assume this potential increase in capacity and reduction of project traffic impacts. Refer also to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-2.


The inaccuracy of the Recirculated Chapter is demonstrated on Page II-25, where the Applicant states that “A neighborhood improvement at the intersection of Pico Boulevard/Beverwil Drive was approved and is currently under construction.” This so-called “improvement” was completed almost a year ago, in the summer of 2009. Although it may have reduced cut-through traffic through the Beverlywood Homes Association area well to the south of the project site, it has actually worsened traffic congestion on Beverwil between Pico and Cashio, and actually all the way to Sawyer. Despite my requests to the Council District 5 office, I have received no actual figures showing that the number of trips along



Beverwil during either AM or PM peak hours was reduced. All that appears to have been accomplished is to back southbound traffic up on Beverwil during the PM peak hour up to and even across Pico Blvd.


This comment expresses opinions regarding recent roadway improvements made to the intersection of Pico Boulevard/Beverwil Drive, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Refer also to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-6.


The maps on Figures II-4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 do not adequately address increases in trips at the crucial intersections of Castello Avenue and Cashio Street, and Beverwil Drive and Alcott Street, due to the “racetrack” traffic pattern anticipated as discussed above. In addition, the number of trips in the AM and PM peak hours are different. Where are the extra cars going? And the numbers of trips appear to be far fewer than reality. We again call for independent, real measurements of existing traffic by LADOT or a similar agency using proven traffic measurement technology.


Neighborhood intrusion impacts were evaluated on a segment basis, not by intersections. As discussed in Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-3, the proposed cul-de-sac and restrictions on student loading and unloading are expected to reduce the so-called “racetrack” concern expressed by the commenter. The Figures cited by the commenter show intersection data for those intersections selected for study. The studied intersections were selected in consultation with LADOT. The intersections cited by the commenter are not signalized and were not judged to be critical to the capacity of the area roadway network. With respect to the difference between the number of trips in the AM and PM peak hours, the trip generation rates used are based on actual behavior, and typical travel patterns result in different total trip numbers for AM and PM peak hours. For example, some cars may arrive during the AM peak hour but depart during an off-peak hour, and vice versa. In addition, trip generation rates reflect the fact that school hours start during the roadway AM peak period but classes end before the roadway PM peak period. With respect to the measurement of existing traffic, all counts were evaluated by LADOT and found to be reliable. Further, several of the manual and automated counts were taken from the database of recent counts by LADOT personnel that is maintained by the agency.


The serious deficiency of no mention of the impact of the required closure of southbound traffic lanes on Roxbury Drive south of the driveway entrance to the bank parking lot south of Pico Blvd. is also emphasized. The traffic impacts of this major street closure must be studied to meet CEQA requirements. Just as with the cul-de-sac, this closure is required BEFORE the Applicant begins any construction!






On Page II-38, the Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis does not include any mention of the “racetrack” traffic pattern mentioned above. Unless street signs prohibiting turns from Cashio Street northbound onto Castello Avenue, and westbound onto Alcott from Beverwil, are installed, there will be traffic northbound on Castello and eastbound on Alcott, or westbound on Alcott and then southbound on Castello, both during morning student drop off and evening student pickup hours. This major problem must be addressed in the DEIR. Specific signage to deal with this major problem was proposed in a previous communication on the earlier document.


As discussed in Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-2, the proposed cul-de-sac and restrictions on student loading and unloading are expected to reduce the so-called “racetrack” concern expressed by the commenter, and the proposed signage is unnecessary. Refer also to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-9.


On Page II-43, the section on Project Parking and Access is completely inadequate. Only 100 parking spaces for 350 high school students, 100 JSI students, and an unspecified number of faculty and staff is also completely inadequate. For functions including several hundred visitors from YULA Girls High School or other schools for athletic or other events, the number of spaces is insufficient.


As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, all parking for daily operations will be on-site and the proposed parking should be sufficient for typical daily uses. Table II-17 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and Appendix A of the Traffic Study (pages 24-30) provides an allocation of parking consistent with the exiting Conditional Use Permit. The heading of Table II-17 has been revised to reflect the nature of the information provided therein (see Section IV, Corrections & Additions, of this Final EIR). The 100 spaces proposed by the project, combined with the various parking regulations proposed by the applicant, including but not limited to Proposed Conditions 18 through 21, will adequately protect the neighborhood from potential parking impacts from the education and religious activities at the Project site. Further, current parking needs may be reduced by the implementation of traffic Mitigation Measure II-10. In addition, on-street parking demand studies were conducted to determine if spillover parking from the campus was resulting in a shortage of on-street parking near the project site under existing Conditional Use Permit conditions. As indicated in Table II-19 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, two-thirds of the on-street parking spaces remained available at all times. However, although existing conditions preclude students and visitors from parking on neighborhood streets, in response to comments the applicant has



volunteered to implement additional mitigation to enforce the conditions as provided in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR.

Off-site parking would be necessary only for intermittent special occasions and requirements for accommodating this occasional excess demand are sufficiently specified in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (pages II-43-45) and Proposed Condition 21.

See also Master Response 3 (Parking).


On Page II-45, the details of valet parking (i.e., where will the cars be parked, what route will the valet service follow, where will people drop cars off and where will they wait to pick up cars?) must be specified to meet CEQA requirements. Similarly, the details of where off-site parking will be located must be specified now, so the potential environmental impacts can be assessed.


As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, all parking for daily operations will be on-site and the proposed parking should be sufficient for typical daily uses. Valet and off-site parking would be necessary only for intermittent special occasions and requirements for accommodating this occasional excess demand are sufficiently specified in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter (pages II-43-45). Condition 69 provides that vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided only via Pico Boulevard or via Castello Avenue, northerly of the traffic diverter, and that all vehicles transporting students to and from the school shall load and unload students on-site or within the Castello Avenue right-of-way north of the traffic diverter. See also Master Response 3 (Parking).


Also on Page II-45, the number of spaces required by the Los Angeles Municipal Code parking requirement are so few as to be laughable (if the consequences on the Applicant’s neighbors weren’t so severe.) The exact number of spaces anticipated for various functions must be specified, and needed parking arranged, before further evaluation of this Recirculated Chapter to meet CEQA requirements.


The commenter’s views as to the requirements of the Los Angeles Municipal Code are noted. See Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-23.


In summary, serious deficiencies remain in the Recirculated Chapter. The cumulative impact of this proposed project, along with the related and interconnected Museum of Tolerance expansion, will have a serious adverse and detrimental impact on our neighborhood, and on our City. We urge- we plead- with those elected to represent us, and with those whose salaries our taxes pay, to require that the Applicant



follow the law, meet CEQA requirements, and take needed steps to protect our lives and hour homes and our quality of life in a quiet residential neighborhood.


This comment expresses opinions regarding the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and relationship between YULA Boys High School and the Museum of Tolerance, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Refer also to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-2 through RTC-Fink-1-25.



LETTER RTC-FINK-2

Daniel J. FINK, M.D. 607 Walden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210


When I prepared the comment letter I submitted on June 30, I reviewed the printed material which had been sent to me. I did not realize that there were additional appendices, which I just read. I am asking that these additional comments be appended to my earlier letter. The issues in most of these somewhat more specific comments are in general already mentioned in my June 30, 2010 letter or in previous comments on this project.


This comment introduces additional comments but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.


In Appendix A, the studies presented are from 2007 and 2008. As noted previously, traffic has gotten much worse in the last 2-3 years. These studies must be repeated to have any current validity and applicability, to meet the requirements of CEQA.


See Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-8.


In Appendix B, additional intersections need to be studied to adequately assess the serious adverse environmental impacts of this proposed project, to meet CEQA requirements. Specifically, the intersections of Beverwil Drive and Alcott Street and of Cashio Street and Castello Avenue must be included. These intersections will be heavily impacted by the proposed project, with or without the cul-de-sac, especially if steps are not taken to reduce the “racetrack” traffic pattern previously discussed.


The studied intersections were selected in consultation with LADOT. The two intersections cited by the commenter are not signalized or All-Way STOP controlled points on the arterial network and therefore were not considered to be potential constraints on the capacity of that network. Instead, analyses of



traffic impacts to the adjacent signalized arterial intersections and the adjacent residential segments were considered better indicators and were studied in the traffic analysis.

Refer also to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-3, RTC-Fink-1-9 and RTC-Fink 1-20.


In Appendix D, again, the data are from 2008 and the studies must be repeated. This comment is especially relevant to the intersection of Pico and Beverwil, where the “improvements” have reduced traffic lanes by 50% southbound. The LOS was C then but is F or even “G”- complete gridlock- now.


Refer to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-8 and RTC-Fink-1-6.


Turning to the letters from George Rhyner to Eddie Guerrero, for the July 1, 2009 letter it is noteworthy that the Applicant admits that the Trip Generation per Student is greater than 1 in the morning hours. What are the implications of this for parking? How many spaces are REALLY needed? And what happens to the cars and trips between morning and evening, when there are many fewer trips. Are these cars levitating? Are the students teleporting themselves home? Or are there really more PM trips and cars than were counted?????


The counts for the AM peak hour show 1.10 trips currently being made per student at the school, of which 0.66 are arriving and 0.44 are departing. The resulting accumulation of 0.22 spaces per student for 350 students will fit within the proposed 100-space site parking capacity. Further, it is anticipated that the current demand rate will be reduced by the implementation of Mitigation Measure II-10.

Refer also to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-23, RTC-Fink-1-4 and RTC-Fink-1-7.


And in the November 30, 2009 letter, we again note that the cul-de-sac is addressed but the equally binding requirement in the Applicant’s 1999 Conditional Use Permit that southbound traffic on Roxbury Drive south of the bank parking lot driveway south of Pico Blvd. be blocked. This existing requirement for the proposed Project is still not addressed and must be addressed to meet CEQA requirements.


The partial blockage of Roxbury Drive was intended to address potential impacts of the Museum of Tolerance project and neither its implementation nor its elimination would have an effect on project traffic. See Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-2.



LETTER RTC-GANS

Susan Gans 9751 Saturn Street Los Angeles, CA 90035

Comment RTC-Gans-1

This letter sets forth my comments on the Recirculated Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter (the “Chapter”) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the YULA Boys High School (“YULA” or “Applicant” herein) proposed expansion project (the “Project”). Although I am confident that the vast majority of the residents in my community will agree with these comments, I have not had the time (due to a family medical situation) to solicit their input. However, I will endeavor to have my comments ratified and affirmed by the recently incorporated Roxbury-Beverwil Homeowners Alliance and send you a copy of such ratification.

As an initial overall comment, I want to note that I have read Daniel Fink’s comments on the Chapter, as set forth in his letter of June 30, 2010, and I agree with all of his comments. Following are my comments, keyed to the page numbers of the Chapter (and all of my and HOME’s previous comments to the DEIR are incorporated herein by this reference):

Response to Comment RTC-Gans-1

This comment introduces subsequent comments and expresses the commenter’s general agreement with the comments of Daniel Fink but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment RTC-Gans-2

Project Description (Cover Page): Please note that the “increase in the number of high school students” is actually an increase from the current 186 students to 350 students - - a 188% increase - - and all of the traffic, speeding and (most of) the parking problems relate to the high school students, not the JSI students or other users of the facility. Also note that the so-called “reduction of the site” is not exactly an accurate description. The 7,153 sq. ft. annexed by the Museum of Tolerance remains on the site but just won’t be utilized by YULA. The F.A.R. of the structures on the land, all of which is owned not by YULA but by the Yeshiva of Los Angeles (“YOLA”), is vastly higher than it would have been under the previous plans and the 1999 CUP. Moreover, YULA is proposing to build 19,953 sq. feet of new construction, much of which is to compensate for the 7,153 sq. ft. that it “lost” to the Museum.




The Recirculated Traffic Chapter does not contain any changes to the proposed project description and the comment does not identify any deficiency or omission in the project description as set forth in the Draft EIR. The Project Description chapter of the Draft EIR states that the project proposes to increase the maximum permitted enrollment for the high school to 350 students. The Draft EIR identifies both the existing (2007) enrollment and the current maximum permitted enrollment under the 1999 CUP. With respect to the proposed project floor area ratio, the FAR for the project was calculated taking into account all structures on site, including the 7,153 s.f. West Wing, despite the fact that the project includes a request for a Reduction of Site reduction pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.24.N. See Response to Comment Fink-28. Refer also to Master Response 2, Segmentation/Relationship between the Yeshiva and the Museum.

Comment RTC-Gans-3

Page I-2: Note that the deadline for comments is July 1, 2010, not “May __, 2010”.


The submittal deadline date is revised in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR to reflect the correct date of July 1, 2010. It should be noted that the public Notice of Completion and Availability circulated May 17, 2010 with the document has the correct date.

Comment RTC-Gans-4

Page II-2: In what year was the traffic volume on the SM Freeway 276,000 VPD? If this data is from a study that is more than one year old (i.e., prior to May 2009), the City should require current data. In the 2nd line at the top of this page, there is a reference to “the most current data available” as being from 2007 - - three years ago!! This is unacceptable, as everyone knows that traffic continues to worsen exponentially with every year.


Refer to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-8. Also note that the most recent CalTrans counts now available shows 271,000 VPD for 2008; a slight decrease from 276,000 VPD for 2007.

