Local officials looking to prevent more traffic
CITY HALL — Officials here will appeal a recent court ruling that denied its lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles that seeks to stop a massive development known as Playa Vista.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger ruled in January that the arguments levied by Santa Monica officials had no merit. The Santa Monica City Council last week agreed to an appeal, which is expected to be filed this week, said Deputy City Attorney Cara Silver. The process could take up to a year before a decision by the appellate court is made.
The city of Santa Monica in 2004 joined three other entities in suing LA City Hall, which they claim failed to adequately address environmental and traffic issues when it approved the second phase of the Playa Vista development, located between Marina del Rey and Westchester.
The Surfrider Foundation, the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust and Anthony Morales also joined the lawsuit, arguing that the environmental impact report (EIR) failed to address numerous environmental impacts that the development will cause.
They argue that the EIR failed to respond to public comments about archaeological issues related to Native American burial grounds, the risks of methane gas, health risks from toxic gas and wastewater disposal, as well as the elimination of some of the only wetlands left in the area.
Judge Highberger denied all of the claims, saying that the Los Angeles City Council acted within state and environmental laws when it approved the EIR and, ultimately, the development.
“It was surprising,” Silver said. “There were numerous claims by the petitioners, and it’s unusual that a judge would deny them all.”
Judge Highberger ruled that, overall, the project’s benefits outweighed its negative aspects.
“In particular, when Playa Vista Phase II was approved at the City Council meeting, there was repeated explicit comments by the council members voting in favor that it would provide much-needed housing, and the creation of additional housing is one of the most common and accepted ‘overriding considerations’ which has been held sufficient to justify unavoidable environmental impacts,” Highberger wrote. “It was eminently reasonable on this record for city officials to conclude that housing was a clear and obvious pressing public need in this portion of the city of Los Angeles.”
A TRAFFIC JAM OF AN ARGUMENT Many people who live in phase one of Playa Vista commute to Santa Monica, which is a mecca for jobs, particularly in the entertainment, technology and other burgeoning industries. City officials argue that a significant portion of the second phase of the project will also have residents who commute to Santa Monica. In fact, the development is specifically marketed to those types of commuters, according to the petition for writ of mandate, which was filed in November of 2004. The petition asked that the approval of the project be set aside.
Among local officials’ concerns is the impact particularly on Lincoln Boulevard and area side streets. The city of Santa Monica claims that the Los Angeles City Council approved the project without properly addressing those concerns, and as a result, it illegally approved the development.
City officials claim that LA City Hall violated state environmental planning laws; the project will be built without adequate environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the government code will be violated.
The Playa Vista development was proposed in two phases: Phase one was approved by the LA City Council in 1993 and is currently being developed. Phase two will include, among other things, the construction and operation of 2,600 housing units, 175,000 square feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail space and 40,000 square feet of community-serving uses.
The entire project will result in an increase of 24,220 daily vehicle trips, with 2,203 of them in the morning peak hours and 2,302 of them in the evening peak hours, according to a petition.
Local officials in January of 2003 expressed concern regarding the project’s environmental impacts on Santa Monica. In a letter dated Jan. 14, 2003, city staff requested that the EIR include a realistic distribution of traffic along transportation corridors, which should include the diversion of traffic from Lincoln Boulevard to Neilson Way, Main Street, Fourth Street, Walgrove and 23rd Street. It also asked that the EIR analyze specific intersections, including the Fourth Street and Interstate 10 on-ramp and off-ramp, as well as Main Street and Olympic Drive.
In addition, the EIR should have analyzed the impacts on Santa Monica’s side streets in the event that the other transportation corridors get so congested that motorists use neighborhood streets.
In December of 2003, the Santa Monica City Council voted to oppose the project based on the unmitigated environmental impacts the project would have locally. City officials claim that the final EIR failed to adequately address their concerns, which legally it must.
Despite concerns raised about traffic impacts from a host of agencies — including Los Angeles County and CalTrans, which said the EIR undercounted existing traffic numbers and its assumptions were faulty — the document didn’t respond adequately, the city of Santa Monica argued in its petition.
However, Judge Highberger said in his ruling that it was Santa Monica attorneys who failed to adequately prove their arguments.
“The court finds city petitioners’ challenges in this area to be unsupported and merely speculative, and... the court finds the EIR did study the issue and that substantial evidence supports its findings and conclusions,” Highberger wrote in his decision. “Santa Monica argued that the EIR necessarily fails because (the Los Angeles City Council) failed to study three intersections when requested to do so by Santa Monica. The court finds that (the Los Angeles City Council) complied with the CEQA process.
“It sufficiently studied traffic in the area,” the ruling states. “When Santa Monica requested major intersections be studied, (the Los Angeles City Council) studied nearly all of them. When Santa Monica commented and requested that these three final intersections be studied, it did not supply (the Los Angeles City Council) with ‘specific documentation’ in support of its comment and further, (the) response appears reasonable and appropriate to the question: namely, that it studied intersections on either side of the subject ones, and since they had no significant impact measured, neither would these.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 6, 2006. Read the original PDF.