August 15, 2003

(213) 229-7860 R 54144-00003

(213) 229-6860

Ms. Cecilia Masson, Project Manager
Los Angeles Unified School District
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
355 South Grand Avenue, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Ms. Masson:

Our firm submits these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Central Los Angeles Area New Learning Center No.1 on behalf of our client, the Los Angeles Conservancy. The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local membership-based historic preservation organization in the country and works to preserve and revitalize the architectural and cultural heritage of the Los Angeles area.

The DEIR does not approach the minimum standards required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and we comment in detail below on the DEIR's deficiencies. In summary, however, our principal criticisms of the DEIR are as follows: (1) the DEIR does not provide a balanced analysis of the potential, significant environmental impacts of the project, but instead is heavily biased against preservation and reuse; (2) the cost estimates provided for the project alternatives in the DEIR are inaccurate and unsupported by verifiable data; (3) the DEIR failed to identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce the project's significant environmental impacts to the Ambassador Hotel site; (4) the DEIR's analysis of key historical features retained and/or lost under the project alternatives is misleading and inaccurate; and (5) the DEIR failed to provide a sufficient historic preservation alternative for the Learning Center's construction.

The DEIR concedes that the Ambassador Hotel is a protected historical resource under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21084.1; 14 CCR § 15064.5(a)(1).) Yet, the DEIR proposes alternatives that result in the demolition of all or most of the historic Ambassador Hotel. The DEIR proposes five alternatives for the construction of the new Learning Center on the Ambassador Hotel site. Three of the alternatives, two of which are labeled "partial reuse", call for the demolition of all or most of the Ambassador Hotel. The two "preservation" alternatives (Alternatives #1 and #5), although not ideal, do at least preserve more key historic features of the Ambassador Hotel than the other alternatives. However, the DEIR time and again summarily rejects the "preservation" alternatives without providing a cogent analysis.

The Ambassador Hotel is one of the most historically significant buildings in Los Angeles. The Ambassador Hotel was opened in 1921. The famed architect Myron Hunt designed the Ambassador Hotel. Myron Hunt’s other works include the Henry Huntington Home (now the Huntington Art Gallery), Huntington Library, Occidental College, Pomona College and the Rose Bowl. Additionally, one of the first African-American architects, Paul R. Williams, made significant contributions to the Ambassador Hotel. The Ambassador Hotel was the home of the Cocoanut Grove nightclub where countless stars performed including Judy Garland and Frank Sinatra. Every United States President from Herbert Hoover to Richard Nixon stayed at the hotel, and it is the site where Nixon wrote his famed 1952 "Checkers" speech that rescued his political career. The Ambassador Hotel is also a place of national significance. In 1968, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in the building. The only two buildings in the nation with comparable significance as sites of national tragedy from this era are the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas and the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, the sites of the John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Martin Luther King, Jr. respective assassinations. Both buildings, neither of which was as intrinsically significant as the Ambassador Hotel, have been preserved as museums. Given the national significance of the Ambassador Hotel, and the fact that the two buildings in the nation with comparable significance are preserved as museums, destroying the Ambassador Hotel would be out of step with the way this nation preserves such sites.

The Los Angeles Conservancy could have opposed construction of a school on the Ambassador Hotel site from the outset, a position urged by many within the Los Angeles Conservancy’s large membership. However, the Conservancy has recognized that a school facilities crisis exists in Los Angeles and that more than 7,000 LAUSD students live within a half-mile radius of the Ambassador Hotel site. As a result, the Conservancy has taken a position in support of constructing a school on the Ambassador Hotel site, and has sought to work cooperatively with District staff to shape a successful conversion of the hotel into a school. The Conservancy believes that these efforts were successful, and that an exciting, state-of-the-art educational facility is possible, using the Ambassador Hotel itself as the school’s centerpiece.

In these discussions with District staff, the LAUSD agreed to include an alternative that incorporates the maximum preservation of the Ambassador Hotel while reusing the site as a learning center. As is clear from the DEIR, the LAUSD did not include a maximum preservation alternative, and commitments made in earlier discussions about the extent of preservation in the "maximum reuse" alternative had not been maintained.

Although none of the proposed alternatives adequately preserves the Ambassador Hotel site, of the alternatives proposed, the Los Angeles Conservancy supports Alternative #1, and also supports Alternative #5 (which contains the same degree of historic preservation as Alternative One), provided that any new construction along Wilshire Boulevard not "wall off" or engulf the historic hotel, and that a substantial view corridor from Wilshire Boulevard to the Ambassador Hotel be maintained. The Conservancy has taken this "compromise" position, even though both alternatives fall well short of acceptable historic preservation practices, in the spirit of cooperation with the LAUSD and in the recognition that this community badly needs an educational campus.

This project has the potential, if a preservation alternative is chosen, of providing a unique and flexible learning environment for LAUSD students. Indeed, students can read The Great Gatsby in a space where F. Scott Fitzgerald regularly stayed. Students can learn about architecture and preservation, while using the structure itself as their textbook. And the students can study history and politics in a building that significantly shaped our local and national political history. Or, the project could demolish all structures on the Ambassador Hotel site, precluding any benefits to LAUSD students of learning in a unique and historically significant setting and providing no tangible benefits to the community.

In any event, the DEIR should be withdrawn from circulation, amended to address the issues raised in these comments and all other valid comments submitted in response to the DEIR, and then re-circulated for another full public comment period. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1; 14 CCR §  15088.5.) Only then should a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") be considered along with the approval of this proposed project.

Under CEQA the purpose of an EIR is to provide information to the decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of the project. (14 CCR §  15002 (a)(1).) As will be discussed more fully below, this DEIR presents only one side of the story – the new construction side. The DEIR makes conclusory statements, without supporting data, and expects the decision maker to take the information at face value. But as is also shown below, much of the information provided is inaccurate or misleading. Meaningful public participation and informed decision making cannot be possible where such conclusory and biased information is presented to the decision makers.

A review of the project objectives clearly reveals the DEIR’s preference for new construction and lack of willingness to explore or even seriously consider preservation or reuse.

One of the project objectives is to comply with the LAUSD’s internal design standards and policies for new school construction. (See DEIR at ES-3.) These design standards are not listed in the DEIR or provided in the Appendices. Moreover, these standards are not mandatory, but rather reflect the LAUSD’s own preference for new construction. The LAUSD does not even have rehabilitation standards. It is ridiculous for the LAUSD to measure the preservation and reuse alternatives against a new construction standard. If the LAUSD is proposing all of the alternatives contained in the DEIR, and not favoring new construction over the other alternatives, then the LAUSD must also include a set of project objectives that are equally applicable to rehabilitation and new construction. This is the only way to allow the decision makers to properly evaluate the impacts of each alternative proposed.

