Elva Nuno‐O’Donnell Major Projects Environmental Review Section City of Department of City Planning 6262 Van Nuys Blvd. Room 351 Los Angeles, CA 91401

Sent via Email: [email protected]

June 15, 2012

Case No. ENV‐2008‐3989‐EIR – Casden Sepulveda Project

Dear Ms. Nuno‐O’Donnell,

This letter is written on behalf of the following community groups:

The Cheviot Hills Home Owners’ Association represents the residents of Cheviot Hills.

The Cheviot Hills Traffic Safety Association is focused on traffic impacts within the Cheviot Hills area.

The Overland Avenue Community is focused on impacts along Overland Avenue between Santa Monica and Pico Boulevards.

The Tract No. 7260 Homeowners Association represents residential property from to and from Beverly Glen Boulevard to .

The West of Westwood Homeowners Association represents residential property owners from Pico Boulevard to National Boulevard, the 405 to Kelton Avenue, Pico Boulevard to Ashby Avenue, and Patricia Avenue to Overland Avenue.

The Westwood Gardens Civic Association represents residential property owners with boundaries on the north at Pico Boulevard, on the south at National Boulevard, on the east at Overland Avenue & Dunleer Place, and on the west at Midvale Avenue.

The Westwood Homeowners Association represents residential property owners and covers the area from to Santa Monica Boulevard and to the Los Angeles country club.

Correspondence regarding this letter should be sent to [email protected].

This response has also been adopted by the Westside Neighborhood Council (www.wncla.org). Overview As discussed throughout this response, it is abundantly clear that the process of evaluating, mitigating and monitoring environmental impacts in the City of Los Angeles is fatally flawed.

CEQA is a disclosure law. But the City repeatedly allows EIRs to inaccurately disclose project impacts on the infrastructure and on the city budget. Instead, EIRs conducted in the City of Los Angeles take as a matter of faith, rather than fact, that somehow, all these costs are worthwhile and that most impacts will be mitigated as approved (or at all).

At a minimum, CEQA requires that an EIR be based on the facts in the record and not on conclusory, speculative and unsupported statements. This EIR is a case study in such leaps of faith that the project is benign or at least a net positive for the City when in fact; it further burdens an area whose infrastructure is crumbling.

Even more stunning is that this EIR purports to be able to determine the impacts on fire response when City officials have openly admitted that there is currently no way to know the state of the fire department.

Unfortunately, the City has failed to compile data to be used specifically for making environmental decisions1. As a result, each project can create its own set of “facts” to support its project. Each project claims that adequate infrastructure exists. And most importantly, as will be shown later, the City is not only asleep at the mitigation implementation and monitoring switch, it doesn’t even know where the switch is. No better description of this problem can be given than that provided by then‐controlled Laura Chick who stated:

“Ever since the mid 1990’s when I was a City Councilmember, I wondered what actually happened with the conditions we imposed when approving development projects. The City often sets requirements to shape and improve a project, promote safety and mitigate negative impacts to communities.

Now as Controller, I have circled back to answer the question: “Who ensures that the requirements attached to these developments are followed?” The answer is: No one.”

It is in this light that we state that the entire concept of mitigation in the City of Los Angeles fails the CEQA test for the lead agency making a “clear commitment” to implementation of mitigations and then monitoring those mitigations as required by AB3180.2 We assert that absent the required monitoring specified in the West L.A. Community Plan, any approval would be arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis.

Project after project is allowed to claim that their project will reduce traffic, yet traffic throughout the area increases.

Project after project is allowed to claim that adequate infrastructure exists to support their project, yet the agencies themselves claim otherwise – especially when seeking job‐killing increased fees and taxes to pay for the cumulative new demand.

Project after project is “burdened” with mitigations that are often not implemented and rarely monitored as required by state law.

There has recently been quite a bit of discussion concerning the “reform” of CEQA to make it more difficult to file lawsuits challenging flawed EIRs. The argument is that this “reform” will provide more certainty to developers who will “create jobs.”

