LUPC FEIR Comments

GRVNC PLAYA VISTA PHASE TWO
Community Impact Statement

August 23, 2004

To: Planning and Land Use ManagementCommittee and Los Angeles City Council members

Re: Proposed Playa Vista Phase Two development

SUMMARY [94 words]

The GRVNC opposes the Playa Vista Phase Two ("Project") as submitted to the Planning Department. The GRVNC has requested numerous times, on the record, ample opportunity to review Planning’s approval documents prior to decision-making bodies’ hearings. These requests have never been honored. In addition, as of this date, GRVNC has not been able to meet with Councilwoman Miscikowski to discuss our concerns and requests related to the Project.

GRVNC believes that its concerns raised during the Environmental Impact Report draft and response process have not been adequately addressed. We request that the PLUM Committee postpone its September 8, 2004 hearing and consideration of approval on the matter until GRVNC’s concerns have been substantially addressed.

GRVNC’s most significant concerns with the proposed Project that have not been addressed by the City include the following:

A) The EIR is fatally flawed (See attached: GRVNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s ["LUPC"] replies to the City’s Responses to GRVNC’s comments on the EIR).

B) The planned First Phase of the Playa Vista project is only partially built and its full impacts on communities surrounding the project such as Venice have not yet been felt.

The First Phase Project was approved by the City Council in 1993 based upon the premise that no additional phases of the Playa Vista development would be approved until the Phase One was completed and in full operation. The purpose for this was so that adverse affects could be actually felt and, if necessary, future phases could either be downsized or abandoned altogether.

C) If the Phase Two is approved as currently proposed, the Playa Vista project will result in 80,000 new vehicle trips per day jamming the 405 Freeway, Lincoln Blvd, and Walgrove and Palms Avenues, and will therefore cause a significant increase in new traffic cutting through our neighborhoods on smaller local streets.

To provide context, Mayor Hahn and the Los Angeles City Council opposed the Ahmanson Ranch project because it would have added 35,000 car tips per day to Los Angeles’ streets. In contrast, the Playa Vista project would add more than twice that amount of vehicle trips to an area of Los Angeles that is severely limited in its traffic capacity due to the fact the only North-South arterials adjacent to the project are Lincoln, Sepulveda and the 405.

D) The immoral and illegal destruction of over 400 Native American Gabrielino/Tongva Indian burial sites must be stopped, and the sacred burial grounds be preserved. This was neither acknowledged in the EIR, nor was it addressed by the Central Planning Commission in its approval of the Phase Two project.

E) The City of Los Angeles has not analyzed the use of the approximately 200 acres of undeveloped historical wetlands remaining in "Area D" to be used: (a) as badly needed open space; (b) as treatment wetlands to cleanse water in Ballona Creek and in Santa Monica Bay; (c) and to recharge the aquifer below for beneficial use.

The Final EIR is defective in assessing cumulative impacts in a number of ways: Data is both inaccurate and inadequate, thus the EIR inaccurately and inadequately describes cumulative impacts resulting in an underestimation of potentially significant impacts.

1) Related project #86, the "Lincoln Center Project", a mixed-use project including 280 residential units and 197,000 sq. ft. located at 1430 Lincoln Blvd has been improperly sited in downtown Santa Monica, as demonstrated on the map of related projects on page 194 of the draft EIR. Thus impacts to traffic, schools, police, air quality, etc. resulting from this project have been inaccurately evaluated.

2) The list of 96 related projects do not contain city addresses, a necessary component in an "informational document". The same address may occur in various cities and it is quite possible that similar mistakes have been made in the siting of other projects. It cannot be incumbent on the public to read a street address in the EIR, then set to work trying to determine in which city the project may be located.

3) Traffic counts taken for the traffic study of mitigated negative declaration for the Lincoln Center (assuming these are the traffic counts used for the Playa Vista II Draft EIR) were taken during Thanksgiving week, in clear violation of City Guidelines.

4) According to responses 6-11 and 6-12 (pages 563-567 of the FEIR), "to account for additional cumulative development [by the year 2010] the EIR assumed an additional growth factor of 10% of commercial and industrial development and 25% of residential development. These additional developments account for …over 2300 residential units." (Pg. 563 FEIR) A count of projects known today (and not included in the EIR) demonstrates that the 25% assumption is inadequate with respect to Venice and by implication, with respect to the implications for rest of the 100 sq. miles area in which related projects are located.

In the EIR there are 868 units added in from Channel Gate in Venice (and possibly 280 from Lincoln Center, which, however, apparently were sited in Santa Monica). Thus the baseline is either 868 or 1148.

