Homeowners of Encino response to Draft
Environmental impact report (DEIR) City of LA - Dept. Of Airports
12-11-96 By Gerald A. Silver, President
HOMEOWNERS OF ENCINO, INC
DESCRIPTION
OF PROJECT
IMPACTS THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY
ASSESSED
IMPACTS ON EARTH
AIR IMPACTS
WATER IMPACTS
IMPACT UPON ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE
NOISE IMPACTS
LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS
CHANGES IN POPULATION
HOUSING IMPACTS
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS
IMPACT ON ENERGY AND UTILITIES
AESTHETIC IMPACTS
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE AND
INPUT
REQUIREMENT FOR ON-GOING PUBLIC INPUT
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING
PROJECT
SELECTION OF LEAST
DESTRUCTIVE
ALTERNATIVE THAT IS FEASIBLE
NO STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE ISSUED
CONCLUSIONS
HOMEOWNERS OF ENCINO GERALD A. SILVER, PRESIDENT P. O. BOX 260205
ENCINO, CA 91426-0205
CITY OF LOS ANGELES - DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS VAN NUYS AIRPORT MASTER
PLAN
| HOMEOWNERS OF ENCINO
CITY OF LA - DEPT. OF AIRPORTS John L. Graham Chief of Airport Planning |
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) |
RESPONSE TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) ) NOVEMBER 1996 |
) _________________________________)
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) (CEQA, SEC.
21000 et. seq. and GUIDELINES SEC. 15087)
RESPONSE to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a project known as:
VAN NUYS AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
The project will be located at Van Nuys, CA
The project applicant is CITY OF LOS ANGELES - DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
The proposed project affects noise, transportation, earth, air, water, plant life,
population, energy, utilities, land use, and other environmental elements in Encino, and
surrounding area. This document contains our response to the scope and content of the
draft environmental information which is germane to your environmental evaluation of this
project.
This Response is filed by the Homeowners of Encino, a California non-profit corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Homeowners of
Encino is filing this document in conjunction with Stop the Noise!, a coalition of over
two-dozen community and resident groups affected by Van Nuys Airport noise. Homeowners of
Encino is a public benefit association organized for the purpose of promoting social
welfare. This corporation seeks to protect the residential character of its neighborhoods
and to enhance the quality of life for its members and the community. Many of its members
reside within the neighborhood of the proposed project, and will be heavily impacted by
it. Return to index
The proposed project consists of the adoption and implementation of a Van Nuys Airport
Master Plan that will establish land use and development guidelines for the 730 acre
facility. The project involves the development of approximately 113 acres of land that
were vacant on January 1, 1995. The 113 vacant acres are configured around the east and
west sides of the airport and are composed of five sites ranging in size from 2.2 acres to
more than 44 acres. These include the 2.2 acre site known as the former Hart School, the
36 acre site known as the former Air National Guard West on the west side, the 30 acre
site known as the former Air National Guard East on the west side, the 44.5 acre site
known as Woodley/Volpar, and a 7 acre site known as Retlaw.
The proposed project would allow up to 58 additional jets and 25 helicopters to be
added to the fleet. This amounts to a 54.2% increase in based jets, and a 56.8% increase
in based helicopters, in addition to a substantial increase in itinerant aviation due to
the expanded facilities. The proposed project would increase aviation acreage from 161 to
232 acres. Return to index
We believe that the proposed project will have significant impacts on the environment
that have not been fully addressed in the draft EIR. It will have a significant impact on
noise, traffic, congestion, air quality, water, natural resources, population, geology,
energy, and population growth.
The Lead Agency must take into consideration the effects of this and other projects
which, will have individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impact on the
environment. With the effects of past, current and probably future projects mandatory
findings of significance should be found. (Guidelines Sec. 15065)
Throughout your draft EIR you have relied upon "mitigations" that are
fallacious, unproven, bogus, or not practical due based upon the present experience of the
airport, including its failed, "fly neighborly policy. Such measures cannot serve as
mitigations to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Nor can mitigations be acceptable that are unenforceable, or that cannot be
implemented because of a lack of political will, or commitment.
