SR-415-001 (3)
PCD:SF:AA:F:\PLANWDMIN\MISCPROJ\PLAYVIST\PHASE2\PLAYA VISTA.DOC ~~~ ~ g ~OQ~
Council Meeting: December 9, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: The Village at Playa Vista
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council consider adopting a formal position or~ tfie
proposed Village at Playa Vista, the second phase of development at Playa Vista.
BACKGROUND
For nearly two decades, the development of the Playa Vista area has been an important
consideration within the western region of Los Angeles County. Between 1991 and 1995,
the City of Los Angeles and the California Coastal Commission approved the first phase of
Playa Vista, which includes residential and commercial development and wetlarid
restoration in the areas adjacent to Lincoln Boulevard (south of Ballona Creek) and near
Jefferson and Inglewood Boulevards (see Attachment A). In 1993, the City of Santa
Monica and the developer of Playa Vista entered into a settlement agreement requiring the
developer to pay a total sum of $1.5 million during the course of construction in order to
mitigate potential traffic impacts on Santa Monica. The City agreed not to oppose thE first
phase development, which is currently under construction.
In 1995, the City of Los Angeles released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the remainder of the Playa Vista site. The
~
DE~ - g ~QO~
Draft EIR
The Draft E!R en , ~tvirc~r~rne~l:#r~uct , ~t~ ,,~net~gy,
utilities, population/housing/employment and transportation. The air quality chapter
analyzes John Muir Elementary School in Santa Monica as a sensitive receptor and
analyzes the intersection of Lincoln and Ocean Park Boulevards for carbon monoxide
dispersion due to increases in traffic associated with the project, though the impacts are
less than significant. The energy and utilities chapters include regulations and mitig~tion
measures to reduce energy and potable water consumption and water run-off.
The jobs/housing/employment chapter includes findings that the project will hawe a
beneficial impact by providing significant amounts of new housing in an area that h~s a
deficiency of housing relative to jobs, as evidenced by the project's jobs/housing ratio of
0.45, compared to the Westchester/Playa Del Rey ratio of 2.76 and the Westside ratio of
1.38. The Draft EIR does not include mitigation measures requiring that a certain
percentage of the new housing be available to low- and moderate-income families, thc~ugh
it does identify that a variety of housing types, sizes and tenancies will be provided as part
of the project.
The transportation chapter and traffic study analyze 23 intersections in Santa Monic~,
using both the Los Angeles methodology and the Santa Monica methodology. Using
gravity analysis, 18 percent of the project's trips are assigned to the Lincoln Boulevard
corridor and 16 percent to the Centinela Boulevard corridor. The remainder of the prc~jec;t
3
traffic is assigned to travel corridors along SR-90, Culver Boulevard, Slauson Avenu~~,
Jefferson Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard and I-405. The results of the traffic study s~how
that while many Santa Monica intersections will experience some traffic impacts relat~;d i:o
the project, the impacts are less than significant. Three intersections that staff requested
to be studied in the Draft EIR, Fourth Street/I-10 On-ramp, Fourth Street/I-10 Off-ramp, and
Main Street/Olympic Drive, were not included in the traffic analysis. Neighborhood traffic
segments studied in the report do not include any Santa Monica streets. The transport~tion
mitigation measures include a requirement that the project pay for design and
implementation of a transit signal priority system at 25 Lincoln Boulevard intersections to
support rapid bus implementation along the corridor.
Devi:loping a Formal City Position
In adopting a formal position on the Village at Playa Vista, there are several issues that the
Council may wish to consider, including;
The Village at Playa Vista represents a substantial reduction in the scope and scale c-f
development that was original proposed for the site and that is currently permitted
under the existing Specific Plan for the area; the project has been transformed from a
high-rise office, residential, hotel and regional shopping project to a compact, mixe~'-
use residential project with ancillary office and retail uses
The Village at Playa Vista will bring needed new housing to the Westside, which
currently experiences a deficiency of housing relative to jobs. While the new housing
may have localized environmental impacts, it also may have regionally benefici~il
a
environmental benefits such as reducing pressure on new residential development in
the region's canyons and deserts, putting new residents in locations where they can
use transit to reach jobs-rich areas of the Westside, reducing overall commutes and
related environmental and economic impacts by building housing on a brownfield site in
closer proximity to jobs, and reducing housing cost pressures by providing more
housing supply to meet Westside housing demand.