Comment RTC-Gans-5

Page II-3: Please note that there are currently NO parking restrictions after 6 PM or on Sundays, on Castello Ave. The proposed expansions of YULA and the Museum will necessitate the extreme inconvenience and expense to neighborhood residents of expanding the “no parking allowed” to nights and weekends, and possibly changing 2-hr. parking to 1-hr. parking, and there is no guarantee that the City will approve such changes.




The commenter recommends changes to the residential district parking restrictions but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

It is also noted that Mitigation Measure II-12 prohibits parking on residential streets by YULA students, parents, faculty and employees, and proposed Condition 18 requires that all YULA students, faculty, employees and visitors park on the premises, or on off-site locations consistent with the CUP.

Comment RTC-Gans-6

Page II-8: Construction traffic should not utilize any neighborhood streets, under any circumstances. Note that the 1999 CUP also included installation of a partial closure on Roxbury Drive, yet this fact is completely ignored and never mentioned in the DEIR. Please explain why there is no mention of the Roxbury closure (which Zoning Administrator Lourdes Green had found to be essential) and provide an analysis of the traffic impacts of the project both with and without the Roxbury closure.


Page II-8 references an analysis of construction traffic impacts on local neighborhood streets which is set forth at pages II-18 through II-22 and concludes that impacts from construction-related traffic would be less than significant. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure II-2 would limit project excavation and demolition truck traffic to Pico Boulevard, avoiding residential streets, and would prohibit trucks and other construction vehicles from using Castello Avenue south of Alcott Street and Saturn Street, Alcott Street or Roxbury Drive at any time.

With respect to the partial closure of Roxbury Drive, see Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-2.

Comment RTC-Gans-7

Page II-9: It does not seem that a “15-minute interval” count would be appropriate in these circumstances, particularly in the AM hours, when students are all arriving around the same time. This would not appear to be the correct standard to survey this kind of usage, as opposed to a true “rush hour” or “peak period” which lasts 2 to 3 hours. Please provide a “total” count.





Comment RTC-Gans-8

Table II-3 contains references to footnotes “b” after “AM Peak Hour” and “a” after “PM Peak Hour”, but I could not find any such footnotes. Please indicate where these footnotes can be found, or if they were omitted, please add them.


These footnote markings were erroneously included and will be removed in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR. It should be noted that a full explanation of methodology for calculating Construction Trip Generation can be found in the paragraphs immediately preceding and following the Table II-3.

Comment RTC-Gans-9

Page II-10: “Existing” peak-hour traffic condition are 2010 conditions, not 2008 conditions. Traffic counts done 3 years ago, in 2007, are worthless, and we seriously doubt that the “ambience growth factor” of 1.0% covers the actual increase in traffic during this period. Traffic on Pico Blvd. has worsened considerably in the last 3 years, as anyone who drives this area can attest. Traffic is already at gridlock westbound in the AM peak period and eastbound in the PM peak period. We realize that there is always going to be some lag time between the studies and the publication of the DEIR. However, with all of the growth in Century City and office space in West LA and Santa Monica within the last 2 to 3 years, studies conducted in 2007 and 2008 are worthless. In particular, we question whether the LOS of “C” for the intersection of Pico & Beverwil is still accurate following the implementation of the “traffic calming” median south of Pico and the restriping of Beverwil north of Pico, which have slowed PM peak traffic to a crawl southbound on Beverwil (and which, I believe, were completed after these studies would have been done in 2008).


Refer to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-8, RTC-Fink-1-6 and RTC-Gans-4.

Comment RTC-Gans-10

Further, the traffic data must take into account the proposed expansion of the Museum and its transformation into a party palace, with an unspecified (despite our numerous unanswered requests for this information) total capacity (which we believe, based on the Museum’s own filings, to be approximately 2,300 people - - most or even all of whom could be driving to the Museum during the peak PM period).


The Museum of Tolerance expansion, including traffic for special events, was accounted for in the project traffic impact analysis. Please see related project number 53 in the Traffic Study in Appendix A.



Comment RTC-Gans-11

The footnote in Table II-4 (beginning with “The Junior/Community College rates . . . .” contains several errors and does not make sense as written. Please revise so we can understand it.


To calculate the peak hour trip generation from the YOLA students, the analysis assumed no trips during the AM and PM peak hour because both the current and proposed class times for these students are outside of the peak hours. To calculate the daily trip generation for these students, the analysis used one-half of the Junior/Community College rate (ITE Land Use Code 540). This daily trip generation analysis is considered to be conservative because YOLA classes are held only in the evening, unlike a Junior/Community College that would be expected to hold classes throughout the day as well as the evening.

Comment RTC-Gans-12

Page II-16: We appreciate the fact that the comparison is to the existing baseline conditions rather than to the project as approved in the 1999 CUP. However, we do not agree that by doing so, the Applicant has “overstated” the impacts in any way.


This comment expresses an opinion as to whether impacts have been overstated, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Refer also to pages I-4 to I-5 of the Draft EIR.

Comment RTC-Gans-13

(2) Again note that it is the high school students (and their parents) who cause almost all of the problems, so the fact that the total approved enrollment won’t change (but will merely be reallocated) is absolutely irrelevant.


The commenter expresses an opinion that the fact that the project does not propose a change in the total approved enrollment is ‘irrelevant’, but it does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.



Comment RTC-Gans-14

(4) Note that representatives of the RBHA are in discussions with representatives of YULA and the Council (CD5) office, to reach agreement regarding the proposed amendments to the permit conditions relating to increased “flexibility” in the number and nature of events, extended evening hours, and extended use of the facilities. We have not yet reached such agreement, which will be critical to dropping our opposition to this project.


The commenter describes discussions regarding the proposed conditions for the project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Comment RTC-Gans-15

Page II-17: Paragraph in the center of the page refers to a Threshold (h), but there is no “(h)” included in the list. Is Threshold (h) missing/inadvertently omitted, or is the reference an error?


The listing of Threshold (h) was erroneously included and will be removed in Section IV, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR.

Comment RTC-Gans-16

Page II-19: The RBHA will demand that the haul route not traverse residential streets and that the staging area(s) not be on any residential streets. These need not be designated now, but we must have assurances that local homeowners, a disproportionate number of whom are elderly and in poor health and home all day, will not be impacted by these construction activities and that the construction work itself will be done in a manner so as to minimize the impacts on these unfortunate people.


Refer to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-15 and RTC-Gans-6.

Comment RTC-Gans-17

The fact that this neighborhood is ATYPICAL, because such a large number of area residents are very elderly and in poor health and home all day must be taken into account by the Dept. of Building and Safety and LADOT in making decisions about haul routes, staging, and other construction activities.




The commenter expresses a view that the neighborhood is ‘ATYPICAL’, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Refer also to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-15 and RTC-Gans-6.

Comment RTC-Gans-18

Pages II-19/20: Arrangements should be made for all construction workers to park off-site and have shuttle transportation to and from the jobsite. Otherwise, assuming that YULA will continue school operations during construction, there will be insufficient parking to meet YULA’s regular needs. If the “maximum” of approx. 30 workers on-site daily are all allowed to park onsite, there will be virtually no place for students and faculty to park, since there are only 65 spaces currently, and construction will be taking place in the very same area where these 65 spaces are located. Thus, there is simply no place for the workers to park on-site without taking away most or all of the available on-site parking. If what is intended is that the workers would park on-site only after completion of the underground parking with 100 spaces (this is not clear, when read in conjunction with “Parking During Construction” on page II-22), then that might be acceptable, assuming that there have not been any changes in YULA enrollment or in YULA hours or activities at that point in time.



Comment RTC-Gans-19

Pages II-20/21: The “Trip Distribution” section is pure speculation, and most likely completely false. The assumption that YULA students and employees “live throughout the LA region” to any similar extent that the construction workers “live throughout the LA region” is absolutely ridiculous. YULA students and employees are almost all residents of the Pico- Robertson area and other not-so-distant areas of LA with large Orthodox communities (e.g., the Fairfax area and, to a much more limited extent, parts of the San Fernando Valley). No doubt the construction workers will reside in and be driving from much greater distances and vastly different parts of the City and County, and even from outside of LA County.


The comment expresses an opinion that “the “Trip Distribution” section is “pure speculation,” and “most likely completely false”, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is



acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Notwithstanding the above, the following response is provided for the record. Similar to the teachers, students, custodial staff, visitors, deliveries and other trips which will be made to the completed project, the construction workers will approach the site from all directions, although most heavily from the east. (See Table 6 of the Traffic Study for the directional distribution agreed to.) In order to access the site, the construction workers will use, primarily, the arterial streets and then Castello Avenue from Pico Boulevard. The trip distribution is used only to predict the path for the portion of the trip within the study area.

Comment RTC-Gans-20

Page II-21: “Construction Impacts” and Table II-10 – See above re: use of obsolete 2008 data.



Comment RTC-Gans-21

“Neighborhood Traffic Construction Impact Analysis” – in the 3rd line, why does it read “between Alcott Street and Cashio Street” instead of between “Alcott Street and Horner Street”? We want assurance that there will be no project trips on Castello from Alcott all the way south through Horner Street.


The residential segments most likely to be impacted by the project traffic are those closest to the project. Under the “Without Cul-de-sac” scenario, some trips would use Cashio Street to access Castello Street. Therefore, project impacts on Castello Street would be highest north of Cashio Street. However, implementation of the cul-de-sac and on-street drop-off restrictions would remove any residential intrusion impacts, including those on the segment to the south of Cashio Street.

Comment RTC-Gans-22

Page II-22: See above re: parking during construction.



Comment RTC-Gans-23

“Trip Generation” – please explain how you arrived at the calculation that 40% of the vehicles comprising the 164 AM peak hour trips would not be leaving YULA during the PM peak hours (which I believe to be 4 PM – 7 PM). I assume that a few students will end the school day and leave before 4 PM, but won’t most of the students who remain on campus for extracurricular activities or further studies, still leave



before 7 PM, and during the PM peak hours? The number of PM peak hour trips appears to be understated based on common sense.


With respect to the commenter’s question, the project trip generation rates (shown in Table II-12) were based on actual counts made at the school site. See Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-4 and RTC-Fink-1-10. While the PM “peak period” consists of a three-hour time segment between 4 PM and 7 PM, the PM “peak hour” is the one-hour period during this three-hour segment where the overall afternoon roadway congestion is heaviest. Thus, a trip made during the 4 PM to 7 PM window would not necessarily occur during the PM peak hour. In addition, while most of the school’s morning trips peak during the AM roadway peak hour, the school’s afternoon trips peak earlier, and thus outside of, the PM roadway peak hour. See also Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-20.

Comment RTC-Gans-24

Page II-23: See above re: failure to mention the partial closure of Roxbury Drive, which was required in the 1999 CUP in the very same condition as the Castello cul-de-sac. See also above re: inclusion of the section of Castello Ave. between Cashio and Horner (as opposed to Alcott) Street.



Comment RTC-Gans-25

The “neighborhood improvement” (i.e., the median on Beverwil just south of Pico) is a very questionable “improvement” (as it causes more congestion and bottlenecks at the Pico/Beverwil intersection than ever before), and it has now been completed for well over a year (i.e., the Chapter is incorrect in stating that it is “currently under construction.”) We believe that this so-called “improvement” has done little or nothing to “reduce the cut-through traffic” but rather has simply brought it to a near stand-still southbound at PM peak hours. People are NOT changing their patterns to drive all the way to the even-more-congested Robertson Blvd. (as the planners erroneously predicted) in order to get to the 10 Freeway. Accordingly, the assumption that Beverwil Drive should not be treated as a main access route for project trips is incorrect.



Also note that Beverwil Drive is assumed in the traffic study to facilitate half of the trips to Pico Boulevard from the south and two-thirds of the trips to Pico Boulevard from the north, and thus is “treated as a main route for project trips” as requested by the commenter.



Comment RTC-Gans-26

Page II-24: See above re: the 1 percent growth factor, which is (to anyone who actually drives in West L.A.) patently absurd. And everyone knows, but our elected officials and City Planners won’t admit, that L.A.’s developer-friendly (and dare we say corrupt - - or at least unduly influenced by enormous campaign contributions and other unreported perks [Lakers tickets anyone?] provided by LA’s wealthiest developers and their lobbyists and lawyers?) Mayor and City Council have not done nearly enough to require meaningful traffic mitigation measures for new developments. Thus, we give little credibility to the claimed “overstatement” of future traffic conditions.


The comment expresses an opinion regarding the use of a 1% growth factor, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Refer also to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-2-2.

Comment RTC-Gans-27

“Highway System Improvements” – Please identify at least some of the “many traffic improvements” implemented in the project area. We are aware of only one “improvement” (i.e., the median on Beverwil, south of Pico), and we seriously question the benefits of this so-called “improvement” to the residents of our community.


Examples of highway improvements would be programs such as the ATSAC/ATCS signal system improvements which have been and are being implemented throughout the City of Los Angeles, the HOV lanes being added to the I-405 freeway, the demand reductions from persons shifting to other modes through the Exposition and other light rail commuter projects, and localized intersection improvements such as the Beverwil Drive project cited by the commenter. Refer also to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-6.

Comment RTC-Gans-28

Note that NOWHERE in the DEIR is there any discussion of Condition 76 of the 1999 CUP, which requires a partial closure of Roxbury Drive as a condition of Phase 2. The DEIR must explain why such requirement is not mentioned and why the Applicant (apparently) feels that such closure is no longer necessary?