In preparing your final EIR, you must recognize that any mitigations that you propose
must go beyond those mandated by law or existing policy and practice. Compliance with the
law and standard operating procedures establishes the baseline. CEQA mitigations are
discretionary actions taken beyond the baseline. You must include verifiable mitigations
in the final EIR, not merely a recital of unenforceable or highly speculative proposals,
such as a hoped for conversion of a substantial portion of the fleet to Stage 3 (quiet)
jets.
We ask that you revise your findings and address the following environmental concerns
which we believe have been overlooked or inadequately dealt with in your draft EIR:
Return to index
This project will result in disruptions, displacements, compaction and over covering of
soil. The final EIR should specify what grading will be done, and provide a time line
indicating the starting and ending dates of all grading and construction activities. Haul
routes should be described, and mitigation proposed for dealing with the traffic
congestion created by the hauling of large amounts of soil on city streets to dump sites.
The information presented in the final EIR should be sufficient to allow for a clear
understanding of the geologic hazards and their impacts. The final EIR should present a
comprehensive summary of known geologic and seismic hazards near the site. These should be
clearly identified to ensure that the proposed buildings plans will fully evaluate and
mitigate the problems. The final EIR should include maps that show areas of unsuitable
fill soils, potentially unstable slopes, areas of differential settlement, areas of
expansive soils, and the potential zone of inundation from flooding, due to a 100 year
flood.
The final EIR should present a summary of seismic information on ground acceleration
and the duration of strong shaking that could be expected from large earthquakes on nearby
faults. Impacts of seismic shaking on existing buildings in the area, and on stability of
slopes and fills, should be addressed. Please see that the final EIR conforms fully to the
recommendations in the "Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Considerations in
Environmental Impacts Reports", and the Department of Mines and Geology's Note 43,
"Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probably
Earthquakes." Return to index
The draft EIR did not fully consider the air impacts. A project of this size will have
a deteriorating effect on air quality in the region, which is located in a locality which
does not meet Federal and State air quality standards. The construction of the new
aviation facilities will generate Carbon Monoxide, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone and particulate
matter, making it more difficult to attain the required air standards in the basin.
Once constructed the project will introduce a substantial in crease in the number of
jets and helicopters, including vehicular traffic spewing pollutants into the air.
Please identify in the final EIR the specific increases of air pollutants generated by
this project, and the cumulative impacts on the air quality in the region. Your assessment
should show how this project, when taken together with all other proposed projects in the
area, including Burbank Airport expansion will impact air quality. It should show
threshold levels of significance for each type of air emission.
The City of Los Angeles and the EPA have entered into an Consent Decree regarding
growth within the Heparin Service Area. They have agreed that growth within the area will
not result in air emission increases, nor impede the region's progress toward National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NASA) attainment. Your final EIR should show that all
impacts have been reduced to insignificance, in order to comply with the City of Los
Angeles and EPA agreement. Anything short of this is a breach of the terms of the Federal
consent decree, and actionable, with the possibility of substantial fines being imposed
against the City.
Also address the air impacts at both the local level, and within the region. Explain
how these impacts will be fully mitigated. Specifically, quantify all related aviation and
vehicular air emissions, and include the factors, formulas and computations used to arrive
at these impacts, and their mitigations. Provide an appendix with all necessary and
supporting documentation, including the paper trail that will allow concerned citizens, or
decision makers to trace your steps, and your conclusions with regard to air impacts.
Please explain in the final EIR what effects aviation fuel, diesel fumes, gasoline
powered equipment fumes and construction odors will have upon those with respiratory
problems, or the aged living nearby. Also discuss the impact on local flora and fauna,
giving specific effects upon plant and animal life, as a result of the additional air
degradation that may be caused by the project.