Perhaps it is no coincidence that these “reform” discussions never include the essential fact that certainty is needed by both sides. The public derives its certainty from knowing that the process uses the best data which is consistent with the actual state of the infrastructure and that once a project is approved, the City will enforce the mitigations it claimed would resolve the project’s problems.

1 In the case of the fire department, the City had been reporting false numbers since at least 2007. 2 http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/CEQA_Mitigation/CEQA_Mit.html

The City appears to review major developments from a parallel universe in which the infrastructure exists and systems exist to ensure mitigation compliance. It then offers the escape of a statement of overriding considerations predicated on claims of generating jobs that are never documented. Thus the premise for Statements of Overriding Considerations is consistently speculative, conclusory and not based on reality. The costs to the city to absorb the burdens placed on the infrastructure are never disclosed, and the true number of new jobs created is never validated.

This EIR purports consistency with the Los Angeles General Plan, including the Framework Element. It also purports consistency with the Community Plan. Coincidentally, the EIR fails to mention the very policies within those documents that require the City to assure its citizens have adequate infrastructure. Had there been one omission of one of these key policies, the omission may have accidental.

As this document discusses below, the omissions appear far from accidental. Key policies are omitted throughout, and those specific policies are the same policies that assure that citizens can count on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries and roads.

Finally, on many occasions the community groups listed above have worked with area developers to reach a meaningful settlement on other large projects. This will not be the case for the proposed project for the following reasons:

1. It is simply unconscionable to allow for ANY residential housing when there is a certainty that future residents will be permanently harmed by living so close to a freeway. Condemning men, women and children to markedly increased cancer risk and decreased lung capacity is unacceptable. Exposing seniors to foul air is at best immoral. 2. The project site is located at a particularly bad choke point in our area. Cotner provides access to the 405 and causes unacceptable queuing on Pico in both directions. Sepulveda provides access to the 405 SB via National. Increased project traffic would reduce capacity on Sepulveda. Pico provides one of only four E/W crossings under the 405. All four (Pico, Olympic, Santa Monica and Wilshire) already experience crushing traffic. 3. The City’s infrastructure cannot handle this project. Deep cuts in City services since the NOP, and especially critical services such as fire, traffic, street condition and neighborhood traffic management, have crippled the City and endangered area residents. This is borne out by LAFD’s own comments on this project: That the area does not have adequate capacity to handle existing fire response. Note that that answer was provided in 2008, prior to any LAFD cuts. 4. The project would create a barrier to access the Expo light rail line as traffic increases would make light rail access more difficult should the light rail project survive legal challenges.

As a result of these (and other) fatal flaws, this document fails the requirements of CEQA and must be rejected by the City.

The Project Fails to Achieve its Stated Objectives:

Objective Status Reason To create a high‐quality mixed‐use development that FAIL Urban housing sited near a major pollution promotes integrated urban living and furthers SCAG generator is not high‐quality. goals of addressing regional housing needs through the development of infill sites SCAG findings used by this EIR have since been proven incorrect. To replace uses that are incompatible with mass FAIL The proposed use will create traffic at transit with uses that capitalize on future light rail and Pico/Sepulveda and at Sawtelle/Pico, blocking Metro Rapid public transit; N/S access to light rail. To address traffic issues on a regional level by FAIL The project negatively impacts major mass increasing density near major mass transit nodes; transit.  The proposed project will block potential riders of mass transit, making it less attractive.  The proposed project will result in substantially increased traffic on Sepulveda – the 405 alternate route.  The proposed project will block Sepulveda which serves as a primary access point to a 405 onramp at National.  The proposed project will further exacerbate traffic problems on Pico as traffic attempts to reach the 405 NB onramp at Cotner. Fully utilize a site consistent with the goals and policies FAIL The project is demonstrably inconsistent with in the West Los Angeles Community Plan; the community plan as detailed below. To provide a development that is compatible and FAIL The project removes industrial zones in favor of complementary surrounding land uses ; over‐sized development that will strain resources for surrounding land uses. To construct a development that enhances pedestrian FAIL The project EIR describes negative impacts to circulation, incorporates high‐quality landscaping and pedestrian circulation. aesthetics, and creates a more beautiful and livable neighborhood environment; To maximize the City's affordable housing stock and FAIL The provision of housing stock in a hazardous increase the provision of Low Income and/or Very Low area in unacceptable. Income housing; To diversify the housing stock in West Los Angeles, and FAIL The provision of housing stock in a hazardous improve the West Los Angeles job‐housing balance by area in unacceptable. maximizing affordable and/or workforce housing development; To reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by FAIL The project will reduce access to mass transit by constructing retail amenities closer to existing negatively impacting the approaches to mass consumers; transit.