Another project objective calls for compliance with the Division of the State Architect’s ("DSA") requirements for New School Construction. Again, the standard relates solely to new construction. However, if the LAUSD truly wanted to also analyze preservation and reuse of the Ambassador Hotel as a school it should have included an alternate project objective requiring the utilization of the State Historic Building Code, also under the auspices of the DSA. (See Letter from Division of the State Architect, dated August 7, 2003, submitted under separate cover. ) This State code does not provide a "compromised" level of code compliance or public safety, but instead provides a more flexible, performance-based methodology for reaching full code compliance.

In addition, the DSA has developed new regulations that provide a methodology for the conversion of existing, non-conforming buildings to public schools. By definition, since such conversions are supported and encouraged by State policy, they meet State standards for quality public school construction. Yet, the DEIR makes no mention at all of these Standards, thereby ignoring the precise methodology that is most applicable to all questions of code compliance throughout the document.

These regulations were adopted under emergency procedure by the State's Building Standards Commission on May 15, 2003 – prior to the release of the DEIR – and are currently in force. Any project proposing to rehabilitate an existing historic building as a public school cannot ignore the new regulations developed by the DSA. Specifically, the LAUSD cannot ignore the fact that such regulations exist and that the analysis of the preservation and reuse alternatives is not complete without considering these new regulations. Indeed, using the new regulations could change the outcome of the analysis in the DEIR, such as minimizing the length of time and cost of construction of the preservation and reuse alternatives. In light of the need to add this new information, the DEIR must be revised to analyze the preservation and reuse alternatives according to the new DSA regulations.

The DEIR also contains the project objective of maximizing the use of state funds for site acquisition and construction of the school facilities, yet there is no evidence in the DEIR or in the Appendices that the LAUSD has explored or pursued historic preservation funds. Not even an effort on behalf of the LAUSD to partner up with another state agency or legislator to come up with preservation funds is evidenced. The DEIR contains clear evidence that the LAUSD researched the source of funds for new construction. Likewise, funds for historic preservation should have been pursued just as vigorously.

The label used for Alternative #1 provides a blatant example of how the DEIR is misleading and biased against true preservation.

Alternative #1 is what the DEIR calls the "Maximum Reuse with New ‘West Tower’" Alternative. (DEIR at 2-31.) This name is misleading to the decision makers and the public. Under Alternative #1, 47% of the key historic features are lost including all the bungalows and the lobby. How can an alternative that destroys 47% of the historic features be called "maximum reuse"? Perhaps "partial retention" would be more appropriate.

The examples of bias against preservation and reuse found in this DEIR are numerous. As demonstrated below, the DEIR sets up non-CEQA subjective standards that the new construction alternatives easily meet, knowing that the preservation and reuse alternatives cannot possibly meet these subjective standards. Yet, the DEIR does not include any of the standards that preservation and reuse alternatives can meet. In other words, the DEIR conjures up numerous negative aspects of preservation and reuse, but never offers up even one single benefit of preservation and reuse, even though such benefits are self-evident and had been previously discussed with LAUSD representatives. Such a biased presentation of information precludes the public and the decision makers from learning about the benefits to LAUSD students of preservation and reuse.

The statement that reuse of hotel structures would "require a substantial effort to remove, strengthen, secure, and replace (as appropriate) existing degraded materials and to renovate structures to school standards in general" is conclusory and biased against reuse. (See DEIR at 2-33.) The DEIR provides no information to corroborate such a conclusion. Moreover, the statement also fails to acknowledge any alternatives to strict compliance with school standards where other interests are being served, such as historic preservation interests.

The statement that the building "would not meet the minimum ceiling height of 10 feet, standard daylight factor, or policy for Collaborative for High Performance Schools, and standard noise requirements and standards to optimize natural ventilation could be compromised," again is conclusory and biased. (See DEIR at 2-33.) The DEIR provides no information to corroborate such a conclusion. In fact, the Los Angeles Conservancy’s analysis demonstrates that the ceiling heights are sufficient for classroom use and fall below the 10’ "standard" largely because specific beams dip below the ceiling – an effect that is common within historic spaces and that does not detract from the feeling of openness within the classrooms. (See Barry Milofsky Memorandum, dated August 11, 2003, submitted under separate cover.) Moreover, the DEIR fails to give any sense of the consequences of not complying with the standards or even reasonable alternatives to the standards.

As a drawback to Alternative #1 the DEIR states, "The Hotel Building would have single loaded corridors that create additional walking distances for students between classes." (DEIR at 2-33.) Why do single loaded corridors necessarily create additional walking distances for students? Even if this is accurate, the FEIR should note benefits, such as added physical activity for sedentary students, as well as detriments of this condition. (See Barry Milofsky Memorandum, dated August 11, 2003, submitted under separate cover.)

The DEIR emphasizes under Alternative #1 the need to separate middle and high school students stating, "Potential physical and/or verbal altercations could occur between younger middle school students and older high school students if they are not physically separated in a school environment." (See DEIR at 2-36.) The DEIR does not provide any empirical support for this conclusory statement. (See Barry Milofsky Memorandum, dated August 11, 2003, submitted under separate cover.) Moreover, all the alternatives have a shared gym and food services facility for both the middle school and the high school students, contrary to the DEIR's assertion that these groups of students must be separated at all times. The DEIR also fails to explain why the high school and the middle school cannot be separated according to floors or wings, if the existing hotel is used. Additionally, under Alternative #4, it appears that both the middle school and high school are in the same building, without clarifying how they are being separated. Indeed, it appears that less physical separation between high school and middle school students is offered under Alternative #4 because the new construction alternative lacks some of the natural "buffers" provided by the wings, lobby, and historic configuration of the hotel under Alternative #1. The DEIR does not explain why separation is emphasized under Alternative #1 and not under Alternative #4.

The DEIR acknowledges that Alternative #1 has 81,932 square feet that could be used for other uses, but never credits the economic value of this space. (See DEIR at 2-37.) Again, the DEIR penalizes Alternative #1 for containing too much space, yet fails to analyze or even acknowledge the potential positive economic benefits of the space.

The DEIR finds that Alternative #1 would not meet the sustainability requirements for long-term life cycle costs for the Hotel Building, Embassy Ballroom, and potentially the Cocoanut Grove. Why is the life cycle for rehabilitation different from new construction, particularly because almost all of the materials utilized under Alternative #1 will be new, because the vast majority of the building is being entirely gutted and replaced with entirely new materials and finishes, and even the exterior plaster of the building will be entirely replaced under this alternative.

Another area where the DEIR inaccurately penalizes Alternative #1 as not being ideal is with the conversion to Small Learning Communities. The statement that the "concept of Small Learning Communities would be more difficult with the existing layout" is inaccurate. (See DEIR 2-36.) A Small Learning Community is defined as a separately defined, individualized learning unit within a large school setting. Students and teachers are scheduled together and frequently have a common area of the school in which to hold most or all of their classes. Research has shown that these Small Learning Communities are more educationally effective, safer, and more cost-efficient. See Cohen, Michael, Transforming the American High School: New Directions for State and Local Policy, pages 5-6 (Jobs for the Future, 2001) (see Exhibit A attached to this letter); see also Lawrence, Barbara Kent, et al., Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools ,pages 11-13 (Knowledge Works Foundation 2002) (see Exhibit B attached to this letter).