Comment RTC-Gans-29

Page II-25: See above. The statement in this Chapter dated May 2010 that the “improvement” at Beverwil & Pico is “currently under construction” only illustrates the inaccuracy of the studies underlying the findings in the Chapter, because this “improvement” was actually completed almost 2 years ago. See above re: the dubious benefits of this so-called “improvement.” Is there ANY data to prove that this median has reduced cut-through traffic? If so, it should be provided in the Final EIR. We don’t think such data exists, because we don’t think the median has achieved the purpose for which it was purportedly intended (or, if the median has reduced traffic, then the traffic that remains is just not moving now, creating a bottle-neck, so any “benefit” is erased).



Comment RTC-Gans-30

See above re: inadequate 1% “ambient traffic growth factor”. It is on its face patently absurd that the completion of SIXTY-ONE related projects, including the adjacent party palace with a potential capacity of 2,300 people, will result in only 1% traffic growth. Who’s kidding who??


Refer to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-8. Note that future growth was projected by increasing existing traffic volumes by the 1% annual growth rate and then adding expected trip generation from the related projects (without mitigation) on top of the 1% figure.

Comment RTC-Gans-31

Page II-37: Last sentence on the page - The Applicant’s analysis does not overstate the potential peak hour impacts by comparing current high school enrollment (rather than enrollment allowed under the 1999 CUP) to the newly projected enrollment numbers. That is such an illogically twisted rationale that this statement can’t be taken seriously.


This comment expresses an opinion as to whether impacts have been overstated, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Refer also to pages I-4 to I-5 of the Draft EIR.



Comment RTC-Gans-32

Page II-38: See above re: changing “Cashio” to “Horner”.


Refer to Response to Comment RTC-Gans-21.

Comment RTC-Gans-33

Page II-43: Please explain why the Applicant should not likewise be required to do an analysis of the traffic impacts with and without the partial Roxbury closure, as was required by Condition 76 of the 1999 CUP. We believe that, since the Roxbury closure was required in the 1999 CUP, it is necessary to compare the impacts without this closure (as the Applicant now intends) to the impacts with this closure (as was required by the 1999 CUP).



Comment RTC-Gans-34

Page II-44: In Table II-17, the Applicant should add a row that includes data for the maximum occupancy of the proposed new gym, since that number (total standing capacity, with both students and non-students) is substantially higher than the “300 non-student gym seats. Accordingly, the Parking Demand Estimate is very misleading; moreover, the “assumption/basis” that 50% of visitors will arrive by bus or on foot, is unsupportable - - that might well be a reasonable assumption in New York City, but this IS Los Angeles, remember??


The comment expresses an opinion that the estimate of potential visitors arriving by bus or on foot is misleading, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Notwithstanding the above, the following response is provided for the record. Table II-17 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter does not forecast projected parking demand, but rather approximate parking allocations. The heading of Table II-17 has been revised to reflect the nature of the information provided therein (see Section IV, Corrections & Additions, of this Final EIR). The 100 spaces proposed by the project, combined with the various parking regulations proposed by the applicant, including but not limited to Conditions 18 through 21, will adequately protect the neighborhood from potential parking impacts from the education and religious activities at the Project site. Refer to Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-23. In addition, the Recirculated Traffic Chapter provides an analysis of LAMC code



parking requirements, and the LAMC, which has been found to be appropriate for Los Angeles school projects such as the proposed project, uses seating area as the determinant of required parking amounts. With respect to available transit services, the commenter is referred to Pages 12 and 13 of the Draft EIR’s Appendix A (the Traffic Study) for a summary of transit services at the site and Metro’s web page (http://www.Metro.net) for more information on the transit services available throughout the area1. Additionally, school buses serve many special events.

Refer also to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-7 and RTC-Fink-1-9.

Comment RTC-Gans-35

Page II-45: The Applicant has no way to restrict visitors from parking on residential streets. Thus, residents will have to bear the inconvenience and cost of having more restrictive parking on the impacted streets in Permit Parking District 25, assuming that such greater restrictions will be approved by the City Council. Since there is no guarantee that we will be able to gather the required number of signatures to increase the restrictions (e.g., to “no parking” after 6 PM or on weekends), or that the City will approve such request, the Applicant should prepare an analysis of parking impacts if the restrictions remain as they are currently. We believe that, in such scenario, the parking impacts (particularly on nights and weekends) will be significant.


The comment expresses an opinion that “parking impacts (particularly on nights and weekends) will be significant”, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Notwithstanding the above, the following response is provided for the record. The project proposes to limit parking of YULA students, parents, faculty, employees and visitors to on-site parking or off-site parking permitted under the terms of the proposed CUP. Mitigation Measure II-12 (and Proposed Condition 20) prohibits parking on residential streets by YULA students, parents, faculty and employees, and proposed Condition 18 requires that all YULA students, faculty, employees and visitors be required to park on the premises or in off-site parking areas as permitted under the CUP. Proposed Condition 65 provides that visitors to YULA Girls High School games shall be provided with on-site parking or the applicant shall make arrangements for off-site parking. Proposed Condition 23 provides for parking monitoring and enforcement, including the preparation, implementation and enforcement of a traffic and parking management plan, which would address, among other things, parking for regular activities and special events at the school. The parking allocation analysis (Table II-17 of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and pages 24-30 of the Traffic Study in Appendix A of the Draft EIR) addresses evening as well 1 Metro has approximately 40,000,000 monthly boardings on their system, according to

http://www.metro.net/news/pages/ridership-statistics/.



as daytime parking allocations based on existing CUP conditions. No spillover of parking onto area streets was observed in on-street counts that are included in the analysis. Refer also to Response to Comment RTC-Gans-5.

Comment RTC-Gans-36

Further, the Applicant needs to explain why it has concluded that, “given the nature of the proposed uses”, the 100 spaces will be sufficient, particularly when the LAMC requires 265 spaces.


See Response to Comment RTC-Fink-1-23.

Comment RTC-Gans-37

Please clarify that on-street parking is “prohibited” only with respect to students and employees. The Applicant has absolutely no control over its visitors, and as proposed, the project will have a great many more visitors than under the 1999 CUP, which was actually structured to keep nonschool visitors to a minimum.


See Response to Comment RTC-Gans-35. In addition, on-street parking is limited by City regulations including the Residential Parking District on many residential streets surrounding the school and by the meters on commercial streets.

Comment RTC-Gans-38

Page II-46: The On-Street Parking Occupancy Summary (Table II-19) as it relates to Roxbury Drive is completely inaccurate. I lived on Roxbury Drive for 6 months while my house was under construction so I can truthfully state, and everyone who owns a home on Roxbury Drive will tell you, that after about 9 AM on any weekday, it is virtually impossible to find a parking spot on either side of Roxbury between Pico and Cashio. 66% occupancy??? The person doing that survey on those dates must have been smoking something powerful. The only number we would believe would be a percentage between 90 – 100% - - and 90% is only accurate if someone just pulled out of a space. Roxbury Drive has the ONLY free, unmetered parking in the immediate area, which includes a pharmacy, post office, office buildings, the Museum (where people often illegally go for lunch, in violation of the Museum’s CUP) and, worst of all, a 24-hour Fitness gym, so there is almost never a vacant parking space on that street.


The comment expresses an opinion that “the On-Street Parking Occupancy Summary (Table II-19) as it relates to Roxbury Drive is completely inaccurate”, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the



comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.

Notwithstanding the above, the following response is provided for the record. The parking utilization study was prepared by a professional traffic engineering firm and was found to be as shown in Table II-19 in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. Moreover, the parking impact analysis for the proposed project does not assume the use of on-street parking because parking in residential areas is prohibited under the 1999 CUP and the proposed project. The on-street parking survey is provided in the traffic analysis for informational purposes only and demonstrates the absence of significant residential spillover parking from the existing school.

Comment RTC-Gans-39

Pages II-46/47: Again, the conclusions regarding the cumulative impacts of construction traffic in connection with both the YULA and Museum expansions defy common sense. As we all know from experience, the enormous trucks and cranes used in construction can block streets entirely as they back into and out of construction sites, holding up traffic for long periods of time, often during peak AM hours. This will be especially true of construction trucks and equipment on the Museum jobsite, which is very close to the very busy Pico/Roxbury intersection. (which, despite Crain & Associates’ claim in Table II-5 that this intersection had an LOS of “C” in 2008, is undoubtedly closer to at least a “D” in 2010 in the AM peak period). Furthermore, 2008 conditions are not “Existing Conditions”.


Construction staging will be prohibited in residential areas, and construction trucks will be dispatched to the site by radios on an as-needed basis. The driveway to the site is located along Castello Avenue. Therefore, no impacts would occur along Pico Boulevard beyond those identified in the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. In addition, Mitigation Measure II-7 provides for the preparation of a Construction, Staging and Management Plan that will take into account any simultaneous construction activities associated with Related Project 53. With respect to the comments regarding existing conditions see Responses to Comment RTC-Fink-1-8 and RTC-Gans-4. Also note that the reported existing conditions are based on data collected of actual volumes within the field by LADOT and count collection firm personnel, and the calculations were reviewed and verified by LADOT.

Comment RTC-Gans-40

Page II-48: See above re: fallacy of the 1% ambient annual growth factor, and please indicate the year in which LADOT (or other agency responsible for coming up with this figure) devised this 1% growth rate. Such growth factor is probably quite antiquated and did not anticipate LA’s enormous population growth. We don’t care if this is the standard that the Applicant is allowed to use, if it’s clearly inaccurate. The Applicant should be required to use accurate numbers, based upon accurate calculations of real-life experience.





Comment RTC-Gans-41

A very serious issue that is not addressed at all in this traffic impacts analysis is the driving habits of YULA students and their friends/visitors and parents. As Daniel Fink points out in his separate letter, these people drive very dangerously in our neighborhood, particularly on Alcott, Saturn and Castello. There have already been at least two serious crashes (one at the corner of Castello & Saturn, and the other on Cashio), involving YULA students. The students and their parents frequently drive at excessive speed, which endangers neighborhood residents, especially the many young children who have moved into the area in the past few years and play outdoors and ride their bikes and skateboards in the street. The Applicant MUST provide adequate mitigation measures to reduce such dangerous driving habits, including without limitation speed bumps and additional stop signs (we propose a 4-way stop at Castello & Cashio). YULA must also come up with, and include in the CUP, an effective method to ensure that drivers will not drop off passengers south of the cul de sac, thereby thwarting the purpose of the cul de sac. This may necessitate having someone stand on the cul de sac and stop cars from stopping in the area.


Refer to Responses to Comments RTC-Fink-1-3 and RTC-Fink-1-9.

Further, the Draft EIR is not required to identify or mitigate traffic impacts perceived to be related to existing driving conditions; a motorist traveling faster than the posted speed limit is not an environmental issue, but an enforcement issue.

Comment RTC-Gans-42

Pages II-49/50: See above re: unexplained deletion of the partial closure of Roxbury Drive as required by Condition 76 of the 1999 CUP. The Applicant should explain why this mitigation measure was deleted, and provide an analysis of the parking and traffic impacts with and without such partial closure.



Comment RTC-Gans-43

The foregoing sets forth my comments on the Chapter itself (which was the only document sent to me), but not on any appendices thereto. I was not aware of the existence of such appendices until I read the Chapter, and I will attempt to locate these on-line. Accordingly, I reserve the right to submit additional comments regarding the contents of the appendices, even though these may arrive past the July 1, 2010 deadline.



We look forward to receiving comprehensive responses to all comments on the Chapter (including appendices) and DEIR. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.


This comment makes closing remarks and expresses the commenter’s intent to review the Appendices to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Recirculated Traffic Chapter in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. It is noted that the Appendices were included in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and were available as specified in the Notice of Availability, i.e, online, at specified libraries and from the Department of City Planning.

YULA Boys High School Expansion IV. Corrections and Additions Final Environmental Impact Report Page IV-1

IV. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS

This section presents corrections and additions that have been made to the text of the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter (Recirculated Traffic Chapter). These changes include revisions resulting from responses to comments and staff-initiated text changes to provide clarifications to the project description and analysis and to correct non-substantive errors. The revisions are organized by section and page number as they appear in the Draft EIR (see Section IV.1 below) or Recirculated Traffic Chapter (see Section IV.2 below). Text deleted from the Draft EIR or Recirculated Traffic Chapter is shown in strikethrough and newly added or replacement text is underlined. For corrections resulting from a response to a comment on the documents, references in parentheses refer to the comment letter and comment number.

1. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

This section presents corrections and additions to the Draft EIR. Corrections and additions to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are presented in Section IV.2.

Section I. Introduction

Page I-3

Additionally, there would be no change in the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac improvement currently required as a condition of the 1999 CUP improvements and it would be constructed as part of, but prior to, construction of the project. The applicant is proposing to remove the condition requiring the partial closure of Roxbury Drive.

Page I-10

B-2 Shielding of oOutdoor lighting shall be designed and installed with shielding so that the light source cannot be seen from adjacent residential properties and so it does not create glare to those properties. This condition does not preclude the installation of low level security lighting.

Given the proximity of Related Project No. 53, which would introduce expanded facilities with a maximum height of up to 64 63 feet eight inches high, it is conservative to conclude that implementation of Related Project No. 53 with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character.