Inconsistency with the West L.A. Community Plan

Plan Element Status Description Need to maintain the low density character of single FAIL There is no mechanism to preserve nearby family neighborhoods and avoid encroachment from neighborhoods from parking encroachment. other uses, commercial off-street parking, or spillover traffic. Preferential parking districts must be implemented by a vote of those impacted. Lack of adequate parking, usable open space and FAIL Recreational facilities a few hundred feet away recreational facilities in multiple-family housing. from the 405 are not usable. Non-conforming residential units in areas zoned and FAIL The project would permanently eliminate designated for industrial land use industrial zones. INDUSTRIAL: Utilization of industrially designated land FAIL The project would permanently eliminate for commercial and retail purposes. industrial zones. Need to coordinate new development with the FAIL The EIR confirms that the infrastructure is availability of public infrastructure incapable of supporting new development. (see Fire) Preservation of all land presently zoned and FAIL The project would permanently eliminate designated for industrial used to provide an industrial zones. employment base. PLAN MONITORING: During the life of the Plan, FAIL The City has failed to monitor the community growth will be monitored and reported in the City’s plan. Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure, which will be submitted to the City Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council. In the fifth year following Plan No Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure adoption (and every five years thereafter), the Director has been produced since 2001. of Planning shall report to the Commission on the relationship between population, employment, housing No statement of consistency can be made. growth and plan capacities. If growth has occurred faster than projected, a revised environmental analysis Making a statement of consistency, or even will be prepared and appropriate changes recommended to the Community Plan and zoning. approving a project with a statement of These Plan and zoning changes and any related overriding consideration is not possible without moratoria or interim control ordinances, shall be the required monitoring information. submitted to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council as specified in the Los Angeles Municipal Because the underlying monitoring data does Code. not exist, this EIR cannot fulfill the requirements

of CEQA.