The EPA has stressed the importance of secondary air impact analysis. The final EIR
should assess the secondary air impacts that will result from this project and please
provide adequate mitigations for these air impacts.
Your final EIR must also conform to the State of California Air Resources Board
guidelines. Please see that short-term, long-term, local scale analysis, corridor
analysis, hazardous pollutant analysis and cumulative impact analysis aspect of this
project are addressed more fully. Specifically see that it conforms to the Guidelines for
Air Quality Impact Assessments: General Development and Transportation Projects, Report
No. RP-83-002, available from the State Air Resources Board. Return to index
The Los Angeles basin is located in a permanent drought area. The direct water impacts
from this project have not been fully addressed. Identify source of water, how it will be
used in the project, and how the removal of water from the aquifer will be replaced. Fully
explain the quantitative impacts on the local and regional water supply, as a result of
this project. Estimate water consumption both during and after construction. Provide a
detailed list of mitigations to reduce the consumption of water to insignificance.
The City of Los Angeles has enacted ordinances which mandate many water saving and
conservation measures. These items must be considered baseline, and do not qualify as
mitigation measures, since they are already the law. Your final EIR should impose more
extensive measures to deal with the water consumption issue.
Please also provide mitigations for dealing with secondary water impacts. The growth
sustained by a project of this size will consume large amounts of fresh water, which are
in short supply in the region. Also please detail the amount of water necessary for
control of dust as well as the cumulative amount of water needed by this project during
the construction phase. If reclaimed sewage water is to be used for dust control, the
effects of misting and air borne transfer of viruses should be analyzed and reported.
Include the factors, formulas and computations used to arrive at these impacts, and
their mitigations. Provide an appendix with all necessary and supporting documentation,
including the paper trail that will allow concerned citizens, or decision makers to trace
your steps, and your conclusions with regard to water impacts. Return to index
A project of this size will have a detrimental effect upon the flora and fauna in the
project area. The Sepulveda Basin is a natural habitat for birds and other animals. It
will not be possible to construct the project, without a serious impact on the local
biota. Provide a detailed assessment of impacts on both plant and animal life as a result
of the project. Special emphasis needs to be placed upon the overflights that will take
place immediately to the south, over the Sepulveda Basin. Provide detailed mitigations to
reduce these potential impacts to insignificance. Return to index
A substantial amount of noise will be generated by the proposed project both during
construction, and after the huge increase in jet and helicopter operations take place. The
movement of heavy vehicles, trucks, compressors and construction equipment will create
severe noise problems. Show how it will be possible to construct this project, including
removal of many cubic yards of soil without creating severe noise impacts. Noise must be
reduced to insignificance.
The final EIR should explain the effects of noise levels on local residents and
construction workers, during construction, and the impact on the emotional and
physiological well being of people living nearby. Please explain in detail the effects of
specific pieces of construction equipment, the noise levels, dBA, frequency and duration
of sound that people will be exposed to. Also explain the impact of sustained noise upon
the aged or those who are ill and may reside near the construction site. The final EIR
should provide mitigation measures that will reduce the noise created by this project to
insignificance.
The final EIR should explain the effects of aircraft noise levels on local residents
allowing up to 58 additional jets and 25 helicopters to be added to the fleet. This 54.2%
increase in based jets, and 56.8% increase in based helicopters, in addition to a
substantial increase in itinerant aviation will substantially increase the noise to
residents living near the airport, as well as those living at some distance. Since the
proposed project would increase aviation average from 161 to 232 acres, many more
operations will take place, expanding the noise contour. You must rely on legally
enforceable laws and ordinances as mitigations that are acceptable to the FAA, in order to
counts these as mitigations. This would require specifically phasing out all Stage 2
(noisy) jets from the airport, and a non-addition rule, banning additional Stage 2 jets
from being added to the fleet. Helicopter curfews that are legally enforceable, and
acceptable to the FAA must also be in place to address the noise situation, both near the
airport, and at some distance. Return
to index
Light and glare was not adequately assessed in the draft EIR.
