Court Hears PNA Lawsuit Monday

Hannah Heineman
Mirror Staff writer

   A lawsuit filed by the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) against the City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica College (SMC), which challenges the traffic data in the City’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the College’s new 486-space parking structure, was heard in the Santa Monica Superior Court on Monday.
   Superior Court Judge Terry B. Friedman stated at the conclusion of the hearing that both sides would be notified about his decision through the mail. Attorneys estimated that it could take anywhere from 7 to 30 days for the judge to make his decision.
   Stating that “this is a case about excessive traffic in a limited area creating enormous environmental impacts,” PNA’s attorney Lee Grant argued that the traffic data in the EIR contained “severe errors and omissions” and therefore violated California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which “requires accurate and thorough traffic studies” in EIRs.
   He pointed out that the 750 cars per day figure cited in the EIR that was approved by the City Council in October 2000 was underestimated by five or six times because it was a “concocted” figure not based on actual traffic counts taken on the ground. He went on to say that when actual ground counts were taken in March and April of 2001 for a City study on the need for speed bumps in the area, they showed 4,200 cars per day.
   Grant also pointed out that the EIR traffic study did not include any analysis of the traffic at the intersections of 17th, 18th or 19th Streets and Delaware and Michigan Avenues north of Pico Boulevard, while all intersections south of Pico were studied. He added that many residents of the Pico Neighborhood have low or moderate incomes, while Sunset Park, south of Pico, is a more affluent neighborhood – which suggests this is “a case of the haves and the have nots.”
   City Attorney Cara Silver, who worked with the College’s attorneys Chris Harding and Tom Larmore from the firm of Harding, Larmore, Kutcher and Kozal, responded that the traffic consultant who did the studies for the City, Kaku Associates, chose the intersections to study based upon information that tracked the routes “students were expected” to travel to SMC, which showed that only 14 percent of the students were expected to approach the campus from the north, while 39 percent would travel south to the college on Cloverfield Boulevard after exiting the 10 freeway west and 7 percent would enter from the south. She added that the consultant did not study the intersections at Delaware and Michigan Avenues because he “analyzed the intersections of 17th and Pico and 17th and Olympic Boulevard,” which are part of the north to south trip on 17th street to the College, and no impact was demonstrated on those streets.
   Silver then explained that the consultant arrived at the 750 cars per day figure by taking existing conditions contained in the City’s Master Environmental Assessment (a document designed for use when preparing EIRs) and factoring in the larger capacity of the new structure. It also took into account the fact that the structure was being relocated, she said, and the cumulative environment impacts of all the other projects in this area.
   Silver also argued that CEQA only requires a traffic study “to take a snapshot of a certain condition” at a certain moment in time. Therefore, the traffic study cited by Grant that was done in 2001 for speed bumps was not relevant here because it was done after the EIR was approved.
   PNA has pursued the lawsuit eventhough the new parking structure is nearly complete, because, as PNA chair Peter Tigler told the Mirror before the hearing, PNA is seeking a writ of mandate that “would require that a supplemental EIR be prepared” so that the College would have to comply with whatever mitigations “stem from that study.”
   Tigler noted that while Grant took the case on a pro bono basis, the organization has spent thousands of dollars on filing fees and documents.