RESIDENTIAL: The quality of life and stability of FAIL Infrastructure is not being provided neighborhoods throughout the West Los Angeles “commensurate with the needs of its population” Community critically depends on providing infrastructure resources (i.e., police, fire, water, No Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure sewerage, parks, traffic circulation, etc.) commensurate with the needs of its population. If population growth has been produced since 2001. occurs faster than projected and without needed infrastructure improvements to keep pace with that Infrastructure resource capacities are threatened, growth, the consequences for livability within the particularly critical ones. Community could be problematic. The City cannot make a clear commitment to at Accordingly, the proposed Plan has three fundamental least begin the necessary improvements within premises. First, is limiting residential densities in twelve months. various neighborhoods to the prevailing density of development in these neighborhoods. Second, is the Therefore, building controls should be put into monitoring of population growth and infrastructure effect, for all or portions of the West Los Angeles improvements through the City’s Annual Report on Community, until land use designations for the Growth and Infrastructure with a report to the City Community Plan and corresponding zoning are Planning Commission every five years on the West Los revised to limit development. Angeles Community following Plan adoption. Third, if this monitoring finds that population in the Plan area is The proposed project calls for an increase in occurring faster than projected; and, that infrastructure development and a change in zoning that would resource capacities are threatened, particularly critical result in increased density. This is contrary to ones such as water and sewerage; and, that there is the stated premise of the Plan. not a clear commitment to at least begin the necessary improvements within twelve months; then building controls should be put into effect, for all or portions of the West Los Angeles Community, until land use designations for the Community Plan and corresponding zoning are revised to limit development. 1-1.1 Protect existing single family residential FAIL Existing single family neighborhoods will be neighborhoods from new out-of scale development and inundated by traffic and parking from the other incompatible uses. project. 1-2.3 Do not increase residential densities beyond FAIL No residential density is permitted at the site. those permitted in the Plan unless the necessary infrastructure and transportation systems are available Even if it were, the necessary infrastructure and to accommodate the increase. transportation systems are NOT available to accommodate the increase. 1-3.2 Proposals for change to planned residential FAIL A residential project within 500 feet of a freeway density should consider factors of neighborhood is not “livable.” character and identity, compatibility of land uses, impacts on livability, public services and facilities, and traffic levels. The impacts on public services, especially first‐ responders and traffic are unacceptable. 1.4-3 Encourage multiple residential development in FAIL The site is not a commercial zone. specified commercial zones. 2-1.1 New commercial uses shall be located in existing FAIL The site is not in an existing commercial area. established commercial areas or shopping centers. 2-1.3 Ensure the viability of existing neighborhood FAIL A new big‐box store would harm local stores and businesses which support the needs of local businesses. residents and are compatible with the neighborhood. 3-1.1 Designate and preserve lands for the FAIL The project would permanently eliminate continuation of existing industry and development of industrial zones. new industrial parks, research and development uses, light manufacturing and similar uses. Objective 9-1 Ensure that fire facilities and protective FAIL The LAFD indicated that there are not adequate services are sufficient for the existing and future resources in the area. population and land use.

9-1.1 Coordinate with the Fire Department the review FAIL The City has admitted that data collection of significant development projects and General Plan systems utilized by the LAFD to determine amendments affecting land use to determine the impacts are too flawed to provide meaningful impact on service demands. information. One council member has deemed it “garbage in, garbage out.” GOAL 10 DEVELOP A PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM FAIL The project would reduce mobility by blocking THAT IMPROVES MOBILITY WITH CONVENIENT the Cotner NB405 onramp, the National SB405 ALTERNATIVES TO AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL. onramp and by blocking access to the Expo light rail line should it survive legal challenges. 11-1.4 Promote the development of transportation FAIL The project would reduce access to transit by facilities and services that encourage transit ridership, blocking access to the Expo light rail line should increase vehicle occupancy, and improve pedestrian it survive legal challenges. and bicycle access. 14-1.1 The City should continue to closely work with FAIL The City has disbanded its Neighborhood the community to identify and discuss existing and Transportation Management group. anticipated “cut-through” traffic and spillover parking from adjacent commercial areas. Through neighborhood / community meetings, strategies and programs can be developed for an effective neighborhood protection plan. Availability of funding to pay for implementation of programs would also be discussed at these meetings. [TIMP] GOAL 15 A WELL MAINTAINED, SAFE, EFFICIENT FAIL The surface streets in the Plan area are in FREEWAY, HIGHWAY AND STREET NETWORK. disrepair. Further development will cause further deterioration.

The project would reduce mobility by blocking the Cotner NB405 onramp, the National SB405 onramp

The project will, at a minimum, unavoidably impact two dozen intersections. Objective 15-2 Ensure that adequate maintenance of FAIL The surface streets in the Plan area are in the street system is provided to facilitate the movement disrepair. Further development will cause of the current and future traffic volumes, as well as further deterioration. emergency services. GOAL 16 A SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS, FREEWAYS, FAIL The surface streets in the Plan area are in AND STREETS THAT PROVIDES A CIRCULATION disrepair. Further strain will cause further SYSTEM WHICH SUPPORTS EXISTING AND deterioration. PLANNED LAND USES WHILE MAINTAINING A DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE AT ALL INTERSECTIONS. The project would reduce mobility by blocking the Cotner NB405 onramp, the National SB405 onramp

The project will, at a minimum, unavoidably impact two dozen intersections.