This is not an inclusive list. Yet, with just these, in the short time since issuing the NOP, in Venice alone, there has been a 61% to 81% increase (depending on whether Lincoln Center is considered a Venice or Santa Monica project in the EIR). As a percentage of the 2300 additional unknown residential units over the next ten years used in the model, Venice, with 704 now known units, in just a year’s time already accounts for 30% of additional cumulative growth. The rest of the 100sq area used in the study is calculated to have just 1696 new currently unknown residential units between the NOP and 2010. (2300-704=1696)

Further, in response to comment 6-12 regarding a possible Lincoln Place proposal for 1300 units not included in related projects (350 are currently occupied, thus, for traffic purposes 1300 represents a net increase of 950 units), the FEIR states, "Even in the event 1300 new apartments were proposed for the Lincoln Place project, the traffic model in the Draft EIR assumes sufficient growth in the applicable traffic analysis zones to account for these trips and air quality impacts resulting from traffic." Leaving the traffic issue aside and focusing on overall additional growth, if we add the Lincoln Place 950 units to the 704 units cited above, the increase, 1654 units, is not the proposed 25% used in the model, but, instead, represents between 144% and 190%. Of the additional 2300 units additional cumulative growth used in the EIR model, Venice, with 1654 units, alone would represent 66%. Thus, from the time of the NOP to 2010, all other areas except Venice considered in the area of related projects would be calculated to produce just 646 new residential units. This is preposterous.

Thus the EIR fails to be an informational document with accurate and adequate data on which decision-makers can rely. Related projects must be accurately sited, and the 25% additional cumulative growth must be rejected as grossly inadequate.

The comment requests that the EIR analyze all intersections on Lincoln Blvd. between Jefferson and Interstate 10 for traffic impacts. The comment pointed out that many of the intersections on Lincoln Boulevard that were not included as part of the traffic impact analysis are listed as LOS D, E or F in other environmental documents prepared for Venice projects.

The response essentially states that the City does not have to look at the impacts to intersections North of Venice and Lincoln because according to the "models" there would be no significant impacts north of Venice intersections. However, the assumptions used for the modeling are erroneous. Specifically, the assumption is that only 24% of the traffic from the proposed project would travel north. This is completely false and counter-intuitive. Therefore, the data output by the "modeling" is similarly erroneous.

This response is non-responsive and confusing. The EIR is to serve as an informational document. The comment requested information about the number of drivers that are expected to use alternative routes to the "arterial corridors" (whatever that means) given the existing congestion on these corridors. The response states that "at most 10% of 1200 or more daily trips may shift to alternative routes." This response is non-responsive because "1200 or more" is not a number, and not even a range of values. "1200 or more" could mean 1200 or it could mean 15,000. Therefore, "at most 10% of 1200 or more" is uninformative because there is no range of numbers upon which "10%" can be calculated. The comment requests actual numbers. The response gives vacuous percentages instead. This is not helpful and does not inform the reader or decision-maker in determining actual impacts to alternative routes.

This response sheds light on the faultiness of the "Model" used by this EIR’s traffic consultants. It is incredible that the so-called "Model" concludes that of the 24,000 car trips per day generated by the proposed project that only 50 to 70 car trips will use the I-405 (or, said another way, only .2% of the projects car trips will use the 405 during peak hour). This is especially unbelievable given the fact that the proposed project is less than _ mile away from the 405 freeway, with an on and off ramp at Jefferson Boulevard, the main east-west street of the proposed project. Such a conclusion does not pass the straight face test, regardless of the purported propriety of the "Model." Thus, the conclusion of "no significant impact" to the 405 is not supported by substantial evidence because the "Model" does not constitute substantial evidence.

The commenter is also unpersuaded by the response’s statement, "it is worth noting also that the I-405 freeway HOV lanes are scheduled to be built between the I-105 where it currently ends and north of the I-10 freeway by the year 2010. No where does the EIR consider this as it relates to reduction of the significance of an impact.

The comment points out that most intersections on Lincoln Boulevard already function at LOS E & F and that the only mitigation proposed by the EIR for traffic impacts on Lincoln Boulevard is priority signalization for buses. The comment suggests that the percentage of the 24,000 car trips generated by the project that are inevitably going to use Lincoln Boulevard cannot possibly be mitigated by mere priority signalization for buses.

The response does not respond to this contention. It merely states, "the proposed traffic mitigation measures are intended to mitigate the Proposed Project’s significant impacts. These mitigation measures are discussed in [the Draft EIR], beginning on page 887. This is not responsive to the comment.