Page I-11

C-1 Maintenance of hHauling and grading equipment shall be kept in good operating conditions and muffleding as required by law.



Page I-12

C-2 Watering or securely covering of all All loads and materials transported off-site shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and excessive amount of dust.

C-3 Wetting of aAll unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and provision of temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and to meet SCAQMD District Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent.

C-4 Suspension of All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph over a 30-minute or greater time period, or instantaneous gusts), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

C-5 General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. Contractors shall maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturers’ specifications.

C-56 All grading activities shall be done in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance.

C-67 The site shall be fenced to reduce wind blown dust. Construction materials shall be covered. All storage soil and sand shall be covered. All debris shall be cleaned up daily and put in a dumpster which shall be covered at the end of each day.

C-78 Streets immediately adjacent to the site shall be swept at least once a day during construction and more frequently if needed to remove dust and silt which may accumulate from construction activities.

C-89 Demolition and excavation operations shall be suspended during first and second stage smog alerts in the West Los Angeles area. All materials used on-site shall be controlled in accordance with SCAQMD regulations.

C-910 Signage shall be posted that shall provide a phone number for citizens to report excessive fugitive emissions.

C-1011 All onsite diesel equipment shall comply with the California Idle Reduction program, including posting signs on site that disallow idling in excess of 5 minutes.

C-1112 Electrical power tools shall be used when possible in place of using a generator.

C-1213 Insulation in new walls would exceed Title 24 requirements by 14 percent.



Page I-13

As a note, the Recirculated Traffic Chapter contained mitigation to address construction vehicular access, construction parking, and haul trucks. As a result, the mitigation measures presented in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR on these specific topics are being replaced with the mitigation measures from the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, presented here as Mitigation Measures II-1 through II-3.

C-1314 Track-out shall not extend 25 feet or more from an active operation, and track-out shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday.

C-1415 A wheel washing system shall be installed and used to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site.

C-16 Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic interference.

C-17 Construction activity that affects traffic flow on the arterial system shall be limited to off-peak hours, as feasible.

C-1518 All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall maintain at least six inches of freeboard in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

C-19 All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered (e.g., with tarps or other enclosures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions).

C-1620 Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

C-1721 Operations on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.

C-1822 On-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or rusty materials shall be covered or watered at least three times per day.

C-1923 Architectural coatings shall be purchased from a super-compliant architectural coating manufacturer as identified by the SCAQMD (http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf).

C-2024 Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the electrostatic spray gun or manual coatings application (e.g., paint brush and hand roller), shall be used to reduce VOC emissions.

C-2125 An air filtration system shall be installed and maintained with filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 12, to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety.

http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf




Page I-15

The proposed project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.8 5.7 dBA CNEL for the roadway segment of Castello Avenue, south of Pico Boulevard. Because the increase in local noise levels at all of the this analyzed roadway segments resulting from implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the thresholds in the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, they it would not represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As the increase in local noise levels at all of the remaining roadway segments would not exceed the City’s thresholds, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels along these roadway segments would not occur. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Although the segment of Castello Avenue, south of Pico Boulevard would experience an increase in noise levels that would exceed the City’s threshold, the implementation of traffic Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 would result in a trip cap such that noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. As a result, with the reduction in traffic volumes the traffic noise level at the segment of Castello Avenue, south of Pico Boulevard, would be reduced to the level that was previously analyzed, which would be below the City’s threshold. Thus, all impacts associated with traffic noise levels would remain less than significant.

Page I-16

As a note, the Recirculated Traffic Chapter contained mitigation to address construction hours and schedules. As a result, the mitigation measures presented in the Noise section of the Draft EIR on these specific topics are being replaced with the mitigation measures from the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, presented here as Mitigation Measures II-1 through II-3.

E-1 Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturday.

E-2 Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.

E-13 To the extent not superseded by Mitigation Measure GII-1, the project developer project construction shall comply with the hours, restrictions, and any other applicable provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance Nos. 144,331 and 161,574 (and/or any subsequent ordinances). Construction activities shall be scheduled restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. The project developer shall schedule construction activities so as to avoid operation of several pieces of equipment simultaneously. The project developer shall utilize power construction equipment with state-of- the-art noise shielding and muffling devices and. The project developer shall comply with the Noise Insulation Standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

E-4 The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices.



E-5 The project shall comply with the Noise Insulation Standards of Title 24 of the California Code Regulations, which insure an acceptable interior noise environment.

E-26 Quieted equipment shall be used in compliance with applicable provisions of Los Angeles- Municipal Code, Chapter IX. Compressors shall have noise suppression features so as to reduce noise impacts on the neighboring residences. Sound-reducing devices and restrictions shall be properly maintained throughout the construction period.

E-37 Temporary noise barriers consisting of a 15-foot high temporary construction wall or other barrier shall be constructed on all sides of the site where construction occurs, which such barriers shall also screen the construction area from view of the adjoining properties. Loading and staging areas shall be on-site within the perimeter protected by the noise barrier.

E-48 Alternative pile placement methods other than impact pile driving shall be used, except along the southerly property line where impact pile driving shall be permitted subject to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety.

Page I-17

E-59 The operation of portable stereos shall be prohibited at the construction site.

E-610 The use of those pieces of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential shall be minimized to the extent feasible. Examples include the use of drills, jackhammers, and pile drivers.

E-711 Flexible sound control curtains shall be placed around drilling apparatuses and drill rigs used within the project site.

E-812 The project developer shall locate construction staging areas and the operation of earthmoving equipment as far away from vibration-sensitive receptors as possible.

E-913 The project developer shall ensure that heavily loaded trucks used during construction are routed away from residential streets, to the extent feasible All excavation and demolition debris truck traffic shall be limited to Pico Boulevard. Trucks utilized for hauling of exported soil and construction equipment shall be staged on the property and shall be prohibited from staging in residential areas, and trucks and other construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Castello Avenue south of Alcott Street, or on Saturn Street, Alcott Street or Roxbury Drive, at any time.

E-14 The project shall comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance No. 144,331 and 161,574, and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit the emission or creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible.

E-1015 The use of any outdoor area for athletic or Special events shall be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and Sundays, and between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on



SaturdaysActive outdoor recreation on the site is not permitted after 8:00 pm daily.

E-1116 The project shall uUse of concrete, not metal, for the construction of parking ramps.

E-17 Any permitted outdoor public address or paging systems shall be designed by a qualified audio sound engineer with the following minimum specifications:

o Use low-pressure type speakers only, designed to have a maximum coverage area of approximately 400 square feet each;

o Distance between speakers will not exceed 40 feet; and

o Amplified signals must be inaudible beyond the boundaries of the subject property.

E-1218 No amplified music or loud unamplified music shall be permitted outdoors. Voice amplification may be used in the outdoors in conjunction with a permitted Special Event that is held outdoors and subject to the restrictions noted under this grant. Volume equipment designed by a qualified audio sound engineer shall be utilized subject to the following specifications: a) use of low-pressure type speakers only, designed to have a maximum coverage area of not more than 400 square feet each; b) distance between speakers shall not exceed 40 feet; c) placement of the speakers shall be not less than 50 feet from the southerly property line and shall provide for sound projection in a northerly direction; and, d) amplified sounds shall not be audible beyond the subject property's boundary lines.

Page I-18

E-1319 No use of exterior bells shall be permitted except at the beginning of the school day and at the end of the lunch period. Interior bells shall not be audible beyond the subject property's boundary lines. This shall not prohibit emergency communication or alarm systems, including intercoms and speakers, or the testing thereof.

E-1420 With the exception of code-required smoke evacuation fan on the roof, all rooftop mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning units) installed as part of any of the new construction shall be screened from the adjacent residential properties and located as far away as possible from the southerly and easterly sides of any new building construction or wing addition and mounted on seismic spring isolators, as appropriate, to minimize noise and vibration transmissions resulting from the operations of such equipment. All exterior walls and floor-ceiling assemblies facing southerly shall be constructed in a manner to provide an airborne sound insulation system achieving a Sound Transmission Class of 50 (45 if field tested) as defined in UBC Standard No. 35-1, 1982 edition. As an alternative, the applicant may retain an engineer registered in the State of California with expertise in acoustical engineering, who shall submit a signed report for any alternative means of sound insulation satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator and the Department of Building and Safety which achieves a maximum interior noise level within the



surrounding single-family dwellings, with open windows, of CNEL 45.

E-1521 The noise level generated by the HVAC units shall be no greater than 55 dBA at the property line.

Page I-21

F-5 The Applicant shall construct temporary fencing around the project site as reasonably necessary during construction to minimize dead space and eliminate areas of concealment, and will provide security patrol throughout the project site if needed.

Page I-22

GII-1 Hours of excavation, hauling and open air construction shall be limited to the period of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (excluding holidays), except for extended hours on weekdays only, as required during concrete pours. Vans bringing construction workers may arrive at the site no earlier than 7:45 a.m. so that actual construction can begin no earlier than 8 a.m. Construction workers and vehicles shall exit the site by 5 p.m. Interior construction associated with remodeling or with any new building(s) (after such is fully enclosed) may commence at 7 a.m., with construction workers to arrive at the site no earlier than 6:45 a.m., provided that the noise does not disturb neighborhood residents; if the arrival of such workers causes disturbances, then the interior construction shall be limited to the same hours as those permitted for open air construction as set forth herein. This condition does not apply to construction personnel engaged in supervisorial, administrative or inspection activities.

GII-2 All excavation and demolition debris truck traffic shall be limited to Pico Boulevard. Trucks utilized for hauling of exported soil and construction equipment shall be staged on the property and shall be prohibited from staging in residential areas, and trucks and other construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Castello Avenue south of Alcott Street, or on Saturn Street, Alcott Street or Roxbury Drive, at any time. Trucks shall be radio dispatched from a remote location on an as-needed basis. Haul trucks and construction equipment shall be cleaned, watered and/or covered before leaving the property. Any material spilled on any street shall be removed promptly by the contractor.

GII-3 Construction workers shall be prohibited from parking in residential neighborhoods. During the construction and remodeling period, off-street parking shall be provided for construction personnel. Construction workers shall be required to park at designated off-site parking areas and shall walk or be transported to the construction site by vanpools. Construction workers may also park on-site when the parking structure is available to accommodate such parking. The contractor shall implement procedures adequate to enforce the restrictions set forth herein, including but not limited to posting signs with these instructions at the construction site, printed in both English and Spanish, which shall be legible from a distance of 50 feet.



Page I-23

GII-4 Flaggers shall be provided on-site to facilitate truck entry and exit.

GII-5 A maximum of two visits per day by a catering truck shall be permitted. Such catering trucks shall be accommodated only on-site. Catering truck operators shall be instructed not to use their horn or other loud signal.

GII-6 All construction contracts and subcontracts shall specify that failure of the contractor or subcontractor to comply with any construction condition(s) shall constitute a breach of contract and shall be grounds for termination of the contract or subcontract, as applicable. In this regard, each contract and subcontract shall have an acknowledgment page attached which shall require the contractor or subcontractor to acknowledge that the conditions have been read and understood and shall be fully complied with. The project construction manager shall maintain a file of such acknowledgments for every contractor and subcontractor involved in this project.

GII-7 The applicant shall prepare a Construction, Staging, and Management Plan in accordance with City requirements that takes into account any simultaneous construction activities associated with Related Project No. 53.

GII-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant subdivider shall record and execute a Covenant and agreement (Planning Department General Form CP-6770), binding the project applicant subdivider to the following haul route conditions:

Page I-24

With the addition of ambient traffic growth and related projects traffic, three of the five study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS A to D) during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Pico Boulevard and Beverwil Drive is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Pico Boulevard and Beverly Drive is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, only the intersection of Pico Boulevard and Castello Avenue’s LOS would change from LOS C to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hour. Additionally, the project would not result in a change in CMA that would exceed City of Los Angeles thresholds at three intersections (including Pico Boulevard and Castello Avenue) during one or both peak hours. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant prior to implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 would reduce each of these impacts to less than significant.

Page I-25

Although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications, the following operational conditions relating to traffic and parking were adopted as As part of the 1999 CUP and MND



the following operational conditions relating to traffic and parking were adopted and are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

GII-9 All loading and unloading of students shall be conducted on-site to the maximum extent feasible. To facilitate traffic movement, to prevent double-parking and to ensure the enforcement of these and any other related traffic control provisions, YULA shall provide a traffic control monitor at the entrance of the parking area during regular YULA Boys High School days' morning drop-off hours (7:15 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.) and afternoon pick-up hours (5:15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.).

GII-10 Within 90 days of the effective date of the approval of the CUP, a A traffic and parking management plan, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for its review and approval. Within 60 days of approval, the project shall implement the traffic monitoring and demand management plan to limit the net project trip generation to 62 AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips. Adding the net project trips identified in the Traffic Study to the project site’s existing trip generation data, the maximum number of trips the expanded school could generate shall be capped as 281 AM peak hour trips and 153 PM peak hour trips. Traffic demand measures may include without limitation, carpooling strategies, busing, shuttles, and public transit incentives.

GII-11 Submittal of parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation.

II-12 Parking on residential streets by YULA students, parents, faculty and employees shall be prohibited.