Small Learning Communities tend to have clear academic identities as well as distinct physical boundaries. The DEIR argues that it is more difficult to achieve these requirements "when a plant is restricted by an existing layout that does not lend itself to a new configuration." The DEIR cites solely to the Concept Paper entitled Small Communities of Learning for Secondary Schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District: A Concept Paper (January 8, 2003), as support for this position. (See DEIR at 2-36 fn. 30 and DEIR Appendix B9.) However, this Concept Paper does not support the DEIR's position. The Concept Paper indicates that Small Learning Communities can be created through the building of new schools or through converting an existing comprehensive high school. "These are two different but complementary strategies" and "both have unique challenges." Small Communities of Learning for Secondary Schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District: A Concept Paper (January 8, 2003). (See DEIR, Appendix B9.) The Ambassador Hotel can be converted to utilize this Small Learning Community concept in a fashion similar to the process of converting an existing comprehensive high school. Although this may present "unique challenges" it is not preventative from utilizing this concept.

Further, the Ambassador Hotel offers a unique setting that can further the goals of the Small Learning Community concept. One of the goals of the Small Learning Community concept is establishing a unique academic identity. Small Communities of Learning for Secondary Schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District: A Concept Paper (January 8, 2003) (see DEIR, Appendix B9.) The Ambassador Hotel buildings lend themselves to just this setting and can bring not only the students together but also the community. By creating a curriculum that utilizes the history of the building, the Small Learning Center can create an identity that utilizes the architectural design and space in support of this mission and vision.

The DEIR fails to explore the possibilities that the Ambassador Hotel buildings offer in support of the creation of a Small Learning Community concept and it fails to provide support for its narrow, one-sided statements. The DEIR must further address the Small Learning Community concept and offer adequate support for its statements against the use of Small Learning Communities within the existing Ambassador Hotel building.

Although the DEIR states that the Robert F. Kennedy assassination site is retained, it appears to be inaccurate because this nationally significant site sits within a building that actually ends up being demolished under this alternative. (See DEIR at 2-38.) How is it possible that the RFK site will be demolished and somehow reemerge within an entirely new building?

Many of the comments made in relation to Alternative #1 above apply equally to Alternative #5. In addition, under Alternative #5, the DEIR indicates that it could face the loss of $3.5 to $8.8 million from Proposition 1A funds if it does not use the entire site for school purposes. (DEIR at 2-53.) But the DEIR fails to address any additional funding it might obtain if it preserves the hotel as a historical resource.

The DEIR includes a classification system of key property features and then provides tables showing how many key property features are retained or lost under each Alternative. This information is ostensibly provided to help the decision maker evaluate the impacts of the project Alternatives. At a glance this appears to be helpful information, however, a careful review of the tables reveals that the information presented is misleading and skewed to minimize the number of key features lost. (See revised Tables 3D-2, 3D-3, 3D-4, 3D-5, 3D-6, 3D-7, 3D-9, 3D-10 and 3D-11 attached to this letter.) As demonstrated by the comparison tables that the Los Angeles Conservancy has provided, the tables in the DEIR end up being of little or no use to the decision maker.

The DEIR's comparison tables have numerous flaws. (See DEIR Tables 3D-1 through 3D-12.) The tables group together the bungalows, cottages and pergolae inferring that only one Class 1 feature is lost. By aggregating certain site features in this manner, it minimizes what are actually very severe impacts. For example, all of the four Myron Hunt-designed bungalows are treated as a single element, rather than acknowledging the demolition or relocation of four significant structures. The DEIR admits "all the key property features recognized in the analysis are character-defining, significant features of the property, thus their loss or retention assists reviewers in evaluating impacts of project Alternatives." (See DEIR at 3D-6.) Yet, the DEIR fails to present the information of what key features of the property are lost and/or retained in a candid manner for the decision maker. Instead, the DEIR presents a misleading and inaccurate picture of the features lost. After reviewing each alternative without the false aggregation, all alternatives (except Alternative #1) lose much more than half of the key property features of the Ambassador Hotel site.

Moreover, the Project Description of each Alternative indicates the loss of certain features, but they are noted as being retained in Tables 3D-1 to 3D-12. This is done because the impact analysis indicates that they could be retained. If these features are in fact being demolished or eliminated as indicated in the Project Description, Tables 3D-1 to 3D-12 must accurately reflect this. At the moment, the tables are a "wish list" of retained features rather than an accurate reflection of features to be retained and lost as described in the Project Description. The revised tables attached to this letter indicate how the tables should really appear, based on the Project Description and layout for each Alternative. Of course, the Los Angeles Conservancy would prefer that as many historic features as possible be retained, and encourages the LAUSD to do so. But if certain features are not being retained, the DEIR must be honest about it.

Although the DEIR claims that Alternative #2 retains the Paul Williams Coffee Shop, it does not explain how, since it appears from the Project Description and the site plan that this portion of the hotel is being demolished. (See DEIR at 3D-43.) From the DEIR it appears that just the Cocoanut Grove is retained, with the reconstructed ballroom.

Under Alternative #2, the DEIR also claims that the reconstruction of the demolished Walker & Eisen-designed pergolae would meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines – how is this possible, given that the Standards emphasize preservation and retention of original and historic features? (See DEIR at 3D-43.)

Alternative #2 shows that the Embassy Ballroom, which is being demolished and reconstructed, is retained. (DEIR at 3D-44.) The Embassy Ballroom is not being retained if it is being demolished and this should be put under the "lost" column.

Under Alternative #3, the DEIR shows the Main Building Envelope as being retained. (DEIR at 3D-50.) However, two-thirds of the main hotel building is being demolished. How is can this be deemed retained when two-thirds of the building is being demolished?

Alternative #3 also considers the Walker & Eisen-designed pergolae as being retained even when half of the pergolae are being demolished. (See DEIR at 3D-51.) The Walker & Eisen-designed pergolae should be designated as lost.

Chapter 4 of the DEIR is a key section, as it offers the LAUSD's subjective comparison of the various alternatives. This chapter starts off by explaining the CEQA provisions pertaining to the Alternatives analysis:

(See DEIR at 4-1 referring to 14 CCR § 15126.6.) However, this cannot be achieved here because such biased information is presented to the decision makers.