Service levels in the area are already unacceptable. 16-1.1 Maintain a satisfactory LOS for streets and FAIL Numerous intersections violate this trigger highways that should not exceed LOS "D" for condition. Secondary Highways and Collector Streets; nor LOS “E” for Major Highways or major business districts. The project will, at a minimum, unavoidably impact two dozen intersections including key intersections that will have a regional impact. Objective 16-2 To ensure that the location, intensity FAIL No Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure and timing of development is consistent with the has been produced since 2001. This provision of adequate transportation infrastructure. determination cannot be made.

Infrastructure resource capacities are threatened, particularly critical ones such as fire protection.

The City does NOT have the ability to provide adequate infrastructure and is in fact reducing its ability to do so. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Site Planning: All multiple FAIL An outdoor area exposed to exceptionally family residential projects of five or more units shall be poor/known‐hazardous air quality is not an designed around a landscaped focal point or courtyard amenity for residents, especially for children. to serve as an amenity for residents. Toward that goal the following policies are proposed: 1. Providing a pedestrian entrance at the front of each project. 2. Requiring useable open space for outdoor activities, especially for children . Inconsistency with the Los Angeles General Plan Framework We include the position paper on the FixTheCity lawsuit concerning the City’s failure to adhere to its General Plan and Community Plans. Each of the points in that paper must be addressed.

The General Plan The City made a pledge to its residents that adequate, unthreatened infrastructure would exist. The City stated it best when it said the Infrastructure Report is to be used “so that allowable increases in density … would not occur until infrastructure and its funding was available.” (General Plan EIR, 1998)

This clear, unambiguous statement is essential to the proper functioning of the City: You can’t allow new development if you don’t have the infrastructure necessary to support the new development and can’t pay to improve it.

The Infrastructure Mitigation and enabling Annual Report were to be used by the City in assessing EIRs and Community Plans. In the absence of the City producing its report and implementing its mitigations, there can be no determination of consistency with either the General Plan or the Community Plan without the Annual Report of Growth and Infrastructure as described by the City in its General Plan EIR.

As mentioned above, this EIR fails to mention key General Plan policies cited as essential in the Framework Element. It specifically fails to disclose or attempt to satisfy General Plan Framework policy 3.3.2. (as originally adopted on December 11, 1996 and re‐adopted on August 8, 2001 as CPC 94‐0354 GPF CF 95‐2259 CF 01‐1162);

”Policies 3.3.2… contained in the General Plan Framework represent measures that would serve to lessen impacts relative to fire/EMS. Policy 3.3.2 directs monitoring of infrastructure and public service capacities to determine need within each CPA for improvements based upon planning standards. This policy also directs determinations of the level of growth that should correlate with the level of capital, facility, or service improvement that are necessary to accommodate that level of growth. In addition, the policy directs the establishment of programs for infrastructure and public service improvements to accommodate development in areas the General Plan Framework targets for growth. Lastly, the policy requires that type, amount, and location of development be correlated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and services.”

The EIR also strategically fails to mention policies P42 and P43 which were called out as essential.

P42 Establish a Monitoring Program to accomplish the following: a. Assess the status of development activity and supporting infrastructure and public services within the City of Los Angeles. The data that are compiled can function as indicators of (a) the rate of population growth, development activity, and other factors that result in demands for transportation, infrastructure, and services; (b) location and type of infrastructure investments and improvements; and (c) changes to the citywide environmental conditions and impacts documented in the Framework Element environmental database and the Environmental Impact Report. b. Assess transportation conditions and determine the City's progress toward attainment of citywide transportation objectives. c. Determine the progress of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 2010 Master Facilities Program and any other capital improvement projects which could affect their ability to collect City wastewater and provide full secondary treatment for that wastewater. d. Identify existing or potential constraints or deficiencies of other infrastructure in meeting existing and projected demand. e. Identify, based on consultation with the LAUSD, the surplus and/or deficit of classroom seats.