II-13 The applicant shall be required to compile a traffic monitoring report (TMR) to survey the actual on-site traffic conditions of the proposed project. The TMR should document that the School is in substantial compliance with the traffic study trip projections for both the morning and afternoon peak hours, which corresponds to a trip cap of 281 trips during the AM peak hour and 153 trips during the PM peak hour for the School at full occupancy.

The measurements of actual trips shall cover the morning and afternoon peak hours, Tuesday through Friday (excluding School holidays), over a one week period when the School is in general session. Prior notification of when monitoring will be conducted should not be provided to the School (except for security purposes) but shall be provided to DOT at least one month in advance. The monitoring shall take place at the School driveway off Castello Avenue, at the School’s expense.

The TMR should be produced annually for a minimum of three (3) years following the School’s first year of full enrollment, in which time the review must show compliance for the entire three-year review period. Should the review show that the School is not within substantial compliance, the School will have one (1) year to correct its deficiency. If the School cannot achieve compliance within the corrective year, then a new three (3) year review period will commence and



the School shall submit a traffic management plan (TMP) to DOT that outlines the course of action the School will take in order to achieve compliance. If the School cannot achieve compliance after implementation of the TMP, then a reduction in the School’s enrollment should be considered.

The TMR, and TMP if necessary, should be prepared by a Certified Traffic Engineer and submitted to DOT for review within thirty (30) days following the completion of each monitoring action.

Page I-26

Operation

The analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project considers the effects of future growth in traffic within the region through consideration of traffic generated by 61 related projects and the application of a one percent ambient annual growth factor to the year 2012 in order to account for increases in traffic due to projects not yet proposed or projects outside the study area. Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth were incorporated into the traffic analysis and therefore reflected in the future (2012) Without and With Project, conditions. As shown in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter Section IV.G, none three of the study intersections are expected to be significantly impacted by project traffic volumes using the significance thresholds established by the LADOT, when compared to the future (2012) Without Project conditions. However, Mitigation Measure II-13 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, based on the thresholds established by LADOT, cumulative impacts to intersection LOS and capacity would be less than significant.


Page I-27









Page I-28















Page I-29















Page I-30








Page I-31




Although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications implementation of



Traffic Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13, the following measures required by the 1999 CUP and MND are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:


E-1015 The use of any outdoor area for athletic or Special events shall be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and Sundays, and between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on SaturdaysActive outdoor recreation on the site is not permitted after 8:00 pm daily.







Page I-32


E-1420 With the exception of code-required smoke evacuation fan on the roof, all rooftop mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning units) installed as part of any of the new construction shall be screened from the adjacent residential properties and located as far away as possible from the southerly and easterly sides of any new building construction or wing addition and mounted on



seismic spring isolators, as appropriate, to minimize noise and vibration transmissions resulting from the operations of such equipment. All exterior walls and floor-ceiling assemblies facing southerly shall be constructed in a manner to provide an airborne sound insulation system achieving a Sound Transmission Class of 50 (45 if field tested) as defined in UBC Standard No. 35-1, 1982 edition. As an alternative, the applicant may retain an engineer registered in the State of California with expertise in acoustical engineering, who shall submit a signed report for any alternative means of sound insulation satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator and the Department of Building and Safety which achieves a maximum interior noise level within the surrounding single-family dwellings, with open windows, of CNEL 45.


Page I-34


GII-1 Hours of excavation, hauling and open air construction shall be limited to the period of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (excluding holidays), except for extended hours on weekdays only, as required during concrete pours. Vans bringing construction workers may arrive at the site no earlier than 7:45 a.m. so that actual construction can begin no earlier than 8 a.m. Construction workers and vehicles shall exit the site by 5 p.m. Interior construction associated with remodeling or with any new building(s) (after such is fully enclosed) may commence at 7 a.m., with construction workers to arrive at the site no earlier than 6:45 a.m., provided that the noise does not disturb neighborhood residents; if the arrival of such workers causes disturbances, then the interior construction shall be limited to the same hours as those permitted for open air construction as set forth herein. This condition does not apply to construction personnel engaged in supervisorial, administrative or inspection activities.

GII-2 All excavation and demolition debris truck traffic shall be limited to Pico Boulevard. Trucks utilized for hauling of exported soil and construction equipment shall be staged on the property and shall be prohibited from staging in residential areas, and trucks and other construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Castello Avenue south of Alcott Street, or on Saturn Street, Alcott Street or Roxbury Drive, at any time. Trucks shall be radio dispatched from a remote location on an as-needed basis. Haul trucks and construction equipment shall be cleaned, watered and/or covered before leaving the property. Any material spilled on any street shall be removed promptly by the contractor.

GII-3 Construction workers shall be prohibited from parking in residential neighborhoods. During the construction and remodeling period, off-street parking shall be provided for construction personnel. Construction workers shall be required to park at designated off-site parking areas and



shall walk or be transported to the construction site by vanpools. Construction workers may also park on-site when the parking structure is available to accommodate such parking. The contractor shall implement procedures adequate to enforce the restrictions set forth herein, including but not limited to posting signs with these instructions at the construction site, printed in both English and Spanish, which shall be legible from a distance of 50 feet.

Page I-35

GII-4 Flaggers shall be provided on-site to facilitate truck entry and exit.

GII-5 A maximum of two visits per day by a catering truck shall be permitted. Such catering trucks shall be accommodated only on-site. Catering truck operators shall be instructed not to use their horn or other loud signal.

GII-6 All construction contracts and subcontracts shall specify that failure of the contractor or subcontractor to comply with any construction condition(s) shall constitute a breach of contract and shall be grounds for termination of the contract or subcontract, as applicable. In this regard, each contract and subcontract shall have an acknowledgment page attached which shall require the contractor or subcontractor to acknowledge that the conditions have been read and understood and shall be fully complied with. The project construction manager shall maintain a file of such acknowledgments for every contractor and subcontractor involved in this project.

GII-7 The applicant shall prepare a Construction, Staging, and Management Plan in accordance with City requirements that takes into account any simultaneous construction activities associated with Related Project No. 53.

GII-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant subdivider shall record and execute a Covenant and agreement (Planning Department General Form CP-6770), binding the project applicant subdivider to the following haul route conditions:

Page I-37

Although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications, As part of the 1999 CUP and MND the following measures required by the 1999 CUP and MND operational conditions relating to traffic and parking were adopted and are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

GII-9 All loading and unloading of students shall be conducted on-site to the maximum extent feasible. To facilitate traffic movement, to prevent double-parking and to ensure the enforcement of these and any other related traffic control provisions, YULA shall provide a traffic control monitor at the entrance of the parking area during regular YULA Boys High School days' morning drop-off hours (7:15 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.) and afternoon pick-up hours (5:15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.).

GII-10 Within 90 days of the effective date of the approval of the CUP, a A traffic and parking management plan, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of



Transportation (DOT) for its review and approval. Within 60 days of approval, the project shall implement the traffic monitoring and demand management plan to limit the net project trip generation to 62 AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips. Adding the net project trips identified in the Traffic Study to the project site’s existing trip generation data, the maximum number of trips the expanded school could generate shall be capped as 281 AM peak hour trips and 153 PM peak hour trips. Traffic demand measures may include without limitation, carpooling strategies, busing, shuttles, and public transit incentives.

GII-11 Submittal of parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation.



The measurements of actual trips shall cover the morning and afternoon peak hours, Tuesday through Friday (excluding School holidays), over a one week period when the School is in general session. Prior notification of when monitoring will be conducted should not be provided to the School (except for security purposes) but shall be provided to DOT at least one month in advance. The monitoring shall take place at the School driveway off Castello Avenue, at the School’s expense.

The TMR should be produced annually for a minimum of three (3) years following the School’s first year of full enrollment, in which time the review must show compliance for the entire three-year review period. Should the review show that the School is not within substantial compliance, the School will have one (1) year to correct its deficiency. If the School cannot achieve compliance within the corrective year, then a new three (3) year review period will commence and the School shall submit a traffic management plan (TMP) to DOT that outlines the course of action the School will take in order to achieve compliance. If the School cannot achieve compliance after implementation of the TMP, then a reduction in the School’s enrollment should be considered.


Cumulative

Less Than Significant Significant



No Mitigation Is Required.

Three of the study intersections are expected to be significantly impacted by project traffic volumes using the significance thresholds established by the LADOT when compared to the future (2012) Without Project conditions. However, Mitigation Measure II-13 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Section II. Project Description

Page II-2

Additionally, there would be no change in the Castello Avenue cul-de-sac improvement currently required as a condition of the 1999 CUP improvements and it would be constructed as part of, but prior to, construction of the project. The applicant is proposing to remove the condition requiring the partial closure of Roxbury Drive.

Page II-20

The modifications proposed by the Applicant would retain the existing end time for YULA Boys High School classes (6 p.m.). Adult education classes and activities would continue to begin after 6:30 p.m. Proposed hours limitations for evening and weekend activities and events are specified in Appendix B and are discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, and Noise Chapters, of this Draft EIR.

Section IV.A Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant

Page IV.A-5

A-4 A covenant and agreement associated with archaeological resources shall be recorded prior to obtaining a grading permit.

A-8 A covenant and agreement associated with paleontological resources shall be recorded prior to obtaining a grading permit.

Section IV.B Aesthetics

Page IV.B-9

Given the proximity of Related Project No. 53, which would introduce expanded facilities with a maximum height of up to 64 63 feet eight inches high, it is conservative to conclude that implementation of Related Project No. 53 with the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to visual character.




Section IV.C Air Quality

Page IV.C-26

Table IV.C-9 is revised as follows:

Table IV.C-9 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions – Existing Project Site Land Uses – 2008

Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions Water and Space Heating 0.03 0.36 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Maintenance Equipment

0.26 0.04 3.21 0.00 0.01 0.01

Architectural Coatings 0.22 Motor Vehicles 7.0711.55 4.249.01 52.85112.63 0.050.11 9.1719.52 1.743.69 Total Emissions 7.5812.06 4.649.41 56.36116.14 0.050.11 9.1819.53 1.753.70

Wintertime (Non-Smog Season) Emissions Water and Space Heating 0.03 0.36 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.22 Motor Vehicles 5.9711.14 5.2511.17 50.64107.88 0.040.09 9.1719.52 1.743.69 Total Emissions 6.2211.39 5.6111.53 50.94108.18 0.040.09 9.1719.52 1.743.69 Note: Subtotals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding in the URBEMIS 2007 model. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 20082009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix G C of the Final EIR.

Page IV.C-27


Table IV.C-10 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions – Proposed Project


Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions Proposed Land Uses Water and Space Heating 0.03 0.40 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Maintenance Equipment

0.26 0.04 3.21 0.00 0.01 0.01

Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.24 Motor Vehicles 8.6417.59 5.4715.04 68.97188.01 0.070.18 11.6932.58 2.216.16



Table IV.C-10 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions – Proposed Project


Subtotal 7.5818.12 5.9115.48 72.52191.56 0.070.18 11.7032.59 2.226.17Existing Land Uses (2008 emissions)

7.5812.06 4.649.41 56.36116.14 0.050.11 9.1819.53 1.753.70

Total Net Increase (Proposed – Existing) 1.596.06 1.276.07 16.1675.42 0.020.07 2.5213.06 0.472.47SCAQMD Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Significant Impact? No No No No No No

Wintertime (Non-Smog Season) Emissions Proposed Land Uses Water and Space Heating 0.03 0.40 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.24 Motor Vehicles 7.5717.85 6.7818.64 66.43180.08 0.050.15 11.6932.58 2.216.16Subtotal 7.8418.12 7.1819.04 66.77180.42 0.050.15 11.6932.58 2.216.16Existing Land Uses (2008 emissions) 6.2211.39 5.6111.53 50.9472.24 0.040.09 9.1719.52 1.743.69Total Net Increase (Proposed – Existing) 1.626.73 1.577.51 15.8372.24 0.010.06 2.5213.06 0.472.47SCAQMD Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Note: Subtotals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding in the URBEMIS 2007 model. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 20082009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix G C of the Final EIR.

Page IV.C-28


Table IV.C-11 Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – Proposed Project

Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions Proposed Land Uses Water and Space Heating 0.4 0.34 0 0 Landscape Maintenance Equipment 0.04 3.21 0.01 0.01 Consumer Products 0 0 0 0 Architectural Coatings 0 0 0 0 Motor Vehicles 0.752.03 7.9321.77 0.140.39 0.040.10 Total Localized Emissions 1.192.47 11.4825.32 0.150.40 0.050.11 SCAQMD LSTs for SRA 2 86.33 473.54 1.4 0.98 Significant Impact? No No No No

Wintertime (Non-Smog Season) Emissions Proposed Land Uses



Table IV.C-11 Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – Proposed Project

Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Water and Space Heating 0.4 0.34 0 0 Consumer Products 0 0 0 0 Architectural Coatings 0 0 0 0 Motor Vehicles 0.872.36 10.4225.58 0.140.39 0.040.10 Total Localized Emissions 1.272.76 10.7625.92 0.140.39 0.040.10 SCAQMD LSTs for SRA 2 86.33 473.54 1.4 0.98 Significant Impact? No No No No Note: NT = No threshold

Subtotals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding in the URBEMIS 2007 model. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 20082009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix G C of the Final EIR.