Moreover, a review of some of the more "far fetched" reasons put forth by the DEIR as to why the Ambassador Hotel cannot be reused underscore the extent of bias, for example:

• The possibility of vandalism to piping. (See DEIR at 4-5.)
• Having approximately an extra 100 square feet in a classroom (about 10% extra space in each room) would create a problem for fostering "intimate" workstations, even though the students can still sit together around the stations, and there would merely be slightly more room in between the small groups. (See DEIR at 4-19.)
• While the DEIR nitpicks Alternative #1’s rooms for being too large, it also criticizes the Cocoanut Grove for being very slightly smaller than the LAUSD’s typical auditorium, even though it is physically impossible for any existing building to meet the LAUSD’s "ideal" room sizes in every single space.
• It is somewhat ironic to discuss the failure to meet sustainability standards when the structure at issue is a historically significant hotel, which, by definition, has proved its sustainability for eight decades and which , by reusing existing materials, is more sustainable than new construction. (See DEIR at 4-24.)
• The statements about noise resulting from lower ceilings is not discussed in the noise analysis, and the DEIR provides no empirical evidence to support its contention. (See DEIR at 4-25.)
• The existing windows are considered safety hazards in the DEIR, even though the DEIR clearly states that the "need for storm windows on the interior face is anticipated" (DEIR at 3-33), thereby addressing any potential hazard.
• although any visitor to the Ambassador Hotel can see that the tower’s rooms are flooded with natural light, to a level that far exceeds most existing LAUSD campuses, the DEIR argues that insufficient lighting and ventilation exists.
• it is suggested that the site layout for Alternatives #1, #3 and #5 is inappropriate because the buildings bifurcate the site, but the buildings in Alternatives #2 and #4 appear to do the same (See DEIR at 4-27.)
• the comparison of operating costs is an "apples to oranges" comparison because the schools are different sizes (See DEIR at 4-27.)

Most significantly, Table 4-1 (DEIR at 4-6 to 4-18) in Chapter 4 summarizing the issues relating to each Alternative must to be dramatically revised. This is a particularly important portion of the DEIR because it purports to give decision makers a "short-hand" summary of the key issues pertaining to each of the Alternatives. Yet it is this very summary that most clearly demonstrates the inherent bias of the DEIR analysis. Once again, not a single potential design or programmatic benefit of Alternative #1 or #5 was included in Table 4-1. Furthermore, the summary continually details the purportedly complex construction issues that are germane to Alternative #1, while failing to point out that these supposed complications have already been accounted for in the DEIR’s inflated cost and time analysis, as discussed below. At the same time, the discussions of Alternative #4, and at times some of the partial reuse options, contains positive, value-laden language such as "MEP systems can be designed for the best possible economic and schedule considerations in New Construction." (See DEIR at 4-15.)

The EIR is the heart of CEQA. (14 CCR § 15003(a).) The EIR is an informational document meant to inform the governmental decision makers and the public about potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(1).) In the case of this project, the decision makers are balancing the preservation of a historical resource, the Ambassador Hotel, with certain economic realities. For this reason, it is especially important for the decision makers to have accurate information on the cost estimates of each Alternative, which as shown below, this DEIR does not provide. For this reason alone, the DEIR should be revised to reflect new cost estimate and recirculated for public review.

The DEIR dramatically overestimates the cost differential between Alternative #1 and Alternative #4 both by misstating the actual construction costs in these alternatives, and, even more significantly, by "piling on" unrealistic and unwarranted "contingencies" and price "escalation" factors onto Alternative #1.

The DEIR provides no verifiable data in the text or the appendices showing the decision makers and the public how the LAUSD arrived at its cost analysis. How are the public and the decision makers supposed to verify this information and confirm that it is accurate? This decision is an important one – it decides the fate of one of Los Angeles's most historic building. In fact, it appears from the considerable effort that the Los Angeles Conservancy went to obtaining cost estimates, that the DEIR's cost estimates are woefully inaccurate and not to be relied upon.

The Los Angeles Conservancy previously met with LAUSD’s technical team to discuss the pending cost estimates for the proposed alternatives for the project, the estimates changed significantly between the Los Angeles Conservancy's last meeting with LAUSD in the spring and the June release of the DEIR. Because the Los Angeles Conservancy was not allowed to keep any of the documents presented at these earlier meetings, the Los Angeles Conservancy needed to submit no less than three Public Records Act requests in order to obtain detailed information on project costs. (See Exhibits C, D and E attached to this letter.)

In order to provide the very best cost analysis for this complex project, the Los Angeles Conservancy retained the Santa Monica firm Davis Langdon Adamson, which has offices throughout the United States and internationally. The firm specializes in large, complex public projects, including many college and university buildings, public schools, and historic preservation projects.

Having seen earlier versions of LAUSD’s cost estimates for the project, the Los Angeles Conservancy was shocked to see in the DEIR that the estimated cost differential between Alternative #1 and Alternative #4 had ballooned to $95 million. Davis Langdon Adamson had estimated this differential at $46 million. As part of this response to the DEIR, the Los Angeles Conservancy is submitting the entire cost estimate prepared by Davis Langdon Adamson. (See Conceptual Design Cost Model for HS/MS/ES Maximum Reuse – Alternate 1, dated May 8, 2003, and Conceptual Design Cost Model for HS/MS/ES New Construction – Alternate 4, dated May 8, 2003, by Davis Langdon Adamson, submitted under separate cover .)

The real cost differential between Alternatives #1 and #4 is almost entirely explained by one factor: the Ambassador building is simply 25% larger than the LAUSD's proposed program for the school (more than 160,000 square feet larger). As such, while the LAUSD purports to undertake an even-handed comparison of costs in the DEIR, in fact an "apples to apples" comparison is simply impossible. To be considered comparable in costs, the preservation alternative would actually have to be 25% cheaper foot for foot.

The facts demonstrate that, instead, Alternative #1 is actually cheaper than Alternative #4 foot for foot, thereby undercutting the LAUSD's attempt to use cost as a justification for demolishing the Ambassador Hotel. Under the Davis Langdon Adamson estimate, the Ambassador preservation alternative would cost $339 per square foot to construct, versus $362 per square foot for new construction, a $23 per square foot savings.

The DEIR does not provide one penny of credit for the potential economic value of the extra space. To be sure, some of the extra space can be considered "inefficiencies" of the existing building’s layout. However, about half of the extra space (nearly 82,000 square feet, according to the DEIR at 2-37) is truly surplus space – space that is assumed to be "shelled" and not used as part of the LAUSD’s school program. This is space that could be leased to outside entities, or could fill LAUSD needs for office space or storage, space that is currently being leased. Even assuming a low lease rate of $1.00 per month, which is below market rate for office space in this area, the District could realize revenues of $1 million year after year for this extra space (or save this amount in existing leases elsewhere).

Moreover, the LAUSD leases a significant amount of extra office space for its "mini-districts" and for its central District administrative staff. For example, the LAUSD is leasing over 200,000 sq. ft. of office space on Bunker Hill, largely for its Facilities Division, at a monthly rate of $1.66/sq. ft. (See Exhibit F, response to Public Records Act Request of May 28, 2003, items 31-34, LAUSD Lease Files, attached to this letter.) Moving some of this staff or other District administrators to the Ambassador site would likely provide an economic savings to the District, and create the significant benefit of having District staff located where students are actually attending school and in a magnificent historic landmark, as well.