P43 Prepare an Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure based on the results of the Monitoring Program, which will be published at the end of each fiscal year and shall include information such as population estimates and an inventory of new development. This report is intended to provide City staff, the City Council, and service providers with information that can facilitate the programming and funding of capital improvements and services. Additionally, this report will inform the general plan amendment process. Information shall be documented by relevant geographic boundaries, such as service areas, Community Plan Areas, or City Council Districts.

As a result of the above and information presented in the attached documents, no statement of consistency can be provided and thus the EIR must fail.

The Housing Element The Housing Element, updated in 2008, depends heavily on the Infrastructure Report. No statement of consistency with the Housing Element can be made without the required reports and mitigation which flows from the reports. It states:

The Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted by the City Council on December 11, 1996, in conjunction with the adoption of the Los Angeles General Plan Framework Element, its accompanying Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR No.199407 1030) and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is required by Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65103(c), local officials must implement the adopted plan and the policies and programs it contains. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan consists of two annual reports to the City Council.

COMPONENT 1. The first component is the Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure which presents the amount and distribution of actual growth of population and residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; growth in households; growth in jobs to the extent that this information is available; the actual capital investment funds allocated to infrastructure projects; and other factors directly related to growth. This allows the City to compare actual growth in the City with projections and to identify trends and the need for updated projections and/or estimates for population, land use, jobs, and housing units.

Materially Out of Date Information Regarding Population and Housing

The Project EIR relied at least in part on old SCAG data which is substantially and materially different than the 2011 SCAG Profile Report released in May 2011. (there is substantial confusion as to which baseline was used throughout the DEIR: Old SCAG, New SCAG, Projected Baseline or Sunnyvale Baseline. This confusion defeats the DEIR’s purpose.)

CEQA requires a supplemental EIR when “substantial changes occur regarding the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR; or new information that was not known, or could not have been known at the time the EIR was completed, becomes available.”

The older, faulty SCAG data formed the basis of much of the Project’s environmental analysis and underpinned the conclusions of the EIR. In other areas of the EIR, there is no practical way to determine which SCAG statistics are being included in the baseline assumptions.

The table shown below highlights the gross inadequacy of past SCAG forecasts, with the highest degree of inaccuracy occurring for longer‐range forecasts.

 1990 Actual is data from the 1990 census.  2010 forecast (1998) is the SCAG forecast prepared in 1998 for the target year 2010.  2010 framework (1998) is the Los Angeles General Plan Framework estimate that was based on the 1998 SCAG 2010 forecast.  SCAG 2010 (2004) is the SCAG forecast prepared in 2004 for the target year 2010.  2010 actual data is taken from the 2010 census and reported in the SCAG May 2011 report.

Population Data Variance Variance% 1990 actual 3485399 2010 forecast (1998) 4306500 ‐513879 ‐13.55% 2010 framework (1998) 4306500 ‐513879 ‐13.55% SCAG 2010 Est (2004) 4090125 ‐297504 ‐7.84% 2010 Actual 3792621

Households Data Variance Variance% 1990 actual 1299963 2010 forecast (1998) 1566000 ‐247832 ‐18.80% 2010 framework (1998) 1566000 ‐247832 ‐18.80% SCAG 2010 Est (2004) 1372873 ‐54705 ‐4.15% 2010 Actual 1318168

Employment Data Variance Variance% 1990 actual 1902067 2010 forecast (1998) 2112500 ‐506356 ‐31.53% 2010 framework (1998) 2291500 ‐685356 ‐42.67% SCAG 2010 Est (2004) 1994358 ‐388214 ‐24.17% 2010 Actual 1606144

It should be noted that the rationale for many residential projects has been the need for housing based on a projected population increase. Instead of an increase, the Los Angeles region has seen a decrease in population, households and employment. Materially Out of Date Information Regarding City Infrastructure

City Budget Constraints – Flawed Assumptions, Methodology The EIR fails to analyze the current budget situation facing the City, including cuts to public services which have occurred or are likely to occur. Instead, the EIR uses dangerously outdated information regarding City services.