Residents living near the airport will be subjected to light and glare. The applicant
must be required to illuminate the premises without casting light and glare on nearby
buildings. Any buildings located adjacent to the project will be directly impacted. The
light and glare that will spill onto nearby buildings must be mitigated in the final EIR.
The construction project will result in altered shade and shadow conditions which should
also be mitigated to insignificance in the final EIR. Return to index
Changes in population will occur if this expansion project is approved. It will alter
the distribution, density and growth rate in the region. Providing more aircraft
facilities, operations, buildings, jobs and employment in this region will make it more
difficult to achieve a balance between the environment and the population. It may cause
greater population density in a region already without adequate infrastructure.
In your final EIR, please show how the project adheres to the job/housing balance.
Provide a detailed assessment of the growth and job impacts. What kinds and types of jobs
will be created, as a result of this project. Analyze the effects on unemployment on
individuals with various jobs skills. Also explore what housing is available to
accommodate any increase in direct and indirect employment. How does this project conforms
to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Provide a detailed list of mitigation measures
to deal with any job/housing imbalance created by the project. Return to index
The expansion project will have a devastating impact on home values and land prices. It
will drive out affordable housing or small business in the area. The final EIR should
mitigate the diminished property values of housing units that will be affected due to the
project. The final EIR should explain how the loss of property values will be addressed.
It should also show the impact on nearby small retail and consumer serving shops and
businesses, that will be impacted due to the increase number of jet and helicopter
operations. Return to index
Transportation and traffic circulation will be negatively impacted by the proposed
project. There are a number of E and F level intersections in the vicinity of the airport.
The construction of this project and removal of large amount of soil over city streets
will impede traffic and circulation and make gridlock worse. The final EIR should explain
how the E and F level, grid locked intersections in the area will be mitigated to
insignificance.
Because of the project's magnitude and the substantial construction required, the
proposed project will generate significant traffic congestion problems. Traffic congestion
resulting from the expansion of freeways and access roads, lane closures, detours, slow
moving construction vehicles and equipment, project personnel commutes, etc. significantly
increase traffic and mobile-source air emissions.
Please provide detailed maps in the final EIR which will show how the project will
mitigate traffic in the area, including the number of lanes of traffic that will be lost
due to the movement of heavy equipment to and from the site during construction.
Please consult with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and obtain a table
of Potential Mitigation Measures. This table includes numerous incentives, controls and
procedures which should be considered for inclusion in the final EIR.
Since the project has corridor level transportation impacts, what are the long term
impacts? Estimate the number of trips generated, and provide documentation on the
assumptions. How will the project affect public transportation in the region, and locally?
What will the impact be on nearby freeways and will it encourage the need to double deck
freeways.
This project will have a mutual impact on other projects in the area. Explain in the
final EIR the interactive impacts on the existing circulation system, on ATSAC, and the
secondary highways. Explain thoroughly how you arrive at trip generation rates, trip
distributions, time of day analysis, effects on A.M. and P.M. traffic conditions, etc.
The final EIR should deal with the phasing issue comprehensively. What will be the
incremental impacts on traffic, and if phased, how will the infrastructure be phased in so
that all mitigations are in place to prevent increases in traffic or a degradation of
circulation? Include the factors, formulas and computations used to arrive at these
impacts, and their mitigations. Provide an appendix with all necessary and supporting
documentation, including the paper trail that will allow concerned citizens, or decision
makers to trace your steps, and your conclusions with regard to traffic impacts.
Return to index
The final EIR should fully address impact on public services. Police and fire services
are inadequate to meet the present community needs. This project will generate additional
demands that the City systems cannot handle. The final EIR should show how the applicant
intends to mitigate the drain on local public services. It should present a detailed
explanation of the degraded response times to police, fire and paramedic services. It
should present specific mitigations and funding mechanism that show how the applicant will
offset the deteriorated public service response capability.