On top of the extra "shelled" space to which one can affix a specific economic value, the preservation alternative will give the LAUSD more space throughout the built-out school program. This extra space results in enhanced facilities that will have educational, yet unquantifiable (in monetary terms), benefits to students, faculty and the surrounding community. For example, the extra space allows the District under Alternative #1 to create a library in a grand ballroom that is twice the size of typical high school libraries. The size and configuration of the ballroom will not only create more space and unparalleled aesthetic benefits (this will be the most beautiful school library in the LAUSD system), but it also affords exciting joint use opportunities, as the library can be used after hours and on weekends by the underserved surrounding community. The decision makers have not been given any of this information – just as the DEIR contains no information on any of the other tangible or intangible benefits of reuse – again slanting the analysis.

The DEIR also has provided no credit for the filming revenue currently being realized from the Ambassador site, which should be included in the Final EIR. Filming at the Ambassador has exceeded 150 days per year in recent years, yielding more than $1 million annually before the LAUSD acquired the site. If the LAUSD built a new school rather than retaining one of the most heavily filmed sites in Los Angeles, this significant annual revenue source would disappear. While filming schedules may be affected by the students' presence during school hours, the revenues to be realized by filming after hours in a beautifully restored space should outweigh any loss of availability during school hours. The Los Angeles entertainment business is well used to using filming locations that have "real" uses during business hours.

The District’s high cost figures are also driven by inaccurate assumptions about the project scheduling. There is no evidence that it will take as much as 18 months longer to construct the reuse alternative. In fact, because the building is already standing and reuse plans are already far along, reuse can proceed to working drawings and construction at least as quickly. In drawing this comparison (that has a significant impact on project costs) the LAUSD also does not account for the potential delay to Alternative #4 due to public concern, opposition, and the likely legal challenge to demolition. Indeed, the inaccurate assumptions about time are responsible for a full $17 million of the assumed cost differential between these alternatives ($32 million in cost escalation factor under Alternative #1 versus $15 million in escalation under Alternative #4 – a difference that is further explained below).

To confirm the construction schedule assumptions for the Ambassador project, the Los Angeles Conservancy sought the expertise of outside construction management consultants: Poulsen Construction Management, which has overseen some the nation’s top historic rehabilitation projects. These projects include San Francisco City Hall and the Utah State Capitol building. Further peer review was provided by one of Southern California’s top commercial construction firms. The Poulsen analysis demonstrates that the LAUSD has significantly over-stated the time required for the historic rehabilitation options, and significantly under-stated the time required for new construction. (See Letter from Poulsen Construction Management, Inc., dated August 12, 2003, submitted under separate cover.) On new construction, the LAUSD has assumed that all new construction may be completed in a two-year period, a time period used for smaller, less complex projects. For this project, the first large, K-12, five- and six-story campus ever built within the LAUSD system, the typical two-year construction period should realistically be lengthened by several months. In addition, the design phase for the complex new construction project should be lengthened from 14 months to 18 months.

Time savings on Alternative #1 are also available by phasing the project in a manner that starts with the low-rise portion of the hotel, cutting construction time from 36 months to 30 months. Because the Division of the State Architect (DSA) has adopted an entirely new procedure for approving conversion of existing buildings to public schools, the approvals phase on Alternative #1 will likely be far less than the nine months specified. (See Letter from Division of State Architect, dated August 7, 2003, submitted under separate cover.) All of these time adjustments will have significant effects on overall construction costs.

The LAUSD has piled on an astounding total of $77 million in contingencies and price escalators onto Alternative #1, representing nearly half the actual projected hard construction costs, which the LAUSD estimate claims are $174.1 million, without contingencies and escalators. The LAUSD's analysis has reached this incredible figure both through unyielding mathematical conventions that may not reflect reality, and through unrealistic assumptions. What occurs is the following: construction costs that start out somewhat higher for Alternative #1 as opposed to Alternative #4 get ballooned, as contingencies and escalators are typically calculated as a percentage of construction costs. But because the initial assumptions underlying the basic construction cost projections are flawed, so are the contingency and escalation projections on which these percentages are mathematically applied.

These erroneous assumptions become easier to discern as each is reviewed in detail. For example, the LAUSD is assuming a "Design Development Contingency" of $21.2 million. While the contingency rate for new construction and for all of Alternative #4 is 10%, LAUSD has assumed a "rehabilitation/reuse" contingency of 15% for the "rehabilitation/reuse" work on Alternative #1. While the industry standard in cost estimation typically dictates a 15% contingency for reuse projects because there are often "surprises" found in painstaking historic rehabilitation projects, Alternative #1 is actually not a conventional historic preservation project. Most of this alternative involves either demolition and new construction, or the gutting of all of the hotel’s upper floors, to be replaced by entirely new materials and finishes – not a painstaking preservation of sensitive historic materials. Only in a small handful of areas, representing a tiny percentage of the project’s overall program area, would the techniques of historic restoration actually be utilized. For these reasons, the cost estimation team of Davis Langdon Adamson utilized a 12.5% contingency for the "historic" portion of the project – a much more realistic assessment of the actual type of work being performed.

Another one of the largest factors behind the ballooning cost gap is the unrealistic assumptions behind the construction schedule, as already noted above. This leads to a cost escalation factor of 16.6% in Alternative #1 versus a mere 11.4% in Alternative #4. Again, because these unrealistic numbers are also being taken as a percentage of unrealistic basic construction costs, the differential becomes huge: a $17.1 million difference just on this escalation line item, between Alternatives #1 and #4!

Further stacking the deck, the LAUSD has assumed significantly higher costs for design of the Alternative #1, when, in fact, the very opposite may be true. The LAUSD is assuming that design work on Alternative #1 will cost $17.3 million versus $11.3 million for Alternative #4. There is no explanation in the DEIR or in public documents as to how this number was calculated. While one might assume that the difference would be explained by taking design fees as a percentage of overall project costs, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, in Alternative #1 design is just short of 10% of construction costs, while, somewhat suspiciously, a lower absolute percentage was utilized for Alternative #4: 9.2%. It seems incredible to assume that basic architectural and design services for this project could possibly amount to $13.5 million ($17.3 million for all design-related costs), when to design an entirely new building would cost "only" $8.7 million in design fees.

The DEIR’s cost assumptions also include unrealistically low projections for the cost of new construction – estimates that are far lower than other comparable LAUSD projects. This is particularly evident in the DEIR’s assumptions on the cost of building the site’s new elementary school. The LAUSD’s 2003 Strategic Execution Plan project budget summary lists all current elementary school construction projects. Across the LAUSD, construction costs for elementary schools averages $236 per square foot. (See Exhibit G, response to Public Records Act Request of May 28, 2003, items 25-28, SEP 2003 Project Budgets, attached to this letter.) Yet, the LAUSD’s estimate on the cost of construction for the new elementary school on the Ambassador site is only $160 per square foot as compared to $180 in the Davis Langdon Adamson estimate. Even including the elementary school’s share of the overall site work and technology upgrades leaves this project budget quite short of the LAUSD’s comparable elementary school projects in other communities.