Page IV.C-30


Table IV.C-13 Predicted Future Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations

CO Concentrations in Parts Per Million Roadway Edge 25 Feet 50 Feet Intersection

1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour Cashio Street & Beverwil Drive 5.66.0 3.73.9 5.25.3 3.43.5 5.1 3.3 Pico Boulevard & Beverly Drive 6.66.7 4.4 5.9 3.8 5.6 3.6 Pico Boulevard & Beverwil Drive 7.16.9 4.74.6 6.26.1 4.14.0 5.95.8 3.8 Pico Boulevard & Castello Drive 6.96.7 4.64.4 6.0 3.9 5.7 3.7 Pico Boulevard & Roxbury Drive 7.06.7 4.64.4 6.16.0 4.03.9 5.7 3.7 Note: National 1-hour standard is 35.0 ppm State 1-hour standard is 20.0 ppm National and State 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 20082009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix G C of the Final EIR. Based on year 2012 EMFAC2007 Winter emission factors.

Page IV.C-31


Table IV.C-14 Predicted Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Source CO2e Emissions in Metric Tons per Year Proposed Project GHG Emissions Natural Gas Consumption 14.26



Electricity Generation 58.08 Motor Vehicles 3,610.282,829.81 Subtotal 3,610.282,902.15 Existing GHG Emissions Natural Gas Consumption 14.26 Electricity Generation 58.08 Motor Vehicles 2,338.651,695.35 Subtotal 2,410.991,767.69 Net Project GHG Emissions 1,271.631.134.46 Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 20082009. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix G C of the Final EIR.

Page IV.C-32


Table IV.C-15 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the General Plan Air Quality Element

Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 1.3.1: Minimize particulate emissions from construction sites.

Consistent. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would comply with all required dust control measures during each phase of construction. Consequently, particulate emissions at the project site during construction of the proposed project would be minimized. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 1.3.2: Minimize particulate emissions from unpaved roads and parking lots which are associated with vehicular traffic.

Consistent. Construction activities are not expected to include any unpaved roads or parking lots. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 4.2.2: Improve accessibility for the City’s residents to places of employment, shopping centers, and other establishments.

Consistent. The expansion of an existing orthodox Judaic secondary school in west Los Angeles to meet existing orthodox secondary school needs, accessible to transit and multiple transit lines at and near the project site would improve accessibility for the City's residents to an educational option currently in high demand. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 4.2.3: Ensure that new development is compatible with pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and alternative fuel vehicles.

Consistent. Section IV.G, Traffic and Transportation, of this Draft EIR The Recirculated Traffic Chapter includes a detailed discussion of existing public transit and pedestrian opportunities associated with the proposed project. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 4.2.4: Require that air quality impacts be a consideration in the review and approval of all discretionary projects.

Consistent. The air quality analysis conducted for the proposed project in this Draft EIR serves to identify potential air quality impacts and, if necessary, recommend mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The analysis in this Draft EIR will be used by the City in its review and approval process for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, June 2008



Page IV.C-37







Page IV.C-38
















Page IV.C-39











Section IV.D Land Use Planning

Page IV.D-19

• The modifications proposed by the Applicant would retain the existing end time for YULA Boys High School classes (6 p.m.). Adult education classes and activities would continue to begin after 6:30 p.m. Proposed hours limitations for evening and weekend activities and events are specified in Appendix B and are discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter and Noise Chapters of this Draft EIR.

The proposed modifications would not change the type of use proposed on the project site. The proposed modifications would occur on the existing campus site, and would be consistent with the existing land use configuration and pattern of the project site and surrounding area. The modifications to operating conditions proposed by the Applicant do not conflict with any City of Los Angeles land use policies, ordinances or regulations. The other potential environmental impacts of such modifications are evaluated in other Sections of this Draft EIR, such as Traffic and Transportation, Noise and Air Quality, as well as in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter.

Page IV.D-20

As discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter Traffic and Transportation Section of this Draft EIR, the facility and operational modifications proposed by the Applicant would require 265 parking spaces pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code requirements. The Applicant is proposing to modify the variance to require a maximum of 100 spaces based on the parking demand analysis provided in Section IV.I. The Applicant proposes to continue the conditions of approval of the 1999 CUP regulating parking. On-site parking is provided free of charge to students, faculty and employees and to other visitors. No parking spaces on the subject property are permitted to be used by any third party. All students, faculty, employees and visitors are required to park on the subject premises or to use specified off-site parking arrangements discussed below.

With the conditions required as part of the 1999 CUP, the parking variance granted as part of the 1999 CUP was determined to result in less than significant land use impacts. The adequacy of the 100 spaces to serve the project modifications proposed by the Applicant is discussed in the Recirculated Traffic Chapter Traffic and Transportation chapter of this Draft EIR.



Section IV.E Noise

Page IV.E-5

Table IV.E-3 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Offsite

Roadway Roadway Segment Land Use dBA

CNEL North of W. Pico Boulevard Multifamily Residential 60.157.9 Roxbury Drive South of W. Pico Boulevard Commercial 57.258.1 North of W. Pico Boulevard Multifamily Residential 48.246.7

Castello Avenue South of W. Pico Boulevard School 50.649.2 North of W. Pico Boulevard Multifamily Residential 61.464.8 South of W. Pico Boulevard Single Family Residential 64.765.4 North of Cashio Street Single Family Residential 64.865.5

Beverwil Drive

South of Cashio Street Single Family Residential 64.665.2 North of W. Pico Boulevard Commercial 63.464.3

Beverly Drive South of W. Pico Boulevard Multifamily Residential 62.864.1 West of Roxbury Drive Commercial 66.171.1 East of Roxbury Drive Commercial 65.770.7 West of Castello Avenue School 65.970.8 East of Castello Avenue Commercial 65.970.9 West of Beverwil Drive Commercial 65.770.7 East of Beverwil Drive Commercial 65.270.2 West of Beverly Drive Commercial 65.270.1

W. Pico Boulevard

East of Beverly Drive Commercial 65.069.9 West of Beverwil Drive Single Family Residential 59.958.0

Cashio Street East of Beverwil Drive Single Family Residential 60.959.0

Source: Christopher A Joseph and Associates, September 2008. Traffic Information Source: Crain & Associates Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix H D of the Final EIR.

Page IV.E-17

The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), which calculates the CNEL noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, based on site-specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds and/or noise barriers. Based on the traffic report prepared for the proposed project, included as Appendicesx H to this Draft EIR to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, in combination with an analysis of the surrounding land uses, roadway noise levels were forecasted to determine if the proposed project’s vehicular traffic would result in a significant impact at off-site noise-sensitive receptor locations.



Table IV.E-9 Predicted Future (2012) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite

Noise Levels in dBA CNEL

Roadway Roadway Segment

Future without Project Traffic

Volumes

Future Plus Project Traffic Increase

Significance Threshold a

North of W. Pico Boulevard 61.859.7 61.959.7 0.10.0 35.0 Roxbury Drive South of W. Pico Boulevard 56.657.9 56.657.9 00.0 5.0 North of W. Pico Boulevard 51.450.0 51.450.0 00.0 5.0

Castello Avenue South of W. Pico Boulevard 47.046.4 49.352.1 2.35.7 5.0 North of W. Pico Boulevard 65.065.6 65.065.7 00.1 35.0 South of W. Pico Boulevard 66.467.1 66.467.1 00.0 35.0

North of Cashio Street 66.367.0 66.367.0 00.0 5.0 Beverwil Drive

South of Cashio Street 66.066.7 66.066.7 00.0 5.0 North of W. Pico Boulevard 64.064.9 64.064.9 00.0 35.0

Beverly Drive South of W. Pico Boulevard 63.264.5 63.264.5 00.0 35.0

West of Roxbury Drive 66.371.3 66.371.3 00.0 35.0 East of Roxbury Drive 66.471.4 66.471.4 00.0 35.0

West of Castello Avenue 66.671.6 66.671.6 00.0 35.0 East of Castello Avenue 66.671.6 66.671.6 00.0 35.0 West of Beverwil Drive 66.471.3 66.471.4 00.1 35.0 East of Beverwil Drive 65.670.5 65.670.6 00.1 35.0 West of Beverly Drive 65.670.6 65.670.6 00.0 35.0

W. Pico Boulevard

East of Beverly Drive 65.670.6 65.670.6 00.0 35.0 West of Beverwil Drive 58.456.6 58.456.6 00.0 35.0

Cashio Street East of Beverwil Drive 60.758.8 60.758.9 00.1 35.0

a A project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from project operations if the project causes the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dBA in CNEL to or within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” category, or any 5 dBA or greater noise increase (see Table IV.E-4, Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)). Thus, for the purpose of analysis, the significance threshold is 3 dBA if the noise increase resulting from the proposed project would meet or exceed the City’s 70 dBA CNEL noise level standard at residential uses and 77 dBA CNEL noise level standard at commercial uses, which are still within the “conditionally acceptable” noise category for the two land uses, while the significance threshold is 5 dBA if the noise increase would be below the City’s 70 dBA CNEL noise level standard for residential uses and 77 dBA CNEL noise level standard for commercial uses. Along roadway segments that have residential and commercial uses, the noise level standard for residential uses was used, which would allow for a conservative analysis.

Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, September 2008. Traffic Information Source: Crain & Associates Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix H D of the Final EIR.

As shown in Table IV.E-9, the proposed project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.85.7 dBA CNEL north of the cul-de-sac on Castello Avenue, south of Pico Boulevard, which leads to the driveway to the project's subterranean garage. Because the increase in local noise levels at all of the this analyzed roadway segments resulting from implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the thresholds in the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, they it would not represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As the increase in local noise levels at all of the remaining roadway segments would not exceed the City’s thresholds, a substantial permanent increase in



ambient noise levels along these roadway segments would not occur. As discussed earlier, these analyzed noise level are relative to existing conditions and therefore overstate the potential impacts of approving the modifications proposed by the Applicant. Nevertheless, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Although the segment of Castello Avenue, south of Pico Boulevard would experience an increase in noise levels that would exceed the City’s threshold, the implementation of traffic Mitigation Measures II-10 and II-13 would result in a trip cap such that noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. As a result, with the reduction in traffic volumes the traffic noise level at the segment of Castello Avenue, south of Pico Boulevard, would be reduced to the level that was previously analyzed, which would be below the City’s threshold. Thus, all impacts associated with traffic noise levels would remain less than significant.

Page IV.E-20







E-37 Temporary noise barriers consisting of a 15-foot high temporary construction wall or other barrier



shall be constructed on all sides of the site where construction occurs, which such barriers shall also screen the construction area from view of the adjoining properties. Loading and staging areas shall be on-site within the perimeter protected by the noise barrier.








E-1015 The use of any outdoor area for athletic or Special events shall be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and Sundays, and between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on SaturdaysActive outdoor recreation on the site is not permitted after 8:00 pm daily.










E-1420 With the exception of code-required smoke evacuation fan on the roof, all rooftop mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning units) installed as part of any of the new construction shall be screened from the adjacent residential properties and located as far away as possible from the southerly and easterly sides of any new building construction or wing addition and mounted on seismic spring isolators, as appropriate, to minimize noise and vibration transmissions resulting from the operations of such equipment. All exterior walls and floor-ceiling assemblies facing southerly shall be constructed in a manner to provide an airborne sound insulation system achieving a Sound Transmission Class of 50 (45 if field tested) as defined in UBC Standard No. 35-1, 1982 edition. As an alternative, the applicant may retain an engineer registered in the State of California with expertise in acoustical engineering, who shall submit a signed report for any alternative means of sound insulation satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator and the Department of Building and Safety which achieves a maximum interior noise level within the surrounding single-family dwellings, with open windows, of CNEL 45.


Page IV.E-22

Implementation of Mitigation Measures E-106 through E-139 would serve to reduce the noise levels associated with construction at the project site, but temporary, significant and unavoidable impacts would still occur. As discussed earlier, the foregoing overstates the construction noise impacts of approving the modifications proposed by the Applicant because, although not required by CEQA, it analyzes the impact of full build-out proposed by the Applicant on existing conditions, rather than the incremental difference between buildout as approved and the modifications as proposed by the Applicant. As discussed earlier, as part of the 1999 CUP and MND, the City of Los Angeles determined that construction noise impacts



would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures and compliance with City noise regulation ordinances. The principle construction difference between buildout as approved and the modifications proposed by the Applicant is that the modifications propose construction of new structures that will take place closer to project site's south, east, and southwest property lines and more grading will be required to create a fully subterranean parking garage rather than the partially subterranean and partially surface parking area as approved under the 1999 CUP.

Section IV.F Public Services

Page IV.F-8

Based on the above information, project construction would not be expected to tax fire fighting and emergency services to the extent that there would be a need for any additional new or expanded fire facilities, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives of the LAFD. As discussed in Section IV.G of this Draft EIR the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, traffic impacts during construction of the proposed project would not result in any significant impact on nearby roadways or intersections, which could thereby impede emergency access. Therefore, construction-related impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Page IV.F-9

As discussed in Section IV.G of this Draft EIR the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, traffic impacts during operation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impact on nearby roadways or intersections, which could thereby impede emergency access. Furthermore, the use of sirens and lights would allow emergency vehicles to clear a path and avoid delays due to congested intersections. Additionally, the proposed cul-de-sac would be constructed to allow access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the project would not impede emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

Page IV.F-17

As discussed in Section IV.G of this Draft EIR the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, traffic impacts during operation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impact on nearby roadways or intersections, which could thereby impede emergency access. Furthermore, the use of sirens and lights would allow emergency vehicles to clear a path and avoid delays due to congested intersections. Therefore, the project would not impede emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.