While that data may in some cases be within normally‐acceptable timeframes, these are extraordinary times. Budgets are changing rapidly, and since this EIR process started, numerous agencies have seen their budgets gutted, including the loss of positions and City‐imposed furlough days.

This EIR must be revised and recirculated with up‐to‐date assumptions about City services and budgetary shortfalls. Health Impacts on Potential Residents and Site Visitors The EIR appears to accept the proposition that it is acceptable to place men, women and children in harm’s way by exposing them to the toxic air near the freeway. We reject this proposition. Further, the EIR fails to calculate the increased health care costs over time which are certain to result from exposure to the toxic air at the project site. The DEIR also fails to discuss potential liability the City might have for allowing development in a hazardous area.

Recent studies have found an increased incidence of adverse effects among those who live near busy roadways; these include increased respiratory disease and increased mortality (Wilhelm, M., et al 2003; Kim, J. et al 2004). These studies found that residential proximity to traffic was associated with increased risk of low birth weight, increased medical visits for asthma and increased respiratory symptoms in children. Studies conducted near freeways in Southern California show that traffic emissions, such as carbon monoxide, ultra-fine particulates, and black carbon (soot) are several times higher next to freeways than the background concentrations.

Recent results from the Children’s Health Study have shown strong evidence of adverse effects in children exposed to ambient levels of traffic-related pollutants. This study followed children in 12 communities in Southern California from 4th grade through 12th grade (McConnell, K., et al, 2002). Children in communities with high levels of NOx, PM2.5, acid vapors, and elemental carbon showed reduced lung function growth over the study period. Additionally, a higher level of asthma was found in the children that lived nearest to busy roadways. In a report prepared for CARB, researchers concluded that the current levels of ambient air pollution in Southern California are associated with clinically important chronic health effects that have substantial health and economic impacts (Peters, 2004).

We have attached the article “Down to the Meter – Localized Vehicle Pollution Matters” as a reference. It states in part:

“Diesel exhaust particulate is also a great concern as evidence is rapidly accumulating that subjects who live near roadways with a high volume of diesel vehicles are more likely to suffer from respiratory ailments, childhood cancer, brain cancer, leukemia and higher mortality rates than people who live more than 300 meters away from such roadways. Vehicle-related air pollutants have also been associated with respiratory illness, impaired lung function, and increased infant mortality. A Los Angeles County study found that pregnant women who reside within 750 feet of heavily traveled roads face a ten to twenty percent higher risk of early birth and low-birth-weight babies.“

We have also included the “Traffic and Health Report” from the Environmental Defense Fund. It states:

“A critical mass of scientific evidence shows a health risk zone close to major roadways. The risk zone extends from about 500 to 1500 feet, varying by pollutant and health effect.”…”this means that people living within two to six blocks of a busy road are likely at higher risk. The core scientific studies that point to the health implications outlined in this report are divided into two categories. Some studies measure the actual street-level air pollutant exposures; others document the impaired health of people living close to roads. The health effects seen with greater intensity closer to busy roads include cancer, heart disease, impaired childhood lung development, asthma attacks and lung disease in adults.”

This statement from the EIR confirms that harm will be done to the residents of the project (From page 17 health risk assessment):

Finally, we have included a letter from the NRDC relative to the proposed AEG Stadium. We incorporate by reference their concerns on the nexus between air quality, health and proximity to a major freeway. The DEIR must address each of the concerns raised in that letter as they relate to the proposed Casden project.

Traffic Impacts West L.A., and in particular the project area, cannot withstand more development that will materially impact area travel times. As admitted by the DEIR, this project will do just that:

The DEIR is flawed as it made the incorrect assumption that the Pico/Olympic plan would be implemented. Those portions of the DEIR that relied on the Pico/Olympic plan should be revised and recirculated.