This consistent underestimation of the cost and time involved in new construction carries through to all of the new construction estimates provided under Alternative #4. In meetings with LAUSD’s project team, it became apparent that a major factor behind the differing cost estimates for Alternative #4 is that Davis Langdon Adamson had assumed a "medium to high quality" of materials, finishes, and equipment whereas LAUSD’s team had assumed lower quality materials and finishes. The Final EIR should make clearer to the decision makers and to the community at large that the finished product under Alternative #4 will not include the high-quality construction and finishes that one would come to expect on a significant public project of this nature.

Despite this underestimation of new construction costs, it is important to underscore that one of the most important factors underlying the supposedly higher costs for Alternative #1 is the cost of constructing new buildings for this alternative. More than one-third of the base construction costs in Alternative #1, $39 million of the $115 million estimated by LAUSD (see Exhibit H, response to Public Records Act Request of June 19, 2003, Item #1, Alternative #1 Cost Analysis by C.P. O'Halloran Associates, p.2, attached to this letter), does not go toward rehabilitation at all, but instead represents the cost of new buildings – the new science wing and the gymnasium. As the decision makers contemplate possible adjustments to the school’s overall program, major cost savings may be possible by downsizing or even eliminating some of Alternative #1’s proposed new construction.

Despite affording the unique educational opportunities attendant the exciting reuse of one of Los Angeles’ most significant landmarks, the costs of Alternative #1 (even utilizing LAUSD’s inflated assumptions) are not appreciably greater than other comparable LAUSD new construction projects. For example, the LAUSD is constructing a new, 1,100-student school to replace the seats lost due to the earthquake fault at the Belmont Learning Center site (now Vista Hermosa). This school – all new construction – will cost only 7.3% less per seat than the Ambassador maximum reuse plan (Alternative #1) and will actually cost 10% more per square foot. The total cost breakdown (construction, land and all project costs), based on documents obtained from the Los Angeles Conservancy’s Public Records Act request, all of which are included in this submission, is as follows:

Total Cost: $381.9 million $88.97 million

Total Seats: 4,400 1,100

Cost Per Seat $86,784 $80,882

Bldg. Area (Sq. Ft.): 627,000 131,534

Total Cost/Sq. Ft. $609 $676

Even more telling, the public documents on the new Belmont-Virgil project describe it as a two-story building, as opposed to the inherently more expensive and involved five- and six-story construction required under all the Alternatives for the Ambassador Hotel site.

The Ambassador’s total costs per square foot, even under LAUSD’s own flawed projections, are also less than the costs on several other LAUSD new construction projects, according to the District’s 2003 Strategic Execution Plan summary document, dated July 2, 2003. For example, Belmont New ES #9 ($765 per square foot), Cahuenga New ES #1 ($691/sq. ft.), Ramona New ES ($641/sq. ft.), and Los Angeles New ES #1 ($630/sq. ft.) all exceed the Ambassador’s Alternative #1 total per square foot project costs. Other documents provided to the Los Angeles Conservancy in the Public Records Act request demonstrate that the cost of Bell New ES #3 was $724 per square foot ($39.9 million for a 55,056 sq. ft. project). These results demonstrate that the LAUSD has pursued other projects that exceed the Ambassador’s total per square foot costs – the best way to ensure an "apples to apples" comparison – and, in the case of the Belmont New ES #9 – exceed the Ambassador’s per square foot costs by more than 25%.

It seems unthinkable to sacrifice the Ambassador Hotel to potential demolition when the construction costs of rehabilitation track so closely with the costs of new construction on other LAUSD projects.

The LAUSD staff has argued publicly that Alternative #1 is infeasible because the absolute cost differential between Alternative #1 and #4 cannot be funded. However, when cost overruns have occurred on other LAUSD new construction projects – projects without the intrinsic historic value of the Ambassador Hotel – these extra resources have almost magically materialized.

On the new high school being constructed at 450 N. Grand Ave., the former District headquarters, costs have escalated by more than $50 million – a whopping 142% -- over the past year and a half. The Los Angeles Conservancy’s Public Records Act request to the LAUSD yielded a series of cost estimates for this project. The first estimate provided to the Los Angeles Conservancy by LAUSD staff, dated November 11, 2001 by the North Hollywood firm Gafcon, Inc., shows the estimated total cost of this project to be $36.8 million. The most recent estimate provided shows the projected cost to be $87.5 million. The LAUSD did not put the burden on the project’s proponents, including making up the entire cost difference. Yet, the cost overruns on the 450 N. Grand project would have entirely paid for any differential total cost in preserving and reusing the Ambassador Hotel as part of this school.

In the FEIR, the LAUSD should provide an accounting of where the additional funds for this project were found. In particular, please specify the extent to which these funds were obtained from bond measures, LAUSD general funds, and from any special discretionary or contingency funds controlled by the Facilities Division.

Based on our analysis, supported by letters and reports submitted by experts on behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy and by the LAUSD's own documents obtained through the Public Records Act requests, the actual remaining cost differential is less than 10% of project costs.

Actual cost differential: $46 million

Economic Value of extra space $10 million (to be determined)

(Potential State Contribution) $15 million

Remaining Cost Differential $21 million

(less than 10% of project costs)

By law, the LAUSD was required to determine whether the Ambassador Hotel was a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 21084.1 and whether each alternative design of the learning center would have an impact that would cause a "substantial adverse change" in the significance of the hotel. Additionally, once the LAUSD determined that "substantial adverse change" would occur, it was required to create mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially reduce the project’s significant environmental impact to the hotel. (14 CCR § 15126.4(a).) Finally, the LAUSD was required to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed projects. (14 CCR § 15126.6.)

The LAUSD has not complied with these CEQA Guidelines in its DEIR. The DEIR does correctly recognize that the Ambassador Hotel is a historic resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 21084.1. However, the LAUSD has failed to create mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental effects of any of the alternative designs. Given the substantial alteration of the property as a whole, none of the alternatives can be accomplished in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, and impacts to the property as a whole remain significant after each proposed mitigation. Finally, the LAUSD did not propose and analyze a single alternative that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. A number of reduced project alternatives are proposed by the LAUSD in chapter four of the DEIR, but were not discussed as "includ[ing analysis of] more than one would be redundant, because for purposes of the alternatives analysis they all sacrifice program objectives in order to reduce impacts on historic resources." (See DEIR at 4-2.) This rationale is contrary to the statutory purpose of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The DEIR must be revised to include feasible measures, as described below, to mitigate the project's significant adverse changes to the Ambassador Hotel site.

The DEIR is conspicuously silent on sources of public funding available to close the gap between Alternative #1 historic preservation and Alternative #4 complete demolition. Instead, the DEIR expects the Los Angeles Conservancy and other concerned members of the public to come up with the funds without any support or assistance from the LAUSD. This is the LAUSD's project, thus it incumbent on the LAUSD to at least make an effort at researching and securing public sources of historic preservation funds. The LAUSD secured traditional school funding for Alternative #4. Likewise, the LAUSD needs to think outside the box and find alternative sources of public funding for historic preservation.