Your final EIR should thoroughly cover the adequacy of fire-low requirements for the
necessary level of protection, response distance from existing fire stations, etc. The
quantity of water necessary for fire protection varies with the type of development, life
hazard, occupancy, and the degree of fire hazard. Show what improvements will be needed to
provide the adequate G.P.M. for fire-flow. The final EIR should contain a thorough
analysis of this topic, in consultation with the Water Services Section of the Department
of Water and Power. It should also show how the G.P.M. requirements for the first-due
Engine Company will be met, and the distance of the first-due Truck company.
You will also need to show at least two different ingress/egress roads that will
accommodate major fire apparatus, and provide for major evacuation during emergency
situations. Include off-site and on-site location of fire hydrants, fire lane widths, and
how the project will affect staffing for existing facilities, or the
relocation of present fire protection facilities. Your final EIR should conform to the
guidelines in the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Plans, as well as the Safety Plan,
which are elements of the Los Angeles General Plan C.P.C. 19708).
The final EIR should also analyze police services and crime rates in the area, and the
impact of this project on these rates. Communities located near airports have historically
become rundown, and crime impacted. Include average response times, and show the number of
officers deployed in the area, and the impact on current levels of staffing. Show how
parking areas will be controlled, use of closed circuit television, and areas near the
airport and parking areas will be illuminated to prevent an increase in crime which could
result from this project. In particular include data on burglary from aircraft, autos,
auto theft and assaults. Return to index
Utilities will be impacted by the proposed project. The lead agency is, or should be,
aware of the limits on solid waste disposal. Large amount of soil will have to be trucked
to a dump site as the project proceeds, making landfill disposal problems worse.
The final EIR should quantify the impact that this airport expansion project will have
on the capacity and exhaustion of local land fills, both during and after construction.
Specifically how many cubic yards of soil will be trucked to landfills, and how much solid
waste will be exported, and to which sites? Show haul routes and the time of day when city
streets will be used for this purpose.
How much electrical energy will be needed to operate the project, once it is in
operation. Will backup energy sources be used? What will be the impact on the sewage
system. Show the volume of sewage produced by the project, and how it will impact the
Heparin, Los Angeles-Glendale and Tillman plants. Show which sewage lines will need to be
up sized, which streets will be affected, and for how long a period.
The final EIR should analyze the availability of hydraulic capacity for the anticipated
flow in the local and interceptor sewers serving the proposed project area. The quantity
and quality of waste water to be discharged to the sewer system should be more thoroughly
analyzed.
The City of Los Angeles has enacted ordinances which are designed to reduce the volume
of water introduced into the sewage system. These measures must be considered baseline,
and do not qualify as mitigation measures, since they are already the law. Your final EIR
should impose more extensive measures to deal with the sewage flow issue. Include the
factors, formulas and computations used to arrive at these impacts, and their mitigations.
Provide an appendix with all necessary and supporting documentation, including the paper
trail that will allow concerned citizens, or decision makers to trace your steps, and your
conclusions with regard to energy, sewage and utility impacts. Return to index
This project will result in esthetically offensive sites to public view. Some residents
living near the airport presently, have an open view of the skyline. Their view will be
blocked by the structure that will be built. Mitigation should be proposed for this
problem. The project will be out of scale in relation to residents nearby. Explain how
this project will impact the ambiance and habitability of homes located near the expanded
airport. What impact will this project have on the other business establishments, access
to businesses and the present views cape? What impact will it have on the marketability of
homes nearby? The properties located on both sides of the golf course, in particular must
be addressed in this expansion project. Return
to index
The final EIR should discuss properly the growth inducing impacts of the project and
the environmental effects, and must be adequate under CEQA, Pub. Res. Code, Sec. 21000 et
seq. One need only look at Burbank Airport, or LAX to see the negative growth inducing
impacts of airport expansion. Please include a detailed forecast of growth for each phase
of the project. What will be the cumulative impacts of growth in the region? How is this
related to the Growth Management Plan forecast?
In Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the
University of California (88 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15037), the California Supreme Courts
laid down clear guidelines and requirements for the preparation of an environmental
document. Specifically the Supreme Court stated that "a final EIR must include an
analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other actions if: (1) it is a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or
action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the
initial project or its environmental effects."
Please be sure the final EIR properly addresses and mitigates growth inducing impacts
which will have individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impact. A final EIR
must be prepared which gives thoughtful discussion to dealing with short-term versus long
term effects. Return to index
The importance of alternatives in the EIR process is clearly established in law. CEQA
Sec. 21081 requires a finding of unfeasibility for each environmentally superior project
alternative in the EIR prior to approval of any project which will result in significant
adverse environmental effects.
It will be essential that the final EIR make a full assessment of the impacts of
alternatives, including a thorough discussion of a No Project alternative. (Citizens of
Goleta Valley, 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11920) The No Project alternative is especially
important since the project is located in the center of a polluted ecosystem with degraded
air, water and earth. This alternative should consider not constructing the project, or
shifting it elsewhere and thus reducing the demands on the infrastructure. The lead agency
is required to make a finding, supported by substantial evidence that the "no
project" alternative is infeasible. You should be aware of this requirement in the
preparation of the final EIR.
Pub. Res. Code Sec. 21002 and 21002.1(b) affirmatively mandate that public agencies
take concrete actions to protect the environment "whenever it is feasible to do
so." This substantive duty is enforced through the findings requirements of Sec.
21081 and Guidelines Sec. 15091. These sections require a public agency to make detailed
findings regarding the feasibility of all environmentally superior alternatives or
additional mitigation measures available prior to approving any project which may cause
significant impacts on the environment. See Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board
of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1034-1035, 185 Cal.Rptr. 41.
Where the project, as approved, will result in significant environmental impacts, the
agency must make the finding, pursuant to Sec. 21081(c) [Guidelines Sec. 15091(a)(3)] that
each environmentally superior alternative to the project proposed in the EIR but rejected
by the agency is "infeasible" for specific economic, social, technical or other
reasons. Village Laguna, 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1034. The findings must also expressly
identify the "specific economic, social or other considerations" relied upon by
the agency in determining that the alternative is infeasible. Id. at 1034-1036. Each
finding must also be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Sec. 21081.5;
Guidelines Sec. 15091(b). An agency's failure to make the required findings for any major
project alternative invalidates any subsequent project approval. Village Laguna, 134
Cal.App.3d at 1034-1035; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc. v. County of San Bernardino,
155 Cal.App.3d. 738, 752-753; Resource Defense Fund v. LAFCO (1987) 87 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 2105, 2108. Return to index
Your draft EIR (DEIR) should be sent to all organizations and individuals who have
previously requested such notice and shall also be given by at least one of the following
procedures (Guidelines, Sec. 15087):
(1) Publication at least one time by the public agency in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the proposed project.
(2) Posting of notice by the public agency on and off the site in the area where the
project is to be located.
(3) Direct mailing to owners of property contiguous to the parcel or parcels on which
the project is located ...
The alternatives for providing notice specified in subsection (a) shall not preclude a
public agency from providing additional notice by other means ... (emphasis added)
We ask that you provide notice by using all three of the above, in notifying the
public, regarding this project. We also request that you extend the period for public
review to a full 90 days, as permitted under the Guidelines, Sec. 15087 (c). This will
encourage greater public participation, and is strongly advised by CEQA.
We also ask that you hold multiple public hearings on this project. Guidelines, Sec.
15087 (g) states:
Public hearings may be conducted on the environmental documents, either in separate
proceedings or in conjunction with other proceedings of the public agency. Public hearings
are encouraged, but not required as an element of the CEQA process.
