HB Neighbors

The HBN amended suit, filed on February 10, 2010, adds several elements to its initial seven causes of actions (points are preceded by “NEW!”):

ONE: FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

EIR: “No significant and unavoidable impacts related to land use and planning would occur.”

PETITION SAYS:

TRAFFIC

• EIR underestimated the Levels of Service at 10 out of 24 intersections.
• EIR does not consider the cumulative impact of the increased flow in the 10 intersections.
• EIR does not consider impact of buses to the proposed Cultural Arts Center.
• EIR does not consider increased trips to area because of increased density.

PARKING

• EIR traffic study took place in late August, 2007, after schools opened. The summer demographic is primarily 15 to 25-year olds.
• EIR does not consider subsequent new businesses and occupancy since 2007.
• EIR does not consider building vacancies in 2007 that would increase parking demands when occupied.
• EIR does not consider the unavailability of parking stalls/parking structures because of high fees.
• EIR does not encourage clustered use (Doctor’s offices near grocery stores) that might reduce parking/trips.
• EIR  does not consider Strand parking.
• Alternate parking solutions, such as valet and automated parking garages are not feasible because of insurance and queuing difficulties.
• EIR underestimates IN LIEU parking stalls.
• EIR does not address that reduction of minimum codes actually increased parking demands.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

• EIR does not identify the Main Street Library as an historical resource and therefore, the impacts to it.

LAND USE & PLANNING

• EIR does not address significant environmental impacts due to project’s inconsistencies with the General Plan.
• EIR does not provide for an Historical Resource Board as advisory.
• EIR does not address change of Library area from public to “downtown core mixed use.”
• EIR does not provide reasonable range of alternatives.
• EIR does not provide analysis of mitigation impacts
• Therefore, the Council did not provide adequate notice to residents in the actual area to be impacted.

TWO:  FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE IMPACTS

PETITION SAYS:

AESTHETICS

• EIR ignores impacts on scenic vistas of changes in lighting and addition of adjacent light and glare

NOISE

EIR survey of noise level was completed during non-peak mid-week at lunch time in December, 2008.

• EIR does not address impacts associated with an increase of 3 to 400,000 visitors to the area of a cultural center.
• EIR survey placed no noise monitor in the first 3 blocks of Main Street.
• EIR survey made no mention of existing noise (such as helicopters) that would increase with density.
• EIR survey did not address increased noise from increased traffic of buses, motorcycles, etc.

POPULATION/HOUSING

• EIR does not address that with population growth, density will exceed residential capacity.

UTILITIES & SERVICES

• EIR does not address impacts on water and infrastructure.
• NEW! EIR  estimation of solid waste impact dramatically underestimated.
• NEW! EIR does not examine construction waste impact.
• NEW! The Water Supply Assessment used by the EIR was not council approved.
• NEW! EIR provides no mitigation for reducing water consumption in landscape.
• NEW! EIR waste assessment fails to address impact of global warming on future water supply.
• NEW! EIR fails to adequately discuss foreseeable impacts of project.
• NEW! EIR should contain analysis to determine if project is consistent with all plans, such as the Water Allocation Plan.

PUBLIC SERVICES

• EIR provides no quantitative analysis of potential downtown growth impact on Police.
• EIR does not discuss impact of redesigned streets and more people on Fire response.
• EIR does not adequately address impact of high concentration of bars and restaurants.

NEW!  HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS WASTE

• NEW! EIR does not address project emissions within one quarter mile of existing or proposed schools.

AIR QUALITY

• NOx emissions are greater than South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds.
• Thresholds of ROG and PM10 will be exceeded by 40 to 45%.
• PM25 emissions will exceed national emission standards.
• NEW! EIR does not address toxic air contaminants within existing or future school areas.
• NEW! EIR does not address health risks based on South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations.
• NEW! Mitigation Measures (4.2-2, 4.2-3) do not include a performance standard.
• NEW! Mitigation Measure (4.2-7) only examines 5-minute idling and should also define “in use” and discuss monitoring options.
• NEW! Evidence does not support that project meets CA per capita goals in AB 32.
• NEW! EIR does not identify which project measures are consistent with CAT Report & CA Attorney General.
• EIR fails to adopt a threshold of significance required by CA Office of Panning.
• NEW! EIR should be consistent with mandatory on-site renewable energy requirements or be offset with energy credits.

GLOBAL WARMING

• EIR provides no analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts from vehicles, heating, cooling, or lighting.
• EIR analysis should have included construction emissions, vehicle trips, fugitive emissions (such as leaks), and waste.
• EIR does not address electrical generation and transmission or energy consumed by supplying water.
• EIR does not a full and adequate inventory of greenhouse gas emissions or if cumulatively significant.
• EIR does not provide mitigation possibilities.
• THEREFORE, the EIR is inadequate and deficient.

NOTICE

• NEW! The Project approval was based on written findings of outweighing benefits that are not supported by evidence and additionally respondents project approval was based on one or more unwritten findings.
• Respondents failed to make all written findings per impacts.
• Respondents failed to make findings required under Public Resource Guide.
• Those findings made are not supported by substantial evidence.
• No adequate notice given to area actually impacted.
• THEREFORE, the public was not adequately informed.
• NEW! EIR does not list any overriding benefits that might outweigh negative impacts.
• NEW! Respondents did not respond to comments (per CEQA Guidelines 15088b) as to why it did not consider an alternative or if the alternative were feasible.

 

THREE: IMPROPER PIECEMEALING OF PROJECT

PETITION SAYS:

• EIR reviews only one part of the project, which includes General Plan, Zone amendments, Local Coastal Program amendments, and Cultural Center and Library, which is unlawful piecemealing.

FOUR: IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN

PETITION SAYS:

• EIR recognizes project requires amendment of the General Plan, Zoning text, and Local Coastal Project, but fails to analyze environmental impacts of amendments.
• EIR cannot be adopted without amendments but amendments are inconsistent with objectives.
• EIR provides no impacts associated with such amendments.
• EIR does not provide the text of such amendments.

 

FIVE: FAILURE TO ANALYZE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PACIFIC CITY PROJECT

PETITION SAYS:

• Pacific City construction might occur simultaneous to the DTSP construction.

 

SIX: NO MITIGATION MEASURES

PETITION SAYS:

• EIR offers no mitigation measures for aesthetics, air quality, noise, parking, population / housing, public services creation, traffic, utilities/services.
• NEW! EIR should have examined different combinations of use.

 

SEVEN: REQUEST FOR RELIEF

PETITION SAYS:

City did not comply with CEQA regulations or provisions of the CEQA guidelines.