Moreover, it is a violation of CEQA for the LAUSD not to pursue public sources of funding for historic preservation as mitigation to reduce the project's significant adverse changes to the Ambassador Hotel site. According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(4), "A lead agency shall identify any potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource." Because the LAUSD has made it abundantly clear that a major issue in deciding among the Alternative is funding for the project, it is shocking that the DEIR does not include a mitigation measure for finding public sources for preservation funding. These public sources of funding are certainly available. Given the fact that Los Angeles could lose one of its most historic landmarks, the LAUSD must do more than acquiesce to demolition. Instead, the DEIR must include public funding sources for preservation as a measure to mitigate the project's significant adverse changes to the Ambassador Hotel site.

CEQA requires that, for each significant impact identified in the EIR, the EIR must discuss feasible measures to avoid or substantially reduce the project’s significant environmental effect. (14 CCR § 15126.4(a)). For each significant impact, the lead agency must:

• Discuss whether the measure avoids or substantially reduces the significant environmental effect;
• Distinguish measures proposed by project proponents;
• Identify responsibility of implementation for each measure;
• Discuss the basis for selecting a particular measure (when several measures are available);
• Discuss significant impacts associated with implementation of each mitigation measure; and
• Consider the special limits for archeological resources, school facilities, housing units, and public water systems.

Mitigation measures that do not truly reduce or avoid the impact to the significant historical resources are inadequate under CEQA. For example, measures such as placing historical markers on a site, writing a report, or consulting with a historic society may not adequately mitigate the demolition of a historical building to a point of insignificance. (14 CCR §  15126.4(b)(2).) The CEQA Guidelines provide criteria to shape an Agency’s considerations of mitigation measures. Generally, a project that seeks to improve a historical resource in accordance with either of the following publications, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, will be considered as mitigated to a level of less-than-significant. (14 CCR §  15064.5(b)(3).)

The LAUSD has proposed inadequate mitigation measures. Not a single alternative proposed can be accomplished in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, and impacts to the property as a whole remain significant after mitigation.

In League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland, 52 Cal. App. 4th 896, 909 (1st Dist. 1997), the Court considered whether mitigation measures proposed by the City of Oakland reduced to a less than significant level the effects associated with the demolition of a historical building. The Court found that the mitigation measures, which were unable to alter the irremediable effect of demolition, were ineffective to reduce the significance of the demolition.

Here, the DEIR does not even attempt to incorporate mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts on historical resources at the Ambassador Hotel site to a level of insignificance. Rather than including feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce the project's significant impacts on historical resources, the LAUSD appears content to submit a statement of overriding considerations for each of the project's unavoidable significant impacts. Given the significant historical resource at issue here, the Ambassador Hotel site, the LAUSD's approach is certainly contrary to CEQA.

A DEIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed projects. (14 CCR

§ 15126.6.) While there is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason, the discussion of alternatives must focus on those alternatives that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, even if the alternative could impede to some degree the attainment of all of the project objectives or would be more costly. (14 CCR § 15126.6(b).) The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.

An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are ostensibly feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need only examine in detail the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of reasonable alternatives must be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. (14 CCR § 15126.6(f).) The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives and the information the Lead Agency relied on in making the selection. It should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly describe the reasons for their exclusion. (14 CCR §  15126.6(c).)

In violation of CEQA, the DEIR does not identify alternatives that were considered by the LAUSD but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. To comply with the law, the DEIR must be amended to include this information and a brief description of the reason for their exclusion.

The DEIR does not fully examine all reasonable alternatives. Chapter 4 of the DEIR examines five alternatives but does not provide detailed analysis "because they do not maximize use of the site for school use and/or they involve development of uses outside the mandate/expertise of the LAUSD." (DEIR at 4-2.) "The District considered a number of reduced-program alternatives, and selected one for consideration in the ‘reasonable range.’ To include more than one would be redundant, because for purposes of the alternatives analysis they all sacrifice program objectives in order to reduce impacts on historic resources." Id. This rationale is contrary to the statutory purpose of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and suggests bias on the part of the DEIR against preservation and reuse because not even one alternative provided mitigation to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. In any case, none of the alternatives make any attempt to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts to historical resources while still achieving the project's main objectives.

Even more astounding is the DEIR's complete failure to include an alternative that conforms to the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines notwithstanding the conceded unmitigable substantial adverse change in significance to the Ambassador Hotel under the proposed alternatives. While an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. (14 CCR §  15126.6(a).) In order to comply with CEQA, the DEIR must include an alternative that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. For this project that alternative is one that conforms to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines because, generally, a project that follows the Standards and Guidelines shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. (14 CCR §  15064.5(b)(3).) The FEIR must include an alternative that conforms to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines.

The DEIR concludes that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (DEIR at 3A-8, discussing Impact 3A1.) In coming to this conclusion, the DEIR stated dismissively that the view of the Ambassador Hotel "is not recognized as a visual resource." Id. It is impossible to understand how the Ambassador Hotel could be a local and national landmark, yet the view of the hotel could be found to have no value as a visual resource. In addition, the DEIR erroneously focuses on the impact on the view from the historic Normandie-Mariposa Apartment District, and concludes that since those apartments do not have a view of the Ambassador Hotel there would be a less than significant impact. (DEIR at 3A-8-9.) It is unclear why the historic (or other) status of the point from which the view is enjoyed would be relevant in this analysis. Instead, the DEIR should address the view impact from all points surrounding the Hotel, the most obvious one being from Wilshire Boulevard. The view of this historic and architecturally significant building, along with its landscaping, open space and trees, is a well known and long-standing feature of Los Angeles. Destroying that view would unquestionably have a significant impact on a visual resource. On that analysis, the impact of all alternatives would be at least potentially significant, and the impact of Alternatives #2, #3 and #4 would be significant and unmitigable.

Similarly, in assessing Impact 3A2 – whether the project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings – the DEIR inexplicably fails to analyze the impact of demolishing some or all of the Ambassador Hotel, its ancillary buildings and landscaping and trees. (DEIR at 3A-9-13.) Clearly the first step in this analysis is the impact on the visual quality of the site arising from the demolition of the Hotel, and by failing to take that step the DEIR is seriously deficient.

Instead, the analysis moves straight to the second step, focusing solely upon the impact of adding new buildings. Even that impact analysis is faulty, however. The DEIR states in a conclusory fashion that "the design and construction of the learning center would be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood and would be integrated into the surrounding community." (DEIR at 3A-9.) On that basis, the DEIR concludes that impacts for all five alternatives – which includes an alternative involving the demolition of every building on the site and the construction of all new buildings – will be less than significant, and that no mitigation is required.

At no point does the DEIR provide any detail whatsoever as to the nature of the new construction, such as building form, building materials, architectural treatment or landscaping. Indeed, given the fact that it appears that the LAUSD has seriously "low-balled" many of its estimated costs (as discussed elsewhere in these comments), it would not be surprising if the new construction was far below the quality required to match the historic and architectural quality of the existing buildings on site and in the surrounding neighborhood. The DEIR is apparently meant to be a project-level analysis, but by providing no details at all of the proposed new buildings, the DEIR falls well short of this aim. It is not enough to merely state that the new buildings will be consistent with the existing character; instead the DEIR needs to state how they will be consistent. Will they be in the same architectural style as the Ambassador Hotel? What will the roofing be made of? Will the building features be in a modern or historic style? Without providing answers to questions such as these, no meaningful analysis of the visual impacts arising from the new construction can be conducted.