^ Playa Vista is intended to be a model of a sustainable, livable, smart growth community
that uses land efficiently by providing a compact, mixed-use community with public
gathering places, easy accessibility to jobs, services and recreation, and restoration of
ecologically sensitive habitats. The project's commitment to sustainability and livability
has been recognized by the Local Government Commission's Awhanee Award, a
prestigious award which recognizes livable, pedestrian- and transit-friendly projects,
and the Federal Government's Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing
Award, which recognized Playa Vista as one of five communities in the ndtion
demonstrating leadership in the design and construction of energy-efficient and
environmentally sensitive housing.
The mitigation measure requiring the project to provide transit signal priority on Lincoln
Boulevard, in combination with the Phase requirement to provide for new buses,
operating cost assistance and signal synchronization along this corridor, may enhance
the regional priority for rapid bus transit on Lincoln Boulevard.
^ The project includes 175,000 square feet of office space. While this is a relatively sm~ill
office component compared to the number of housing units proposed, and could
5
primarily serve as a mixed-use resource for Playa Vista residents, it may be
unnecessary given that over one million square feet of office space is permitted within
Playa Vista Phase
Requirements for low- and moderate-income housing are not specified in the project
description. While there is a great need for housing generally on the Westside, there is
also great need for affordable housing. An absence of affordable housing in the project
could put greater pressure on Santa Monica's affordable housing stock,
Given the variety of issues associated with the Village at Playa Vista, there are variations
and permutations of a formal position that the City Council may wish to consider, including:
1 Support of the project as it will bring needed housing resources to the Westside;
2 Support provided that the project is altered (i.e. office uses are eliminated or reduced
and replaced with assisted living, at least 20 percent of the housing is dedicated to
low- and moderate-income households, etc.);
3 Opposition unless the project is altered (see above);
4 Opposition due to the environmental impacts associated with the project; or
5, No position
NEXT STEPS
Staff will submit technical comments regarding the DEIR prior to the close of the
December 22, 2003 comment period. Attachment D provides a draft of staff's comments.
If the Council chooses to take a formal position regarding the project, this position will be
6
conveyed to the City of Los Angeles during the comment period
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Taking a formal position on the Village at Playa Vista will have no impact on the budget
CEQA ANALYSIS
Submitting DEIR comments and taking a formal position on the Village at Playa Vista
does not require independent review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), as the proposed project must be analyzed by the appropriate lead agencies,
pursuant to the guidelines of CEQA, prior to taking action on the project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a formal position on the Village
at Playa Vista, the second phase of development at Playa Vista
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director, Planning and Community Development
Andy Agle, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Development
Attachments:
A. Playa Vista Phase I Site
B. Village at Playa Vista Site
C. Task Force on the Environment Comments
D. Draft staff comments on Village at Playa Vista Draft EIR
~
~~~!~ ~~
~~~$. . , - - . -
ATTACHMENT B
'~~~- ~'~"' n~~i ` T~ ~
ATTACHMENT C
TASK FORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT COMMENTS
10
Playa Vista Phase II Draft EIR
Comments from the Task Force on the Environme~nt
November 17, 2003
General Comments
1. More specificity should be provided for all mitigation measures described in the
document, particularly with respect to the timeline of completion of the measures
and details as to how they will be implemented and monitored.
2. Santa Monica signed off on Phase I with the understanding that all mitigation
measures would be completed. In fact, many measures have not been
completed or have been eliminated (e.g. Passage of SB 666 eliminated the
construction of a bridge into area C, which was a traffic mitigation measure for
phase I). The City should ask the developer to provide an update on
uncompleted mitigations from Phase I and should obtain assurance that
proposed mitigation measures for Phase II will be undertaken.
Safety / Risk of Upset
1. The EIR isn't clear on what the risk based clean-up goals (RBCGs) are for
ongoing environmental remediation efforts at the site with respect to residents,
workers, etc. A clear summary of the RBCGs needs to be inclu~ded in this
section. This summary should include a table that lists the RBCGs for both
residential and recreational site uses as referenced in the text.
2. A human health risk assessment referenced in this section was completed in the
late 1990s. The results of that assessment may not be valid, as conditions have
changed over the past five years and as OEHHA and EPA routinely update the
unit risk factors used in risk assessments.
3. The EIR refers to CA Department of Toxics Substances Control "standards and
thresholds". DTSC has pointedly not set standards and threshalds, so this
reference is unclear.
Air Quality
1. More detail should be provided on the transit shuttle system, which is cited as a
mitigation measure. When will it be implemented? What fuels will be used? Will
the vehicles exceed minimum LEV ratings? etc.
2. Chapter 6 in the SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Handbook is referenced throughout
this section of the EIR. However the SCAQMD states that the screening tables
in chapter 6 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook should not be used c~ue to invalid
and/or obsolete data and models. The EIR should specify which pages of
chapter 6 were used in the EIR.