These requirements must be interpreted broadly, consistent with the principle that
"CEQA must be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection
to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language," (Friends
of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247, 259). Thus several additional hearings
should be conducted, beyond those already scheduled.
CEQA Sec. 21153, also requires the Lead Agency to consult prior to completion of an
environmental impact report with "any city or county which borders on a city or
county within which the project is located..." Please see that this is done, in order
to assure congruity of the project with neighboring communities.
In light of these statutory requirements, we ask that you make every possible effort to
involve the public, community groups and interested citizens in this phase of the CEQA
process, and in evaluating the final EIR you will be preparing.
We specifically request that you contact all bonafide community groups, homeowners and
resident associations, interested citizens, and local community associations including a
substantial representation of locally impacted residents and homeowners. Copies of the
draft EIR should be made available to private individuals and organizations without
charge. The $125.00 fee now being requested is excessive and will only deter public input
on your document. Return to index
Due to the size and scope of this airport expansion it is recommended that an on-going
public input requirement be established. The final EIR should include a mitigation that
requires the applicant establish a list of, and hold quarterly public meetings with its
residential neighbors within 8 miles of the airport to discuss in a timely fashion issues
of concern regarding the project's activities. The applicant should be required to bring
to the community's attention any negative impacts, including any violations of conditions,
permits, monitoring programs or other controls which relate to the project. The applicant
shall submit a copy of the meeting notice and a list of notified persons to the Council
office, and other city agencies, as ongoing evidence of compliance. Return to index
There has been much public controversy surrounding this airport expansion. Community
organizations have held meetings objecting to the expansion of Van Nuys Airport. Numerous
articles have appeared in print in which community members have voiced opposition to the
project. The draft EIR is silent on this controversy. The public outcry against the
project and the local concern expressed about its environmental impacts were not reported
in the draft EIR. The final EIR should include copies of all letters, written comments,
and objections raised by elected officials to the size and scope of the project, which led
up to the EIR. Return to index
Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) forbids agencies from approving
projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures can substantially measure such impacts. (Citizens for Quality Growth
v. City of Mount Shasta, 3rd Dist. 1988, 198 Cal.App.3d 433.)
In order to approve the proposed project, the lead agency must make findings on each
significant impact identified in the draft EIR. The project can only be approved if
economic, social, or other conditions make unfeasible mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR. (Guidelines, Section 15091.)
The State Guidelines, Section 15364, defines "feasible" to mean "capable
of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors." The
Department of Airports cannot make a showing that the smaller and environmentally
preferred alternative is unfeasible because "what is required is evidence that the
additional cost or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical
to proceed with the project." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(Goleta I) 2nd District 1988, 197 Cal.App.3d 1167.) This is not the case here.
The lead agency is therefore required under law to approve the environmentally least
destructive alternative, this appears to be the E-2 Alternative, or the no-project E-1
Alternative, since they satisfy the feasibility standard of the CEQA requirements. In
selecting these alternatives, the lead agency is also supporting "the view that
environmental values are to be assigned greater weight than the needs of economic growth
... The act thus requires decision-makers to assign greater priority to environmental than
to economic needs." (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco
(1st Dis. 1974) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 590-591). Return to index
We ask that the lead agency prepare a final EIR that interprets CEQA to afford the
fullest possible protection for the environment within the reasonable scope of the
statutory language. (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d. 247)
We request the lead agency place additional changes and alterations in the project to
avoid and substantially lessen the significant impacts that have been reported in the
DEIR, satisfying the requirements of CEQA Section 21001. Return to index
We appreciate your allowing us the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR. We look
forward to receiving a detailed and comprehensive final EIR, fully in compliance with
CEQA, State and local Guidelines. Executed at Encino, California on December 4, 1996 by
Gerald A. Silver, President, Homeowners of Encino. Return to index
/s/ GERALD A. SILVER
Van Nuys Airport page