Accordingly, the Aesthetics chapter of the DEIR must be revised to address: (1) the visual impacts arising from the removal of some or all of the Ambassador Hotel, its ancillary buildings, and the landscaping and trees; and (2) the nature of the proposed new construction, including building form, building materials, architectural treatment and landscaping, so that a meaningful analysis of the aesthetic impact of the project can be performed.

The LAUSD is the lead agency for this project, and is therefore responsible for preparing the DEIR. The LAUSD contracted Environmental Science Associates to prepare the DEIR. Before using a DEIR prepared by another person, a lead agency must subject the DEIR to the agency's own review and analysis, so that the DEIR reflects its own independent judgment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1(c); 14 CCR § 15084(d).) There is no indication in the DEIR that the LAUSD subjected the DEIR to its own review and analysis, so that it reflects the LAUSD's own independent judgment. If the LAUSD did in fact review and analyze the DEIR, the DEIR should state how this assessment was undertaken, as well as what, if any, changes were made to the document as a result of that independent review. Additionally the DEIR should state which district employee(s) conducted this review. If the LAUSD did not undertake an independent review, it should now do so, and amend the DEIR as required. The DEIR should also disclose to the community the source of funding for preparation of the DEIR.

CEQA mandate strict notice requirements for public review of the DEIR. (14 CCR § 15087.) The DEIR fails to adequately portray compliance with these notice requirements.

The CEQA Guidelines provide:

(a) The lead agency shall provide public notice of the availability of a draft EIR at the same time it sends a notice of completion to the OPR. This notice shall be given as provided under Section 15105. Notice shall be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures:

(1) Publication at least one time by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.

(2) Posting of notice by the public agency on and off the site in the area where the project is to be located.

(3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the parcel or parcels on which the project is located. Owners of such property shall be identified as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.

(14 CCR § 15087 (a)(1-3).)

Although the Los Angeles Conservancy received notice of the availability of the DEIR, the DEIR does not include a discussion regarding how the public notice of availability was provided or how the mailing list was compiled. The DEIR states, "This Draft EIR has been distributed to affected agencies, surrounding cities, counties and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines." (DEIR at 1-6.) The FEIR should include how the public notice of availability was provided and include the date and form of notice. In addition, the appendices should include a mailing list of those that received notice to determine whether the proper parties were notified about distribution of the DEIR.

The CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR identify all federal, state, or local agencies, or other organizations, and private individuals, consulted in preparing the EIR. (14 CCR § 15129.) The DEIR fails to provide such a list, so the FEIR must include one. The DEIR does include a list of persons who prepared the DEIR (which is also required by the CEQA Guidelines), but that list does not satisfy the above requirement.

The CEQA Guidelines provide:

(14 CCR §15126.4(a)(1)(A).) The DEIR completely fails to distinguish between these two types of measures described by the Guidelines. In this respect, the DEIR is deficient and must be amended to comply with the law.

The CEQA Guidelines provide, "Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described. (14 CCR § 15126.2(b).)

The DEIR identifies seven unavoidable significant impacts arising from the project which cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation: (1) the project will generate emissions of air pollutants due to construction resulting in a significant impact to air quality (Impact 3B1); (2) the project will contribute air emissions to the region that would add to the cumulative baseline resulting in a significant impact to air quality during construction (Impact 3B6); (3) the project will have a significant impact on identified key property or character-defining features that comprise the Ambassador Hotel site (Impact 3D1); (4) the project will have a significant impact on the Ambassador Hotel site's overall historical character (Impact 3D2); (5) the project would expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Los Angeles General Plan, Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, including the LAUSD, resulting in a significant noise impact (Impact 3I1); (6) the proposed project will impact local intersections and exceed significance criteria established by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation resulting in a significant traffic impact at certain intersections (Impact 3L1); and (7) the proposed project and other area projects together will cumulatively significantly impact area traffic (Impact 3L7). In each of these cases the DEIR fails to describe their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed notwithstanding their effect, in direct violation of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b). The project proponent has an obligation to conduct a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts that the project will have on the environment. The failure to do so, as here, is a major flaw in the DEIR that must be corrected prior to the completion of the FEIR.

In conclusion, we ask that you carefully evaluate and respond to each of our comments as directed by the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the Guidelines require the lead agency to describe the disposition of significant issues raised, and where the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments, the major environmental issues raised must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. (14 CCR § 15088(b).) There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response and conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (14 CCR § 15088(b).)

As mentioned at various points throughout these comments, some of deficiencies identified in the DEIR are so great that they require recirculation of the DEIR. The CEQA Guidelines on recirculation are as follows (14 CCR § 15088.5):

Our client, the Los Angeles Conservancy, had hoped to work cooperatively with the LAUSD toward a speedy adoption of a preferred project alternative since the Conservancy is very mindful of the time urgency for this project, driven by the critical need for new schools in Los Angeles. However, as the Conservancy’s legal advisors, we believe from the above analysis that so many aspects of this provision are implicated by our comments on the DEIR that recirculation is clearly warranted. Most significantly:

• the new information necessary to be added to the DEIR to provide a balanced analysis of the potential, significant environmental impacts of the project is significant and requires recirculation of at least all sections of the DEIR referring to the Alternatives, if not the whole DEIR;

• the entirely new code compliance analysis based on the new State procedures for conversion of existing buildings to schools – code provisions that were adopted prior to the initial circulation of this DEIR, and which should have been known to the LAUSD before the release of this document, will present significant new information which requires recirculation of at least the sections of the DEIR referring to code compliance, cost issues, and project alternatives, if not the whole DEIR;

• the new analysis of the cost estimates and the significant evidence that the construction time gap has been vastly overestimated will present significant new information which requires recirculation of at least all sections of the DEIR referring to the Alternatives, if not the whole DEIR;

• the blatant errors and misstatements on the key property features retained and/or lost under each project alternative, necessitating a new analysis and a more accurate chart as included in this comment letter, requires recirculation of at least all sections of the DEIR referring to the Project Description and impacts on historical resources, if not the whole DEIR;

• the inclusion of public funding sources for preservation as a measure to mitigate the project's significant adverse changes to the Ambassador Hotel site will present new significant information and requires recirculation of at least the Project Description and the Alternatives section, if not the whole DEIR; and

• the inclusion of an alternative that conforms to the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines will present significant new information and requires recirculation of at least the Alternatives section, if not the whole DEIR.

As the Guidelines mention, recirculation requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation pursuant to Section 15086. Thus, the process is essentially started again in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines. This means that the public review period must be complied with, which is 30 days at a minimum. (14 CCR §  15105.)

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Central Los Angeles Area New Learning Center No. 1.

JDD/dp
Attachments

10723532_1.DOC