Page IV.F-19


Section IV.G Traffic/Transportation/Parking

Page IV.G-1 through IV.G-67

The entirety of Section IV.G of the Draft EIR was removed and replaced with the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. Appendix I to the Draft EIR was removed and replaced with the Appendices to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter. Corrections and Additions to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter are presented in Section IV.2 of this Final EIR, below.

2. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE RECIRCULATED TRAFFIC CHAPTER

This section presents corrections and additions to the Recirculated Traffic Chapter, which has replaced Section IV.G, Traffic/Transportation/Parking, of the Draft EIR in its entirety.

Page I-2

The Recirculated Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter will be circulated for public and agency review and comment for a period of 45 days, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15105. During this review period written comments on the scope and adequacy of this Recirculated Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter can be submitted to the City Planning Department. All comments on the Recirculated Traffic/Transportation/Parking Chapter should be sent no later than May ___ July 1, 2010 to the attention of:

Page II-9

Table II-3 Construction Trip Generation Rates and Equations

AM Peak Hour b PM Peak Hour a Land Use

ITE Land Use Code

Daily Trip Ends

I/B %

O/B %

Trip Ends

I/B %

O/B %

Trip Ends

General Light Industrial (per worker)

110 3.02 83% 17% 0.44 21% 79% 0.42

Notes: I/B = inbound, O/B = outbound. Daily and PM peak hour rates are based on Trip Generation, 7th Edition, ITE, 2003. Source: Crain & Associates, September 2008



Page II-17

As discussed in Section IV.A, Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant in the Draft EIR, the project would have no potential impacts with respect to Thresholds (c) and (e) listed above. As such, the following analysis focuses on Thresholds (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), and (hg).

Page II-39

Revise the title box of Figure II-10 as follows:

Future (2010) (2012) Traffic Volumes Without Project AM Peak Hour

Page II-40

Revise the title box of Figure II-11 as follows:

Future (2010) (2012) Traffic Volumes Without Project PM Peak Hour

Page II-43

If the cul-de-sac was not constructed and therefore not included in the future conditions, it is estimated that 398 project trips would travel along Castello Avenue, resulting in a significant impact. However, the cul-de-sac is proposed to be constructed as a part of the project as provided for in the 1999 CUP, and therefore no significant residential intrusion impact would occur. An updated analysis of impacts without construction of the cul-de-sac is included in the Appendix I B, Traffic Data, of this Final EIR.

Page II-44

Table II-17 Approximate Parking Allocations Demand Estimate

Weekday Daytime Parking Allocations Weekday Evening Parking Allocation Uses Parking Spaces Uses Parking Spaces

Students Students 350 High School 35 350 High School 9 100 JSI/YOLA University 0 100 JSI/YOLA University 10

Staff Staff 35 Full-time Faculty/Staff 35 35 Full-time Faculty/Staff 9 14 Part-time Faculty/Staff 14 14 Part-time Faculty/Staff 4 1 Maintenance 1 1 Maintenance 1

Subtotal 85 Subtotal 33 Visitor (approximately 10%) 9-14 Visitor (300 non-student gym seats) 60-67

Total Demand 94 Total Demand 93 Total Supply 100 Total Supply 100

Surplus 6 Surplus 7



Table II-17 Approximate Parking Allocations Demand Estimate

Weekday Daytime Parking Allocations Weekday Evening Parking Allocation Uses Parking Spaces Uses Parking Spaces

Notes: Parking Assumptions

Group Daytime Ratio Assumption Basis Evening

Ratio Assumption Basis

High School Students 1:10 1999 CUP Analysis Method ¼ Day ULI Shared Parking

University Students 0 Not Applicable 1:10 1999 CUP Analysis Method

Full-time Faculty/Staff 1:1 1999 CUP Analysis Method ¼ Day ULI Shared Parking

Part-time Faculty/Staff 1:1 1999 CUP Analysis Method ¼ Day ULI Shared Parking

Maintenance 1:1 1999 CUP Analysis Method ¼ Day ULI Shared Parking

Visitor 10% 1999 CUP Analysis Method 1:5 50% bus/walk; 1:2.5

auto

Source: Crain & Associates, February 2009.

Page II-48

The 1999 CUP (Condition 75) includes installation of a cul-de-sac along Castello Avenue south of the project driveway as a condition of Phase 2. The applicant proposes no change to Condition 75, and the Traffic Study therefore assumed the cul-de-sac would be constructed before the proposed project, and did not assume any project trips along Castello Avenue south of the project driveway, between Alcott Street and Cashio Street. However, because members of the public have expressed an interest in understanding the potential effects of eliminating the cul-de-sac, Appendix E of the Traffic Study provided a "without" cul-de-sac scenario, which has been updated in Appendix B of this Final EIR to reflect revised project trip generation rates in the November 2009 Letter.

YULA Boys High School Expansion V. Mitigation Monitoring Program Final Environmental Impact Report Page V-1

V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (Mitigation Monitoring Program, Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). The City of Los Angeles is the Lead Agency for the YULA Boys High School Expansion and is therefore responsible for enforcing and monitoring the mitigation measures in this Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the Project. Where appropriate, this environmental document identified project design features or recommended mitigation measures to avoid or to mitigate potential impacts identified to a level where no significant impact on the environment would occur. There are occasions that feasible mitigation is not available. CEQA Code 15126.4 (5) states: If the lead agency determines that a mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, the measure need not be proposed or analyzed. Instead, the EIR may simply reference that fact and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. This MMP is designed to monitor implementation of the required and recommended mitigation measures and conditions set forth for project approval for the Project as identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), Recirculated Traffic Chapter, and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The required and recommended mitigation measures as well as the conditions set forth for project approval are listed and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying identification of the following:

• Monitoring Phase, the phase of the project during which the mitigation measure shall be monitored. These phases include:

o Pre-Construction, including the design phase

o Construction

o Operation (post-construction)

• Implementing Party, the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure.

• The Enforcement Agency, the agency with the power to enforce the mitigation measure.

• The Monitoring Agency, the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation, and development are made.

The MMP for the Project will be in place throughout all phases of the Project. The Project Applicant shall be responsible for implementing all mitigation measures unless otherwise noted. The Project Applicant shall also be obligated to provide certification, as identified below, to the appropriate monitoring agency and the appropriate enforcement agency that compliance with the required mitigation



measure has been implemented. The City will be used as the basic foundation for the MMP procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.

Generally, each certification report will be submitted to the City in a timely manner following completion/implementation of the applicable mitigation measure and shall include sufficient information to reasonably determine whether the intent of the measure has been satisfied. The City shall assure that project construction occurs in accordance with the MMP. Departments listed below are all departments of the City unless otherwise noted.

IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

Air Quality

The following standard City of Los Angeles Mitigation Measure regarding solid waste management as it relates to objectionable odors would be implemented as part of the project.

A-1 The trash receptacle shall be relocated at least 50 feet from the property line of any adjacent residential property.

Monitoring Phase Operation

Implementing Party Applicant

Enforcement Agency Building and Safety Department

Monitoring Agency Building and Safety Department

Cultural Resources

To ensure that any unforeseen impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels, the following standard City of Los Angeles Mitigation Measures to monitor earthwork activities during the construction process would be implemented as part of the project.

A-2 If any archaeological materials are encountered during the course of the project development, the project shall be halted. The services of an archaeologist shall be secured by contacting the Center for Public Archaeology - Cal State University Fullerton, or a member of the Society of Professional Archaeologist (SOPA) or a SOPA-qualified archaeologist to assess the resources and evaluate the impact.

A-3 Copies of the archaeological survey, study or report shall be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

A-4 A covenant and agreement associated with archaeological resources shall be recorded prior to obtaining a grading permit.



A-5 If any paleontological materials are encountered during the course of the project development, the project shall be halted.

A-6 The services of a paleontologist shall be secured by contacting the Center for Public Paleontology - USC, UCLA, Cal State Los Angeles, Cal State Long Beach, or the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum to assess the resources and evaluate the impact.

A-7 Copies of the paleontological survey, study or report shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum.

A-8 A covenant and agreement associated with paleontological resources shall be recorded prior to obtaining a grading permit.

A-9 If human remains are discovered at the project site during construction, work at the specific construction site at which the remains have been uncovered shall be suspended, and the City of Los Angeles Public Works Department and County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Monitoring Phase Construction


Enforcement Agency Building and Safety and Planning Departments

Monitoring Agency Building and Safety and Planning Departments

Geology and Soils

The following standard City of Los Angeles Mitigation Measures for soil erosion management during grading activities would be implemented as part of the project.

A-10 Chapter IX, Division 70 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code addresses grading, excavations, and fills. All grading activities require grading permits from the Department of Building and Safety. Additional provisions are required for grading activities within “Hillside” areas. The application of BMPs includes but is not limited to the following mitigation measures:

o Excavation and grading activities shall be scheduled during dry weather periods. If grading occurs during the rainy season (October 15 through April 1), diversion dikes shall be constructed to channel runoff around the site. Channels shall be lined with grass or roughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity.

o Appropriate erosion control and drainage devices shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Department. These measures include interceptor terraces, berms,



vee-channels, and inlet and outlet structures, as specified by Section 91.7013 of the Building Code, including planting fast-growing annual and perennial grasses in areas where construction is not immediately planned.

o Stockpiles and excavated soil shall be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting.





Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The following standard City of Los Angeles Mitigation Measures for methane management would be implemented as part of the project.

A-11 All commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings shall be provided with an approved Methane Control System, which shall include these minimum requirements; a vent system and gas-detection system which shall be installed in the basements or the lowest floor level on grade, and within underfloor space of buildings with raised foundations. The gas-detection system shall be designed to automatically activate the vent system when an action level equal to 25% of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) methane concentration is detected within those areas.

A-12 All commercial, industrial, institutional and multiple residential buildings covering over 50,000 square feet of lot area or with more than one level of basement shall be independently analyzed by a qualified engineer, as defined in Section 91.7102 of the Municipal Code, hired by the building owner. The engineer shall investigate and recommend mitigation measures which will prevent or retard potential methane gas seepage into the building. In addition to the other items listed in this section, the owner shall implement the engineer’s design recommendations subject to Department of Building and Safety and Fire Department approval.

A-13 All multiple residential buildings shall have adequate ventilation as defined in Section 91.7102 and the Municipal Code of a gas-detection system installed in the basement or on the lowest floor level on grade, and within the underfloor space in buildings with raised foundations.

A-14 All single-family dwellings with basements shall have a gas detection system which is periodically calibrated and maintained in proper operating condition in accordance with manufacturer’s installation and maintenance specifications.







Utilities and Service Systems

Water Supply

The following standard City of Los Angeles Mitigation Measures related to water supply and water conservation would be implemented as part of the project.

A-15 The project shall comply with Ordinance No. 170,978 (Water Management Ordinance), which imposes numerous water conservation measures in landscape, installation, and maintenance (e.g., use drip irrigation and soak hoses in lieu of sprinklers to lower the amount of water lost to evaporation and overspray, set automatic sprinkler systems to irrigate during the early morning or evening hours to minimize water loss due to evaporation, and water less in the cooler months and during the rainy season).

A-16 Unless otherwise required, and to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety, the applicant shall:

o Install high-efficiency toilets (maximum 1.28 gpf), including dual-flush water closets, and high-efficiency urinals (maximum 0.5 gpf), including no-flush or waterless urinals, in all restrooms as appropriate. Rebates may be offered through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to offset portions of the costs of these installations.

o Install restroom faucets with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute.

A-17 The Project Applicant shall install showerheads with a flow rate of 2.0 gallons per minute or less.

A-18 The Project Applicant shall limit showers to one showerhead per shower stall.

A-19 The Project Applicant shall install high efficiency clothes washers (water factor of 6.0 or less) where clothes washers are provided.

A-20 The Project Applicant shall install high efficiency dishwashers (Energy Star rated) where dishwashers are provided.

A-21 The Project Applicant shall install domestic water heating systems located in close proximity to point(s) of use, as feasible; use of tank-less and on-demand water heaters as feasible.

A-22 Cooling towers must be operated at a minimum of 5.5 cycles of concentration.

A-23 The Project Applicant shall install onsite water recycling systems for wastewater discharge for commercial laundries, dye houses, food processing, certain manufacturing operations, etc. (subject to a payback threshold of five years or less).



A-24 Single-pass cooling shall be strictly prohibited.

A-25 All irrigated landscapes of 5,000 square feet or more require separate metering or submetering.

A-26 The Project Applicant is mandated to use recycled water (where available) for appropriate end uses (irrigation, cooling towers, sanitary)

A-27 The Project Applicant shall install irrigation systems that meet the following requirements:

o Weather-based irrigation controller with rain shutoff.

o Flow sensor and master valve shutoff (large landscapes).

o Matched precipitation (flow) rates for sprinkler heads.

o Drip/microspray/subsurface irrigation where appropriate.

o Minimum irrigation system distribution uniformity of 75 percent.

o Proper hydro-zoning, turf minimization and use of native/drought tolerant plant materials.

o Use of landscaping contouring to minimize precipitation runoff.

