Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority

Bad Law
160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1·2013 Cal. LEXIS 6645·2013 D.A.R. 10·57 Cal. 4th 439·2013 WL 3970107
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 5, 2013S202828California34,021 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Werdegar, J.

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…

Concurrence in Part

Baxter, J.

Enacted by the Legislature in 1970, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources *467 Code, 1 § 21000 et seq.) aims to enhance the environmental quality of the state and promote long-term protection of the environment. (§21001.) To achieve these objectives, CEQA establishes a comprehensive review process for analyzing the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project and assessing how such impacts might be mitigated. Inasmuch as the review process can be quite lengthy and involved, the Legislature has declared it our state policy that the public agencies responsible for carrying out the process must do so “in the most efficient, expeditious manner,” so as to conserve the available financial, governmental, and other resources for application toward mitigation efforts. (§ 21003, subd. (f).) It is also the Legislature’s intent that courts “shall not” interpret the statutory and regulatory requirements of CEQA “in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated in [CEQA] or in the state guidelines.” (§ 21083.1.)

The majority’s analysis of the baseline issue fails to honor these legislative prerogatives. 2 The…

Concurrence in Part

Liu, J.

I agree with the entirety of the court’s well-reasoned opinion except for the conclusion that the error in the environmental impact report (EIR) was not prejudicial. On this record, I cannot confidently infer that the EIR’s failure to measure impacts against a baseline of existing conditions did not deprive the public of relevant information about the project.

The court’s lucid analysis of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and applicable regulations firmly supports its holding that existing conditions comprise the normal baseline for measuring environmental impacts and that an agency may forgo analyzing impacts against a baseline of existing conditions only “if such an *479 analysis would be uninformative or misleading to decision makers and the public.” (Lead opn., ante, at p. 453, fn. omitted.) Further, in light of Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 , 226 P.3d 985 ], the court is correct that “an existing conditions analysis may take account of environmental conditions that will exist when the project begins operations; the agency is…

Opinion

Filed 8/5/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL, )

) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S202828 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/8 B232655

EXPOSITION METRO LINE )

CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY et al., ) ) Los Angeles County Defendants and Respondents; ) Super. Ct. No. BS125233 )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY )

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION )

AUTHORITY et al., ) ) Real Parties in Interest. ) ____________________________________)

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).

All statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise specified.

1 Plaintiff Neighbors for Smart Rail (Neighbors)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.