WEST HOLLYWOOD WEST RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION PO Box 691427 West Hollywood, CA 90069 E-mail: president@whwra.org; whwra90048@gmail.

com Padi Moschetta - Phone: 310.963.1033

July 16, 2012 City of West Hollywood 8300 Santa Monica Boulevard West Hollywood, California 90069

RE: 8564-8590 MELROSE AVENUE COMMERCIAL PROJECT & AVENUES BONUS

Dear Mayor Prang and Honorable Council members: We respectfully request that the City Council reconsider its decisions regarding the 8564-90 Melrose project and the Avenues Bonus Overlay District Zoning Text Amendment, and send both of these items back to Planning for further environmental review. However, if this is not the course taken at tonights meeting, we will be requesting Mediation of our differences pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21167.10 once the final determination is official. The Issues (1) The Initial Study and Negative Declaration stated that 8564-90 Melrose was a Wholesale project, not a Retail project. Furthermore, the Public Noticing has been misleading. Even the Agenda for the last City Council meeting on July 2nd described the project as: a 29,445square-foot commercial structure (wholesale and furnishing showrooms) with two levels of underground parking. The approved project is not how it was described in the project description or presented to the public. (2) The use goes with the land and the City Council majority is allowing for retail. Whether the project is Restoration Hardware or some other retail business, the City has not done one study to assure us that there will be no significant impacts or that the City will mitigate any impacts caused by a retail project (and the Negative Declaration was based on a wholesale project). In fact, the Citys own Planning Commission identified the potential impact if the project were to be anything but wholesale, and even added the condition that the project must be a wholesale project. At the point when City Council stripped away the wholesale only restriction condition, they should have required that the Negative Declaration be recirculated, because the public has a right to comment on the revised project.

(3) In accordance with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)... If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared. As you know, we feel that the Negative Declaration was flawed. (4) There is no documented or accountable description of the public benefit. It wasnt until the 11th hour at the July 2nd City Council meeting, that Council member Duran -- not Planning Staff, not the Applicant -- commented that the public benefit was the public parking provided by the subterranean garage on Westmount a parking garage that was, in the Initial Study, purported to be for tenants of the project and their patrons. By presenting this supposed benefit to the public after the public hearing was closed, it precluded any necessary environmental review or input from the public. There has been no study in terms of potential environmental impacts should the Westmount subterranean parking garage be used as a "public parking" garage. (a) The fact is, if the City Council allows the new development portion of this project to change from 100% wholesale to 50% retail / 50% wholesale, the number of parking spaces required for the project, according to the Citys own code, increases from 88.89 to 115.73. (See table below.) (b) There was also no discussion of how many parking spaces might be removed from the Westbourne surface parking lot should it be used for loading/unloading, or the potential negative impacts on adjacent Westbourne residents, such as noise, traffic, emissions, etc.
Use Parking Required New Building - Specialty Retail (50%) New Building - Wholesale (50%) Existing Building - Specialty Retail Existing Building - Wholesale Parking Provided Lots 14, 15, 16 New Subterranean Garage TOTAL PROVIDED: 18 112 130 14,722 14,723 7,042 9,995 3.5 spaces/1,000 sf 1.6 spaces/1,000 sf 3.5 spaces/1,000 sf 1.6 spaces/1,000 sf TOTAL REQUIRED: 51.53 23.56 24.65 15.99 115.73 Size (sf) Rate Total Spaces

(5) Possible violation of the Brown Act: Council member Duran admitted at the July 2nd City Council meeting that he had conversations with the public that afternoon about this matter even though the public hearing was closed. Then at the City Council meeting, Council allowed the Applicant to speak, while denying others in the public the right to speak.

(6) Misapplication of the Avenues Bonus: if the Applicant were not given the bonus, the project could only be 18,240 sq. ft. based on the lot size. However, the proposed project is over 29,000 sq. ft. (FAR of 1.6:1). That is a 60% increase, which is unreasonable and not in line with the intent of the Avenues Bonus (which proposes a maximum FAR of 1.5:1 on the south side of Melrose Avenue if certain criteria are met) or General Plan. This is of particular concern since the City chose not to conduct an Environmental Impact Report. (7) The proposed project, with its potential negative impacts, including the supposed public benefit, may, in fact, be a detriment to the adjacent residential neighborhood, and, as such, goes against the goals of the Avenues Bonus and General Plan. (8) Regarding the Avenues Bonus Overlay District: the Zoning text amendment was never discussed by the Planning Commission; it was folded into the 8564-90 Melrose project. In addition, the environmental document included in the staff report was the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for 8564-90 Melrose. This document cannot be applied to this Ordinance, which covers a much larger portion of Melrose Avenue, not just 8564-90 Melrose. What is being proposed is piecemeal development, segmenting the zone text amendment from its cumulative impacts. The community was led to believe there would be further study and discussion (both environmental study and strategic) about the Avenues Bonus Overlay District through a Melrose Specific Plan and that never happened. Purpose of Mediation Our concerns are three-fold. One, we are concerned that the public process has been circumvented and that approval of this project will set a dangerous precedent for our neighborhood. Two, we are concerned about the potential negative impacts of this project on our neighborhood, particularly those impacts related to traffic and the use and operations of the parking garage on Westmount Drive and the surface parking lot on Westbourne Drive. Three, we are concerned about the immediate and long-term impacts of the Avenues Bonus Overlay District. The purpose of the Mediation would be to find some middle ground for compromise to resolve these issues. Sincerely,

Padi Moschetta President, West Hollywood West Residents Association cc: Paul Arevalo, City Manager Michael Jenkins, City Attorney John Keho, Acting Community Development Director Ben Soleimani, BMB Investments, Inc. Douglas Carstens, Chatten-Brown & Carstens