The DEIR confirms that Expo light rail will decrease capacity by 30%, but fails to acknowledge that the actual time traffic is blocked by the light rail is between 56 and 112 seconds. The DEIR further fails to acknowledge those blockages on Westwood and Overland, thereby placing increased strain on Sepulveda.

From the DEIR Sunnyvale analysis:

NB405 On‐Ramp Limited N/S Corridors

Limited E/W Corridors

Overland, Westwood Blocked by Sepulveda SB405 On‐ Expo 24 Impacted by Ramp times/hour the project

Interference with Access to Mass Transit

The EIR’s admits that over two dozen key intersections will be impacted by the project. By definition, impacts to intersections that are on the approach to the light rail station at Exposition/Sepulveda will negatively impact the ability of transit riders to reach the light rail (should it survive legal challenges)

Failure to Include Large Related Projects The DEIR fails to mention Westfield’s Residential/Commercial/Retail Project , The 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard Project, the JMB 750,000 sf Commercial Project and the Century Plaza Residential/Commercial/Retail Project. Light/Glare The DEIR fails to address light, glare and distractions from reflection for drivers on the 405.

Water/Power Methodology and Assumptions Flawed – Inconsistent With LADWP Stated Assessments The EIR’s conclusions appear to be at odds with LADWP’s conclusions in its June 4, 2011 report to the City Council.

In that report, DWP discloses that water systems are aging and that based on our current budget, the system is “unsustainable.”

DWP also discloses that the power transmission system is aging and it is also unsustainable. Despite this report, the EIR makes the assertion that existing water and power systems are sufficient to handle the project and the cumulative load of other projects.

This speaks to the key issue flaw in the City’s environmental approval process which directly results from its failure to produce a reliable infrastructure assessment report AND act on it as required in the Framework and the General Plan EIR.

Absent that report there can be no consistency in decision‐making, no understanding of the trajectory of the state of the infrastructure and no statements of consistency with the General Plan or the Community Plan.

Clearly, the EIR’s conclusion that the water and power systems are sufficient is incorrect. The systems cannot simultaneously be sufficient and unsustainable.

The EIR must be corrected to reflect the true state of the infrastructure.

Fire The EIR’s section on fire coverage is severely flawed. We are exceptionally concerned that this project and other projects rely on first‐responder services that no longer exist.

Key flaws are:  The baseline condition for Station 92 is incorrect. Station 92 no longer has an engine. The following statement from the EIR is false as is the following table:

 The LAFD stated in its letter:

 Station 59 is an exceptionally busy station that also has first‐in responsibility for accidents near the 405 and 10 interchange. Station 59s workload has markedly increased commensurate with decreases in resources at other stations, particularly 92s.

 The EIR’s fire conclusions are also flawed as they assume level staffing for the fire department. No new firefighters have been trained in over two years and the new recruit program has been mothballed. LAFD is experiencing a loss of over 100 firefighters per year due to attrition and there are no replacements trained and no budget to train them. The EIR must therefore assume and study the impacts of decreased fire staffing over time.

 The EIR claims consistency with the General Plan, yet fails to acknowledge the mitigation measures cited in the General Plan EIR which read:

 The EIR incorrectly described how response times are calculated. It stated:

In fact, the LAFD described response times from the point of dispatch to the point the unit is on‐scene. This flawed methodology has been proven out over the first half of this year.  The EIR fails to evaluate the impact of traffic impacts from the project, but also from Expo, on fire response times.

Police LAPD stated in its letter: “A project of this size would have a significant impact on police services in the West Los Angeles Area.”

This clearly indicates a critical infrastructure resource is threatened. The project further would reduce police capabilities by creating a traffic bottleneck on Pico.

For each of the reasons stated above, the DEIR is insufficient. Further, even if it was a sufficient environmental document, approving such a harmful project would put the future residents of the project and the current residents of the area at risk. It must be opposed.

Sincerely,

Michael Eveloff President Tract No. 7260 Association and for the above named Associations/Groups.