Additionally, although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications to the 1999 CUP, the following mitigation measures required by the 1999 CUP and MND are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

A-28 Incorporation of feasible energy conservation measures.

A-29 Incorporation of water conservation measures, including compliance with Ordinance No. 170,978.

A-30 Determination by the Bureau of Engineering of sewer capacity.





Solid Waste

The following standard City of Los Angeles Mitigation Measure related to solid waste and recycling would be implemented as part of the project.



A-31 Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable material.

Additionally, the following mitigation measures required by the 1999 CUP and MND are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

A-32 All deliveries and trash pick-up shall be made during off-peak weekday business hours (i.e., no earlier than 8 a.m. and no later than 4 p.m.) and shall be made in a manner so as not to interrupt traffic on residential streets or cause excessive noise, disturbance or parking problems. All trash shall be stored in an enclosed area, which shall not be visible from any residential area. The subject site, including abutting sidewalks, shall be maintained free of debris and rubbish.





AESTHETICS

Although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications, the following measures required by the 1999 CUP and MND are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

B-1 All graffiti on the site shall be removed or painted over in the same color as the surface to which it is applied within 24 hours of its occurrence.

B-2 Shielding of outdoor lighting so that the light source cannot be seen from adjacent residential properties and so it does not create glare to those properties. This condition does not preclude the installation of low level security lighting.

B-3 Provision of landscape plan.

B-4 Maintenance of the property free of trash and debris and free of graffiti.





In addition, although not required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measure is proposed:



B-5 The exterior of the proposed building shall be constructed of materials such as high-performance non-reflective glass, metal panel, and pre-cast concrete or cast in-place or fabricated wall surfaces.





AIR QUALITY

Construction

Although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications, the following construction conditions relating to air quality adopted as part of the 1999 CUP and MND are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

C-1 Maintenance of hauling and grading equipment and muffling as required by law.

C-2 Watering or securely covering of all materials transported off-site to prevent excessive amount of dust.

C-3 Wetting of all unpaved demolition and construction areas and provision of temporary dust covers to meet SCAQMD District Rule 403.

C-4 Suspension of clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph over a 30-minute or greater time period, or instantaneous gusts).







In addition, although not required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures are proposed:





















Operation






NOISE

As part of the 1999 CUP and MND the following construction conditions relating to noise were adopted and are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

E-1 To the extent not superseded by Mitigation Measure II-1, project construction shall comply with the hours, restrictions, and any other applicable provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance Nos. 144,331 and 161,574 (and/or any subsequent ordinances). Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operation of several pieces of equipment simultaneously. The project developer shall utilize power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices and shall comply with the Noise Insulation Standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.





The following additional mitigation measures are recommended to address construction-related noise impacts; however, although these measures would serve to reduce the noise levels associated with



construction at the project site, temporary unavoidable impacts would still occur:




E-9 All excavation and demolition debris truck traffic shall be limited to Pico Boulevard. Trucks utilized for hauling of exported soil and construction equipment shall be staged on the property and shall be prohibited from staging in residential areas, and trucks and other construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Castello Avenue south of Alcott Street, or on Saturn Street, Alcott Street or Roxbury Drive, at any time.





Operation

As part of the 1999 CUP and MND the following conditions relating to noise were adopted and are proposed to be retained by the Applicant with certain modifications:

E-10 The use of any outdoor area for athletic or Special events shall be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and Sundays, and between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays.

E-11 Use of concrete, not metal, for the construction of parking ramps.

E-12 No amplified music or loud unamplified music shall be permitted outdoors. Voice amplification may be used in the outdoors in conjunction with a permitted Special Event that is held outdoors and subject to the restrictions noted under this grant. Volume equipment designed by a qualified audio sound engineer shall be utilized subject to the following specifications: a) use of low-pressure type speakers only, designed to have a maximum coverage area of not more than 400 square feet each; b) distance between speakers shall not exceed 40 feet; c) placement of the speakers shall be not less than 50 feet from the southerly property line and shall provide for sound



projection in a northerly direction; and, d) amplified sounds shall not be audible beyond the subject property's boundary lines.


E-14 With the exception of code-required smoke evacuation fan on the roof, all rooftop mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning units) installed as part of any of the new construction shall be screened from the adjacent residential properties and located as far away as possible from the southerly and easterly sides of any new building construction and mounted on seismic spring isolators, as appropriate, to minimize noise and vibration transmissions resulting from the operations of such equipment. All exterior walls and floor-ceiling assemblies facing southerly shall be constructed in a manner to provide an airborne sound insulation system achieving a Sound Transmission Class of 50 (45 if field tested) as defined in UBC Standard No. 35-1, 1982 edition. As an alternative, the applicant may retain an engineer registered in the State of California with expertise in acoustical engineering, who shall submit a signed report for any alternative means of sound insulation satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator and the Department of Building and Safety which achieves a maximum interior noise level within the surrounding single-family dwellings, with open windows, of CNEL 45.






PUBLIC SERVICES

Although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications, the following condition relating to fire was adopted as part of the 1999 CUP and MND and is proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

F-1 Submittal of plot plan to the Fire Department for review and approval and incorporation into plans of the recommendations of the Department which may include, but not be limited to, access concerns and interior heat sensitive sprinklers.







Although a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the modifications, the following condition relating to security was adopted as part of the 1999 CUP and MND and is proposed to be retained by the Applicant with certain modifications:

F-2 The YULA Facilities shall be monitored both indoors and outdoors 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by closed-circuit television security. A minimum of one security guard shall be hired by the applicant to patrol the grounds during all hours of operation. The YULA guard's responsibilities shall include but not be limited to security of the subject premises and of persons using the premises, enforcement and reporting of any violations of the conditions of the instant grant to the YULA Liaison, and the directing of traffic and parking. When Special Events or other YULA-related activities occur on the subject site, the security guard shall not be used in lieu of the required traffic control monitor. Additional security guards shall be provided for Special Events commensurate with the event. Such guard(s) shall be hired through an established and reputable security firm, after good faith consultation with the Community Relations Committee.





Additionally, although not required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following measures are proposed:

F-3 The Applicant shall contact the Crime Prevention Unit within the Community Relations Section for advisement on crime prevention features appropriate for the design of the property.

F-4 The Applicant shall provide the West Los Angeles Area Commanding Officer with a diagram of each portion of the property. The diagram would include access routes and any additional information that might facilitate police response.








TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION/PARKING

Construction

As part of the 1999 CUP and MND the following construction conditions relating to traffic and parking were adopted and are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

II-1 Hours of excavation, hauling and open air construction shall be limited to the period of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (excluding holidays), except for extended hours on weekdays only, as required during concrete pours. Vans bringing construction workers may arrive at the site no earlier than 7:45 a.m. so that actual construction can begin no earlier than 8 a.m. Construction workers and vehicles shall exit the site by 5 p.m. Interior construction associated with remodeling or with any new building(s) (after such is fully enclosed) may commence at 7 a.m., with construction workers to arrive at the site no earlier than 6:45 a.m., provided that the noise does not disturb neighborhood residents; if the arrival of such workers causes disturbances, then the interior construction shall be limited to the same hours as those permitted for open air construction as set forth herein. This condition does not apply to construction personnel engaged in supervisorial, administrative or inspection activities.

II-2 All excavation and demolition debris truck traffic shall be limited to Pico Boulevard. Trucks utilized for hauling of exported soil and construction equipment shall be staged on the property and shall be prohibited from staging in residential areas, and trucks and other construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Castello Avenue south of Alcott Street, or on Saturn Street, Alcott Street or Roxbury Drive, at any time. Trucks shall be radio dispatched from a remote location on an as-needed basis. Haul trucks and construction equipment shall be cleaned, watered and/or covered before leaving the property. Any material spilled on any street shall be removed promptly by the contractor.

II-3 Construction workers shall be prohibited from parking in residential neighborhoods. During the construction and remodeling period, off-street parking shall be provided for construction personnel. Construction workers shall be required to park at designated off-site parking areas and shall walk or be transported to the construction site by vanpools. Construction workers may also park on-site when the parking structure is available to accommodate such parking. The contractor shall implement procedures adequate to enforce the restrictions set forth herein, including but not limited to posting signs with these instructions at the construction site, printed in both English and Spanish, which shall be legible from a distance of 50 feet.



II-4 Flaggers shall be provided on-site to facilitate truck entry and exit.

II-5 A maximum of two visits per day by a catering truck shall be permitted. Such catering trucks shall be accommodated only on-site. Catering truck operators shall be instructed not to use their horn or other loud signal.

II-6 All construction contracts and subcontracts shall specify that failure of the contractor or subcontractor to comply with any construction condition(s) shall constitute a breach of contract and shall be grounds for termination of the contract or subcontract, as applicable. In this regard, each contract and subcontract shall have an acknowledgment page attached which shall require the contractor or subcontractor to acknowledge that the conditions have been read and understood and shall be fully complied with. The project construction manager shall maintain a file of such acknowledgments for every contractor and subcontractor involved in this project.

Additionally, although not required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

II-7 The applicant shall prepare a Construction, Staging, and Management Plan in accordance with City requirements that takes into account any simultaneous construction activities associated with Related Project No. 53.

II-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall record and execute a Covenant and agreement (Planning Department General Form CP-6770), binding the project applicant to the following haul route conditions:

• All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.

• Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

• Days of the week shall be Monday through Friday. No hauling activities are permitted on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays.

• Trucks shall be restricted to 18-wheel dump trucks or smaller.

• The Traffic Bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department shall be notified prior to the start of hauling (213.485.3106).

• Streets shall be cleaned of spilled materials at the termination of each work day.

• The final approved haul routes and all the conditions of approval shall be available on the job site at all times.



• The owner or contractor shall keep the construction area sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind.

• Hauling and grading equipment shall be kept in good operating condition and muffled as required by law.

• All loads shall be secured by trimming, watering or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust.

• All trucks are to be watered at the job site to prevent excessive blowing dirt.

• All trucks are to be cleaned of loose earth at the job site to prevent spilling. Any material spilled on the public street shall be removed by the contractor.

• The applicant shall be in conformance with the State of California, Department of Transportation policy regarding movements of reducible loads.

• All regulations set forth in the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles pertaining to the hauling of earth shall be complied with.

• “Truck Crossing” warning signs shall be placed 300 feet in advance of the exit in each direction.

• One flag person(s) shall be required at the job and dump sites to assist the trucks in and out of the project area. Flag person(s) and warning signs shall be in compliance with Part II of the 1985 Edition of “Work Area Traffic Control Handbook.”

• The City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation, telephone 213.485.2298, shall be notified 72 hours prior to beginning operations in order to have temporary "No Parking" signs posted along the route.

• Any desire to change the prescribed routes must be approved by the concerned governmental agencies by contacting the Street Use Inspection Division at 213.485.3711 before the change takes place.

• The permittee shall notify the Street Use Inspection Division, 213.485.3711, at least 72 hours prior to the beginning of hauling operations and shall also notify the Division immediately upon completion of hauling operations.

• A surety bond shall be posted in an amount satisfactory to the City Engineer for maintenance of haul route streets. The forms for the bond will be issued by the Valley District Engineering Office, 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 251, Van Nuys, CA 91401.







Operation

As part of the 1999 CUP and MND the following operational conditions relating to traffic and parking were adopted and are proposed to be retained by the Applicant:

II-9 All loading and unloading of students shall be conducted on-site to the maximum extent feasible. To facilitate traffic movement, to prevent double-parking and to ensure the enforcement of these and any other related traffic control provisions, YULA shall provide a traffic control monitor at the entrance of the parking area during regular YULA Boys High School days' morning drop-off hours (7:15 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.) and afternoon pick-up hours (5:15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.).

II-10 Within 90 days of the effective date of the approval of the CUP, a traffic and parking management plan, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for its review and approval. Within 60 days of approval, the project shall implement the traffic monitoring and demand management plan to limit the net project trip generation to 62 AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips. Adding the net project trips identified in the Traffic Study to the project site’s existing trip generation data, the maximum number of trips the expanded school could generate shall be capped as 281 AM peak hour trips and 153 PM peak hour trips. Traffic demand measures may include without limitation, carpooling strategies, busing, shuttles, and public transit incentives.

II-11 Submittal of parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation.



The measurements of actual trips shall cover the morning and afternoon peak hours, Tuesday through Friday (excluding School holidays), over a one week period when the School is in general session. Prior notification of when monitoring will be conducted should not be provided to the School (except for security purposes) but shall be provided to DOT at least one month in advance.



The monitoring shall take place at the School driveway off Castello Avenue, at the School’s expense.

The TMR should be produced annually for a minimum of three (3) years following the School’s first year of full enrollment, in which time the review must show compliance for the entire three-year review period. Should the review show that the School is not within substantial compliance, the School will have one (1) year to correct its deficiency. If the School cannot achieve compliance within the corrective year, then a new three (3) year review period will commence and the School shall submit a traffic management plan (TMP) to DOT that outlines the course of action the School will take in order to achieve compliance. If the School cannot achieve compliance after implementation of the TMP, then a reduction in the School’s enrollment should be considered.






inal environmental impact report west os ngeles community plan … · 2011. 4. 22. ·...

Documents