In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision upholding an EIR and CEQA exemptions for several actions implementing the City of Los Angeles’ Westside Mobility Plan.
Background
The Westside Mobility Plan is a comprehensive study that was undertaken by the City of Los Angeles to develop potential short-term solutions and long-term plans addressing congestion and mobility challenges within that part of the city. In 2018, the city’s planning commission took actions to implement three of the six components of the Mobility Plan. These actions included (1) amendments to transportation impact assessment fee programs for two existing specific plans (Fee Program Updates); and (2) adoption of a Streetscape Plan setting guidelines and standards for streetscape elements such as street trees and landscaping, sidewalk paving, street lighting, and pedestrian crossings for the Mobility Plan area. While the Fee Program Updates and Streetscape Plan are largely separate, implementation of the Streetscape Plan could be funded through the transportation impact fees included in the Fee Program Updates.
The city prepared an EIR for the Fee Program Updates, which noted that the Mobility Plan’s other components, including the Streetscape Plan, were exempt from CEQA. The planning commission subsequently certified the EIR and also determined that the Fee Program Updates were statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA.
The petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the planning commission’s authority to certify the EIR, the adequacy of the EIR, and the use of CEQA exemptions. The trial court denied the petition. The petitioner appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal first considered whether the planning commission had authority to certify the EIR. The petitioner argued that for a multi-component project like this, only the entity authorized to implement the component constituting the “primary source” of the project’s environmental impacts has the authority to certify the EIR, and that here, the primary source of the project’s impacts was the Fee Program Updates, which could only be approved by the City Council. The court disagreed.
The court explained that under CEQA and the CEQA Gudelines, a non-elected decision-making body within a local agency (like the planning commission here) may certify an EIR. The court further found that, taken together, the applicable Guidelines establish that a “decision-making body” is any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to commit an agency to a definite course of action for a project. Accordingly, rather than asking whether the entity can implement the portion of the project constituting “the primary source” of the project’s environmental effects, as suggested by the petition, the relevant question is whether the entity at issue can make a decision that commits the agency to a definite course of action with respect to the whole project, even if the project is subject to multiple discretionary approvals. Here, given the overlap between the Fee Program Updates and the Streetscape Plan, the court concluded that, by virtue of its power to adopt the Streetscape Plan, the planning commission could make a decision committing the City to a definite course of action in regard to the project (both the Fee Program Updates and the Streetscape Plan), even though further discretionary action by the City Council (i.e., adoption of the Fee Program Updates) was required to implement it.
The court next turned to the question of whether the Streetscape Plan falls within the scope of the Class 1 categorical exemption for minor alterations of existing facilities with negligible or no expansion of use. Answering in the affirmative, the court found that the Streetscape Plan, which includes standards for various streetscape elements, would result in only minor alterations to existing rights-of way that would improve aesthetics, functionality, and safety rather than expand their use.
The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the Streetscape Plan did not meet the requirements of the Class 1 categorical exemption because the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to the Fee Program Updates due to air quality, noise and vibration and transportation. The court explained that neither the EIR nor the city’s Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the improvements to be implemented as part of the Streetscape Plan, or more importantly, addressed whether the Streetscape Plan involved an expansion of use of an existing facility.
In relation to the EIR, the court observed that the petitioner appeared to be arguing that the EIR’s growth-inducing impact analysis was deficient because it failed to address concerns that the project would spur economic and population growth or directly or indirectly result in the construction of new housing raised in two comments received on the draft EIR. Despite the lack of clarity, the court nevertheless rejected the petitioner’s assertion. The court noted that the city addressed these concerns in the final EIR, concluding in responses to comments that the Fee Program Update would not induce growth. The court further noted that the petitioner had not raised any issues with the final EIR’s responses to the comments.
Finally, the petitioner argued that the EIR was insufficient because it failed to ensure how a neighborhood protection program, required as mitigation for the Fee Program Updates, would be funded. The court disagreed. The EIR specified that the program would be funded through fees obtained from the Fee Program Updates and the mitigation measure included specific thresholds that would trigger implementation of the program.
– Adam Nir