11
3. The EIR makes an incorrect assumption with respect to AQMD rule 1166. Rule
1166 is for VOC contaminated soils only and is not inclusive of inetals
contaminated soils.
4. The threshold used in a risk assessment for air impacts uses criteria for worker
exposure (e.g., 1 x 10-5), not the more restrictive criteria for resident exposure (1
x 10~), even though this will be a residential development.
5. Air quality modeling was completed using the ISCST model but should have
used the ISCST3 model.
Earth
1. Some garages are planned for 23' below grade. It is unclear if the human health
risk assessment (HHRA) modeled impacts at this depth below the ground
surface for soil and groundwater contaminants or if they used surFace data.
2. The development plan calls for excavation of soil from one area of the site for
use as fill in another. It is unclear if the HHRA addressed the potential risks if
the soil used contains chemical contaminants found on the site. The HHRA
does not include a"worst case scenario" to model potential health impacts if
contaminated soil were used as onsite fill.
3. The document is unclear as to whether a methane assessment will be completed
after all excavation and grading is completed. If done prior to excavation the
data from the assessment will be of dubious value and possibly meaningless.
Water
1. Many water mitigations called out in Phase I have not occurred to date. This
document should provide more certainty on when water reuse and stormwater
BMPs will be installed/implemented.
2. The document is very unclear with regards to groundwater dewatering. More
detail is required regarding the anticipated volume of water to be pumped and
the discharge location(s). Due to the presence of groundwater contaminants at
the site, the document should specify that all groundwater pumped from the site
should be treated prior to discharge. Because the volume of the discharge
hasn't been determined, it is unclear if the water treatment facility on site can
handle this.
3. Stormwater modeling in the document does not address PAHs. These should be
addressed due to the close proximity of major boulevards.
4. Regarding wet weather discharges to the freshwater marsh, the document is
unclear on where the compliance point is (i.e. in the marsh or in the wetlands
after the water leaves the marsh).
5. Note: Many TMDLs have not yet been developed for the Ballona area. Once
these are developed it will likely have major implications for the project in the
future. TMDL requirements may cause the developer to meet tougher standards
before the project is completed.
12
Biotic Resources
1. The document doesn't make clear what the developer is aiming to achieve with
the "restoration" of the riparian corridor. What is clear is that the work they
describe will not restore it to a true riparian habitat.
2. The document does not specify where the water for the riparian corridor will
come from and what volumes are expected. The document also does not
address the impacts of discharge of water from the riparian corridor to the
freshwater marsh. This should be evaluated.
3. The document should specify if the developer will conduct annual sampling and
testing of soil and plant samples in the freshwater marsh for contaminants. The
document should also specify what actions will be taken if chemical
contaminants are found.
4. The data provided by the 3-day biological survey undertaken for this EIR is
inadequate. The EIR references other surveys that were done over the last
decade, yet none of the data was provided. Considering the fact that the
developer used heavy machinery to grade the area a few years ago, the data
from the most recent biological surveys prior to grading should be provided in the
EIR.
5. The term "suitable buffer" needs to be defined.
13
ATTACHMENT D
DRAFT STAFF COMMENTS
14
December 19, 2003
Ms. Sue Chang
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 North Spring Street, Room 720
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re EIR Case No. ENV-2002-6129-EIR
Dear Ms. Chang:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for the Village at Playa Vista (the Project). With 2,600 dwelling units, 175,000 square
feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail, and 40,000 square feet of
community-serving uses, the Project is expected to have important consequences for
Santa Monica and the region. Based on our review of the DEIR, we offer the following
comments for your consideration.
TRANSPORTATION
Thank you for analyzing Santa Monica intersections using the HCM methodology
adopted by the City of Santa Monica. The DEIR does not include the following three
intersections that we requested be analyzed:
• 4th St./I-10 on-ramp
• 4~' St./I-10 off-ramp
• Main St./Olympic Drive
The DEIR also does not include analysis of impacts on Santa Monica's neighborhood
streets, such as the 23rd/V1/algrove corridor, caused by cut-through traffic avoiding
congested primary transportation corridors.
15
POPULATION / HOUSING / EMPLOYMENT
While the DEIR references the City of Los Angeles' efforts with respect to affordabie
housing, there are no requirements for the development of affordable housing as part of
the Project. Without these requirements, there will be substantial impacts on affordable
housing within Santa Monica and elsewhere in the area, given the scope and scale of
the proposed project. The requirements should include an equitable distribution of
affordable housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households, as well as an
equitabte distribution of unit sizes to accommodate a diversity of household types,
including large families.
We appreciate your careful and thorough consideration of these issues. Should you
have any questions or need additional information from the City of Santa Monica,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely;
16