The response illustrates the indefensibility of the "Model" for the same reasons pointed out in Reply 6-17 above. The "Model" used to calculate vehicle trips traveling North on Lincoln from the proposed project obviously rely upon faulty assumptions. A "Model" is only as good as its assumptions. Here, the assumption that only a fraction of the traffic from the proposed project will travel North on Lincoln is obviously a faulty one, and not based upon anything in reality. Hence, the "Model’s" conclusion that there will be no significant impact to Lincoln Boulevard north of Venice is similarly faulty.

This response is completely non-responsive. The comment requested that the City conduct actual traffic counts of Phase One. Why does the City refuse to use actual traffic counts? Why does the City refuse to use a model that is specific to Playa Vista Phase One, as suggested in the comment? Such a refusal, despite the many requests to use actual data, calls into suspicion the ITE document ("Model") the City suggests is "a reliable source of information."

This refusal is especially problematic and suspect given the special circumstances and history surrounding the proposed project. As noted in earlier comments, during the Phase One approval process (1992, 1993 and 1995) the City promised to use actual Phase One traffic counts for purposes of gauging Phase Two traffic impacts when the time came. (See Exhibit A: "Attachment "N" which states, "Playa Vista should make every attempt to hold the line on traffic by agreeing to traffic monitoring of the project-related vehicular trips."). Such actual traffic monitoring was a condition of approval of Phase One. Why does the Phase Two EIR now refuse to follow through on this promise of providing actual traffic monitoring?

This response does not respond to the comment. It is unclear whether the data cited on page 812 of the Draft EIR is actual traffic data or if the data was generated by some sort of model and not actual traffic counts. Without this information, it is impossible to determine the validity of the data and the conclusions reached thereby. Without this information, the decision-maker and the public have not been adequately informed as defined by CEQA.

The response states that the Draft EIR informs the reader and the decision-makers that a significant impact may remain in the event a mitigation measure is infeasible or the necessary permits may not be obtained. The comment requests that if this is the case, the EIR should point out that there may be a significant impact and that a statement of overriding considerations should include these possible significant impacts (assuming the measures are infeasible.

In addition, the EIR itself appears to be internally inconsistent with the above response. For example, in response 6-24 states, "With implementation of the mitigation program discussed in the Draft EIR… the proposed Project would not have any significant traffic impacts." This response, and all other similar assertions throughout the EIR, mislead the public and decision makers because such statements fail to point out that the mitigation measures may be infeasible and therefore, significant impacts may in fact result. Such is the reason a statement of overriding considerations is required.

We are concerned that as part of the discretionary actions contemplated for the implementation of the Project, an Amendment to the Venice Community Plan should be considered to address several project policies inconsistent with Policy 16-1.1[a][b] of the Plan. Additionally, the land use changes to Area ‘C’ do not conform to the existing Plan.

In response to assertions from both the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council and the Land Use and Planning Committee of the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council that the Proposed Project violates circulation elements of both their respective Community Plans and as a result, violate provisions of the General Plan, the FEIR states in:

This assertion is unfounded. The response takes the position that because the Proposed Project is located outside the boundaries of the Venice Community Plan there are no land use changes within the boundaries of the Venice Community Plan, and thus that there is no inconsistency created in the General Plan.

Such internal consistency requires that if the Planned Project impacts outside its boundaries that the impacted plans be amended for consistency purposes.

Although the Proposed Project does not propose land use changes within the Venice Community Plan area, it does propose changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on secondary highways, collector and residential roads located within Venice Community Plan area. Since these proposed changes will degrade the LOS on roads within the Venice Community Plan area, the Proposed Project will directly impact, and is inconsistent with, the Goals and Objectives of the Transportation Section of the Venice Community Plan, therefore an Amendment(s) to the Venice Community Plan must be considered.

The Venice Community Plan specifically contemplates that correlated issues to land use are part of the Plan. Paragraph 1 of Chapter III states that the "text contains goals, objectives, policies, and programs for appropriate land use issues of residential, commercial, industrial, public and institutional service system categories" [emphasis added.]

2) According to Chapter II-I, The General Plan’s and the constituent Community Plan’s the "Land Use Element has the broadest scope of the state required general plan elements… and correlates to many of the issues and policies contained in the other Plan Elements." Respondent cites no authority that the Plan’s definition of land use requires that only the Plan whose boundaries include the site of the Planned Project be amended. Although other land use issues are raised, such as that raised in Policy 16- of the Venice Community Plan.

Therefore, in order for the decision-maker to approve the project, a finding is required that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and all constituent plans thereof, most specifically as related to the issues of visual resources, infrastructure utilities and transportation.

