By: Libi Uremovic | Original Article at patch.com
Written by Raymond W. Johnson from the Law Firm of Johnson & Sedlack
On September 3, 2013 Raymond W. Johnson, an Environmental Lawyer from the La Firm of Johnson & Sedlack, wrote a 19 page letter to the City of Beaumont on behalf of the Beaumont Citizens for Responsible Growth (BCRG) regarding the planned Hidden Canyon Warehouse Development. In the letter Johnson points out the aspects of the Project that are contrary to the law. Below is a summary
I. IMPROPER PIECEMEALING/SEGMENTATION
The Hidden Canyon Industrial Park project has been improperly piecemealed, foreclosing adequate environmental review.
The City must require preparation of a new EIR which evaluates the total effects of the whole project, including the Project, the Specific Plan Amendment, and the remaining portions of the 2012 project.
II. CEQA ANALYSIS MUST OCCUR; A NEW EIR IS NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT
The City proposes to prepare NO CEQA review or documentation for this Project. Preparation of no CEQA review is not an option legally available to the City.
A new EIR is needed because the project proposed is a new project. The site was approved and proposed for 2.89 million square feet of industrial warehousing was, in 1995 when the EIR was prepared, approved for 573 residences. The Planning Commission Staff Report acknowledged that the Specific Plan and related documents have been “essentially wholly replaced” since the 1995 EIR. Stated another way, the 1995 EIR did not concern this Project. A new initial study and, thereafter, a new EIR is essential to fully evaluate and disclose the impact of the whole project proposed by the applicant.
III. RELIANCE ON THE PRIOR ADDENDA IS IMPROPER AS IT DID NOT CONSIDER THIS PROJECT AND/OR THESE REQUESTED APPROVALS.
The Staff Report states that collectively the 1995 EIR, the 2005 Addendum, and the 2012 Addendum assessed the environmental impacts of the Project and subsequent implementation steps for a “very similar project” such that new CEQA review is unnecessary. The fact is that none of the EIR or Addenda considered the applications currently proposed or their potential environmental impacts. Reliance on the prior EIR and/or Addenda is improper.
The Staff Report also suggests that the Project proposes only “minor changes” to these projects not necessitating environmental review. A General Plan Amendment new Tentative Parcel Map, and new Development Agreement are not minor. The General Plan Amendment alters the General Plan and circulation and traffic within the City.
The General Plan Amendment alters the General Plan and circulation and traffic within the City, changing 4th Street from a Major Highway to an Industrial Collector (a 100’ ROW to a 78’ ROW). This change may also have major environmental implications. The study by Urban Crossroads in the Staff Report only accounts for average daily traffic volumes based on General Plan Buildout.
There is no study of impacts to levels of service, hazards, or road maintenance; and there is no evaluation of current impacts or impacts at Project completion. There is also no evaluation of potential land use, air quality, growth inducing, or other impacts which may be caused by this circulation change. Such impacts may be significant, and as such as General Plan Amendment is clearly not a minor change.
The changes to the TPM are also substantial. The proposed revised TPM removes the two open space Parcels compared to the 2012 Amendment and Addendum, reducing the 20.54 acres of open space to zero acres. The TPM also provides for four buildings (two buildings plus 2 building pads), compared to just two approved in the 2012 Amendment and Addendum.
IV. AT LEAST A SUBSEQUENT EIR IS NEEDE AS SIGNIFICANT CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED IN THE ALMOST 20 YEARS SINCE THE PREPARATION OF THE 1995 EIR.
An EIR was prepared in 1995 for the Project site, and is being relied on as this Project’s CEQA documentation. As discussed above, a new EIR is needed for this Project because the 1995 project differed entirely from the Project currently proposed. At the very least a subsequent EIR is necessary as the Project wholly changes the scope and nature of the proposed initial project preparation of the initial EIR; and new feasible mitigation is available.
Where a previous EIR exists for a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provides that a subsequent EIR must be prepared when an EIR has been certified and:
(1) subsequent changes are proposed in the project which wil require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
(2) subsequent changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revises of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or
(3) new information of substantial importance, which was now known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete shows additional significant effect not previously discussed.
Similar to the RWQCB, I cannot guarantee that each of the below mitigation measures is feasible for this Project absent environmental documentation, but to the extent that they are; they must be incorporated.
Construction Air Quality
Construction Traffic and Air Quality from Traffic Emissions
operational Air Quality Emissions
Health Risks Impacts from Diesel Fumes
Traffic Impacts
Light
Stormwater
Noise and Vibration
Biological Resources
Water Supply
Agriculture
V. THE LACK OF CEQA REVIEW FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CEQA’S INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS, AND WRONGLY DEFERS PREPARATION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, NEEDED STUDIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES.
The City improperly defers preparation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It is improper for the applicant to prepare a mitigation monitoring and reporting program after project approval and submit it to the Planning Director for approval. These documents must be available for public review and comment prior to project approval. The City also fails to evaluate, disclose, and mitigate for this Projects’ effects prior to consideration for approval.
VI. CONCLUSION
Overall, the City’s proposed action with respect to this Project is entirely contrary to the law. An EIR must be prepared for this Project and the whole action proposed by the applicant, and all feasible mitigation must be adopted for this Project.