Editor:

There are several major problems with the proposal to tear down the Marina Freeway (90) to create 4,000 apartments and a park stretching from Lincoln Boulevard inland to Sepulveda Boulevard.

The first is that 79,000 cars travel the 90 each day in both directions, according to the Los Angeles Almanac. Even the project proponents acknowledge that much of this east-west traffic will be diverted to the already-congested Venice, Washington and Jefferson corridors if their project is built.

However, it is the failure of transparency, government oversight and lack of a competitive bid process that raises the most concern. Having the proponent of the project, Streets for All, and its chosen architectural firm lined up for a $2 million sole-source grant is akin to having the proverbial fox guard the hen house.

How does the public get an objective review from the very same people who are sponsoring the proposal?

If there is merit to the concept, it should proceed as most large government projects would be undertaken. Instead of a sole-source contract, with funds going directly to the proponent, the host city or county should be the applicant for the funds.

Then the city of Los Angeles (or the county of Los Angeles) would draw up a request for proposals (RFP) that identifies the issues the study will investigate. I would suggest that at a minimum the RFP ask whoever conducts the feasibility study answer these questions:

• Where will existing traffic go and how will it affect drive times and traffic flow?

• How much new traffic will be produced by the project and what affect will it have on existing streets and intersections?

• Under all the density bonuses the state has forced on the city of Los Angeles, including the right to add an accessory dwelling unit on every single-family residential lot and thousands of new apartments along bus lines, how much new traffic is going to be produced over the next 30 years anyway without the new project, and how will that traffic be absorbed without the Marina Freeway?

• Where and how will the water, electricity, and sewage and trash disposal capacity for the new “city” be provided?

• How many children would live in the 4,000 units and how much would building schools for them cost?

• What will keep the new park from being taken over by homeless campers and how many new police officers, park staff and Sanitation Department workers will be required to keep the park clean and safe?

• How much time would be added for ambulances traveling from points east to the currently expanding Cedars-Sinai medical complex at Lincoln Boulevard and the 90?

• Would all the dirt that was brought in to elevate the 90 above grade remain in place or be removed, and if removed where would it go and at what cost?

• What would be the cost of installing storm water drainage and pipes into the streets serving the new 4,000 units?

• What effect would the loss of the 90 have on the evacuation of Playa del Rey, Marina del Rey, Del Rey and Venice in the event of a major tsunami?

Once that list of questions is drawn up, the city would release that study outline in the RFP to firms with the expertise to perform the study. Interested firms would submit qualifications and bids.

The city would have a committee of its own experts in environmental protection, engineering, public works, landuse planning, park design, sanitation, storm water control, education infrastructure, and water and power rate the bids and the council and mayor would award a contract to the highest ranked firm(s).

Any less rigorous a process risks wasting both taxpayer dollars and adding fuel to the public’s sense that Los Angeles’ government is prone to favoritism and fundamentally corrupt.

Mark RyavecPresident
Venice Stakeholders Association

Correction

In Best of the Westside, Best Real Estate Team Reader Recommended should have been listed as such:

Team Tami
323 Culver Blvd
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
teamtami.com