As has been demonstrated, the list of related projects plus the additional cumulative development is inadequate to assess the real cumulative impacts. Furthermore, the response inaccurately states that the increases in levels of service are primarily caused by the increase in "ambient" conditions. The traffic model looks at project-generated trips, trips generated by related projects and trip increases caused by ambient growth, which is characterized by a general increase in traffic flows primarily from outside the area. Levels of service increases are caused by all three. The largest three generators of increased trips are Playa Vista I and 2 and LAX. Thus, if Policy 16.2-1 is not to be meaningless (i.e. cumulative traffic impacts are by definition always greater that the impacts from a single project), then the most logical denial of a zone change or subdivision when the transportation generated cannot accommodate the traffic generated would have to be the projects generating the highest volume of traffic.

As freely stated in Topical Response 8, if traffic and transportation mitigation measures prove infeasible, "Significant Impact May Remain" (page 468 FEIR), i.e. the "transportation infrastructure cannot be guaranteed to accommodate the traffic generated. Therefore, either an amendment to the Venice and Palms - Mar Vista — Del Rey Community Plans must be amended, or the zone change and subdivisions denied.

The response to comment 6-23 which requests identification of impacts to coastal zone parking and other coastal resources and mitigation measures is partly responsive and partly non-responsive. The EIR identifies and mitigates (through the use of shuttle buses) on weekends. The EIR does not address the case during weekdays. What are the impacts on weekdays, especially during late afternoon and early evening when very many people go to the beach? Does the impact need to be mitigated?

Comment 6-23 did not ask for information only pertaining to weekends. The EIR is not adequately responsive.

This response is completely non-responsive. The response does not provide the information requested. It gives a vague and uninformative answer.

Comment 6-26 (page 559 FEIR) notes that Building and Safety is unable to enforce conditions except during working hours Monday through Friday and asks what mechanisms are available for enforcement after hours and on weekends.

The FEIR is non-responsive to the question. Comment 6-26 merely states that "the proposed project would be no different from any other project", which in no way responds to a very legitimate question. Since no one is on duty at Building and Safety outside of business hours–and, since Building and Safety is prohibited from issuing a Notice of Violation for any activity which it does not itself witness–it would appear that any enforcement of conditions and mitigation measures for which Building and Safety is the enforcement agency cannot be enforced outside of its business hours.

While this is not a problem specific to the Playa Vista II Proposed Project, nonetheless, the EIR must detail a monitoring and enforcement program which can be relied on not just during business hours of a particular agency, but during all hours when work can be conducted. The "lodging of a complaint or inquiry with the Council Office and/or appropriate responsible agencies", as suggested in Response 6-26, is inadequate and it cannot lead to Building and Safety’s issuing a Notice of Violation for a violation it does not witness.

The FEIR has not considered all relevant information to determine if the project would cause or accelerate hazards, which would result in substantial damage to structures and infrastructure and expose people to a substantial risk of injury.

The FEIR fails to acknowledge that the project is located in the Venice Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zone Delineated in Compliance with Chapter 7.8, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code. The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requires that the geotechnical report be transmitted to the State Geologist within thirty days of final approval of the project. See ATTACHMENT 1.

The FEIR fails to consider the Report for the Venice Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Map. See ATTACHMENT A.

The FEIR fails to address the project is located in a liquefaction area requiring mitigation defined under Public Resources Code Section 2693(c).

The FEIR fails to address the fact that magnitude 2.5 —3.5 earthquakes have occurred on the site as evidenced by the Earthquake Epicenters and Selected Fault Plane Solutions of the Mid-Southern California Continental Martin Map produced by the California Department of Conservation and the U.S. Geological Survey.

The FEIR fails to address the potential danger posed by nearby off-shore faults, submarine canyon slumping and further fails to address the Charnock Fault is Active as shown on Fault Activity map of California and adjacent areas (1994) produced by the California Department of Conservation and the U.S. Geological Survey.

The FEIR fails to utilize the correct standard to determine if the Charnock Fault is Active. The correct standard is DMG Note 49 Guidelines for Evaluating Faults See ATTACHMENT B

The FEIR fails to consider a number of public environmental documents indicating the Charnock Fault is active. See ATTACHMENT C; ATTACHMENT D and ATTACHMENT 4

The FEIR utilized the incorrect standard to determine risk of upset by Tsunami. The FEIR relies on a County Program when in fact it should reference the most current City of Los Angles Emergency Inundation Maps.

The FEIR fails to consider two active faults discovered at the entrance of Marina del Rey to the Sea. In the City of Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst report for this project, the two faults are excluded from the study area and are termed anomalies. The Department of Conservation made no final determination as to whether the features were erosional features or faults. The FEIR excludes any discussion of risk by muting the issue of these potentially dangerous earthquake faults. See ATTACHMENT 5.

The FEIR indicates the project is not and will not be in compliance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act thereby endangering the safety of the public, property, and infrastructure. See ATTACHMENT E