Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Constr. Auth.

• Decision Date: 05 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. S202828.,S202828.
• Citation: 304 P.3d 499,160 Cal.Rptr.3d 1,57 Cal.4th 439
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY et al., Defendants and Respondents; Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., Real Parties in Interest.

57 Cal.4th 439
304 P.3d 499
160 Cal.Rptr.3d 1

NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY et al., Defendants and Respondents;
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. S202828.

Supreme Court of California

Aug. 5, 2013.

See 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, § 840 et seq.

160 Cal.Rptr.3d 6]Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside, John M. Bowman and C.J. Laffer, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Alexander T. Henson, Carmel Valley, for Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nossaman, Robert D. Thornton, John J. Flynn III, Robert C. Horton, Irvine, Lauren C. Valk and Lloyd W. Pellman, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.

Cole Pedroza, Curtis A. Cole, Kenneth R. Pedroza and Matthew S. Levinson, Pasadena, for Associated General Contractors of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Marcia L. Scully, Los Angeles, Adam C. Kear; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Lisabeth D. Rothman, Los Angeles, and Amy M. Steinfeld, Santa Barbara, for Association of California Water Agencies as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin and John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Ronald W. Stamm, Principal Deputy County Counsel; Remy Moose Manley, Tiffany K. Wright, Sabrina V. Teller, Sacramento, and Amanda R. Berlin for Real Parties in Interest.

Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, Tiffany K. Wright, Sacramento; Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, Bradley R. Hogin and Ricia R. Hager, Costa Mesa, for Southern California Association of Governments, Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Joaquin Council of Governments, Madera County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority and San Francisco County Transportation Authority as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Michael H. Zischke, Andrew B. Sabey, Rachel R. Jones, San Francisco; Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney (Los Angeles), Andrew J. Nocas, Timothy McWilliams and Siegmund Shyu, Deputy City Attorneys; Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney (Santa Monica), Joseph Lawrence, Deputy City Attorney; Carol Schwab, City Attorney (Culver City); John F. Krattli, County [160 Cal.Rptr.3d 7]Counsel (Los Angeles), Thomas J. Faugnan, Assistant County Counsel, and Helen S. Parker, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Culver City and City of Santa Monica as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest.

Kurt R. Wiese, Barbara B. Baird and Veera Tyagi, Temecula, for South Coast Air Quality Management District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest.

Sedgwick, Anna C. Shimko, Matthew D. Francois and Sigrid R. Waggener, San Francisco, for California Building Industry as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest.

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Robert S. Perlmutter, San Francisco, and Maya Kuttan for Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity as Amicus Curiae.

WERDEGAR, J.

[304 P.3d 504

[57 Cal.4th 445]This case presents a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) ¹ to the approval by defendant exposition metro liNE CONSTRUCTION Authority (Expo Authority) of a project to construct a light-rail line running from Culver City to Santa Monica. Once completed, the transit line is to be operated by real party in interest Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

Plaintiff Neighbors for Smart Rail (Neighbors) contends the Expo Authority's environmental impact report (the EIR) for the project is deficient in two respects: (1) by exclusively employing an analytic baseline of conditions in the year 2030 to assess likely impacts on traffic congestion and air quality, the EIR fails to disclose the effects the project will have on existing environmental conditions in the project area; and (2) the EIR fails to incorporate mandatory and enforceable mitigation measures for potentially significant spillover parking effects in the neighborhoods of certain planned rail stations.

We agree with Neighbors on its first claim, but not on its second. (1) While an agency has the discretion under some circumstances to omit environmental analysis of impacts on existing conditions and instead use only a baseline of projected future conditions, existing conditions “will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a).) A departure from this norm can be justified by substantial evidence that an analysis based on existing conditions would tend to be misleading or without informational value to EIR users. Here, however, the Expo Authority fails to demonstrate the existence of such evidence in the administrative record. (2) The EIR's mitigation measure for spillover parking effects satisfied CEQA's requirements by including enforceable mandates for actions by MTA and the Expo Authority, as well as planned actions to be implemented by the municipalities responsible for parking regulations on streets near the planned rail stations. (§ 21081, subd. (a); Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15091.)

[57 Cal.4th 446]Although we conclude the EIR fails to satisfy CEQA's requirements in the first respect claimed, we also conclude the agency's abuse of discretion was nonprejudicial. Under the particular facts of this case, the agency's examination of certain environmental impacts only on projected year 2030 conditions, and not on existing [160 Cal.Rptr.3d 8]environmental conditions, did not deprive the agency or the

[304 P.3d 505]

public of substantial relevant information on those impacts. ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 485–486, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28, 187 P.3d 888.) We will therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the superior court's denial of Neighbors's petition for writ of mandate.

Factual and Procedural Background

Formally known as phase 2 of the Exposition Corridor Transit Project (Expo Phase 2), the project at issue consists of a light-rail transit line running from a station in Culver City (the western terminus of phase 1, which connects to downtown Los Angeles), through the Westside area of the City of Los Angeles, to a terminus in Santa Monica. The project's purpose is to provide high-capacity transit service between the Westside area of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, thereby accommodating population and employment growth in the area, improving mobility for the large population of transit-dependent Westside residents, providing an alternative to the area's congested roadways, and enhancing access to downtown Los Angeles, Culver City, Santa Monica, and other destinations in the corridor.

The Expo Authority issued a notice of preparation of an EIR for Expo Phase 2 in February 2007, circulated a draft EIR for public comment in January 2009, and published its final EIR in December 2009. In February 2010, it certified the EIR's compliance with CEQA, selected the transit mode and route recommended in the EIR, and approved the Expo Phase 2 project.

Neighbors petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate, alleging the Expo Authority's approval of Expo Phase 2 violated CEQA in several respects. The superior court denied the petition in full, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting all of Neighbors's CEQA claims on the merits. We granted Neighbors's petition for review, which raised only two issues: the propriety of the Expo Authority's exclusive use of a future conditions baseline for assessment of the project impacts on traffic and air quality, and the adequacy of the mitigation measure the Expo Authority adopted for possible impacts on street parking near planned transit stations. We resolve those two issues below.

[57 Cal.4th 447]Discussion I. Use of Future Conditions as a Baseline for Analysis of Project Impacts²

The fundamental goal of an EIR is to inform decision makers and the public of any significant adverse effects a project is likely to have on the physical environment. (§ 21061; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 428, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709.) To make such an assessment, an EIR must delineate environmental conditions prevailing absent the project, defining a “baseline” against which predicted effects can be described and quantified. ( Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 315, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502, 226 P.3d 985( Communities for a Better Environment ).) The question posed here is whether that baseline may consist solely of conditions projected to exist absent[160 Cal.Rptr.3d 9]the project at a date in the distant future or whether the EIR must include an analysis of the project's significant impacts on measured conditions existing at the time the environmental analysis is performed.

The Expo Authority's chosen analytic method and its stated reasons for that choice will be described in detail below; suffice it here to say the agency first projected the traffic and air quality conditions that would exist in the project area in the year 2030, then estimated the effect that operation of the Expo Phase 2 transit line would have on those...