Americana EIR under scrutiny

Josh Kleinbaum

Five months after first criticizing the environmental impact report

for the Americana at Brand, opponents of the retail and residential

project say they have found a pattern of carelessness in the review.

Opponents of the project, which will be subject of a citywide vote

Sept. 14, say that criticism levied by the county’s planning

department at Impact Sciences, which performed the review, mirrors

their accusations.

Daryl Koutnik, supervising regional planner for the county, said

that Impact Science’s biological unit performed unsatisfactory work

in two reports, including inaccurate species identification and

poorly timed surveys. The county’s planning director sent a letter to

Impact Sciences about the reports in May.

The county’s criticism focused only on the company’s biological

unit, which did not work on the Americana report, and officials from

the city and Impact Sciences said they stand by the Americana report.

“When you work on a controversial project, this kind of thing

comes up,” said Tony Locacciato, a principal with Impact Sciences.

“It was specifically a letter about two biology reports, stand-alone

biology reports that don’t have anything to do with our

[environmental report] work.”

But the project’s opponents, led by Glendale Galleria owner

General Growth Properties, claim that the county’s criticism mirrors

their criticism of the Americana report. General Growth, Big 5

Sporting Goods and Better Foods Land Investment Co. have all sued the

city, challenging the EIR.

“It’s consistent with concerns that we’ve had with the

thoroughness of the [environmental report], if not directly relevant,

because the same kinds of issues are the kinds we’re worried about,”

said Amy Forbes, an attorney representing General Growth. “We think

Impact Sciences did a bad job. There were a lot of people who stood

up and said it’s a bad [environmental report].”

In its lawsuit, General Growth claims that the report fails to

identify old Fire Station 21 as a historic building, underestimates

traffic generated by the project, does not account for special events

in parking studies and does not seriously consider General Growth’s

proposed alternative.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge will consider the merits

of the lawsuit at a hearing Nov. 17.

“Am I concerned with the job that Impact Sciences did?” said

Philip Lanzafame, assistant director of development services. “I

think it is a thorough report. It’s well-documented. We had our

professional staff review it in each of their disciplines, and we had

the public review it. I think we pretty much fleshed out anything

that was of question.”

Despite the criticism, Impact Sciences remains on the county’s

list of recommended consultants to perform environmental reviews,

Koutnik said. He said the most frequent criticism of Impact Sciences

is that the company over-analyzes in its report, and sometimes

important information gets buried.

“In general, they’re very thorough in their analyses that they

prepare,” Koutnik said. “We’ve had very good working relationships

with Impact Sciences. Even in this instance, when we critiqued their

reports and wrote the letter to them, they responded and appreciated

the comments.”