Judge Rules For City, SMC In PNA Lawsuit

Hannah Heineman
Mirror staff writer

   Superior Court Judge Terry B. Friedman ruled on February 21 that the City of Santa Monica’s approval of Santa Monica College’s 486-space replacement parking structure was “in accord with all applicable law and that there was substantial evidence to support the City’s approval.”
   The judge’s decision rejected the lawsuit filed by the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) against the City and the college, which alleged that the traffic data in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contained “severe errors and omissions” and therefore violated California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which “requires accurate and thorough traffic studies” in EIRs.
   Friedman ruled that the traffic studies performed by Kaku Associates for the EIR were “appropriate and exhaustive” because they analyzed “every peripheral intersection to which nearly every vehicle traveling through the Pico Neighborhood must come.” He also concluded that the City’s decision to use the traffic baseline from the parking structure that was destroyed in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, rather than actual traffic counts taken on the ground, was “a reasonable way to analyze the impact” of its replacement.
   The decision also rejected PNA’s contention that a subsequent study of Pico Neighborhood traffic for speed bumps should have been part of the parking structure’s approval process because, the court said, it “was conducted after the City approved the project.”
   In addition, Friedman’s decision stated that the Campus Trip Distribution Pattern study of the routes students drive to the campus — done by the College — established “that the overwhelming majority of students [enter] the campus from streets that do not impact the Pico Neighborhood.”
   Finally, Friedman outlined the opportunities the Pico neighborhood residents can derive from living near SMC and stated, “Such benefits cannot be available, however, without the acceptance of some inconvenience and detriment.”
   Don Gray, Vice-Chair of PNA, felt the judge’s decision was “not based upon the law but rather on the benefits the College gives to the community.” He went on to say that Friedman was “unwilling to overturn a decision by an elected body. For anyone looking to the courts for protection of the environment it won’t happen. Individuals need to take charge themselves.” He then stated PNA wouldn’t be appealing the decision because of the high costs of litigation.
   PNA’s Chair, Peter Tigler, told the Mirror, “When you push the technical jargon, lawyering, and elliptical reasoning aside, the fact remains, our neighborhood streets were not in the study, period. Every resident understands that. Most will see what those of us living around the college know all too well...and that is that Santa Monica College doesn’t care one iota about its neighbors and did what it pleased. And, the City of Santa Monica aided and abetted.”
   The attorney who represented the City in the suit, Cara Silver, said, “This decision confirms once again that the City takes its CEQA obligations seriously and dutifully follows proper CEQA procedures.”
   SMC’s attorney, Tom Larmore of Harding, Larmore, Kutcher and Kozal, was pleased with the lawsuit’s outcome. He felt the “judge gave a thoughtful opinion…[and] made it clear why he ruled the way he did.” Larmore added, “The law was on our side.”
   PNA was seeking a writ of mandate through the lawsuit to require that a supplemental EIR be prepared so that College would have to comply with whatever traffic mitigations were recommended.
   Construction of the parking structure is nearly complete.