In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 223, the Second District held that the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission (“Commission”) was a decision-making body authorized to certify the final EIR for the entirety of the Westside Mobility Plan (“Mobility Plan”). The Court found that this authority existed because the Commission had authority to adopt one of the Mobility Plan components, the Livable Boulevards Streetscape Plan (the “Streetscape Plan”), and the other Mobility Plan components were separate but intertwined with the Streetscape Plan. The Court also found substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that the Streetscape Plan itself was exempt from CEQA under the existing facilities categorical exemption, and that the unusual circumstances exception did not apply. The Court also upheld the analysis of growth-inducing impacts and inclusion of a transportation-related mitigation measure in the EIR prepared for the other elements of the Mobility Plan.
Background
The Mobility Plan was developed to facilitate solutions for congestion and mobility issues. Updates to three of the Mobility Plan’s six components were at issue in the present case: the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan and Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (collectively, the “Fee Program Updates”), and the Streetscape Plan.
The Fee Program Updates were adopted to revise a transportation impact assessment fee program (“TIA Program”) that funds transportation improvements by requiring developers to pay one-time fees to the City of Los Angeles (“City”). The Fee Program Updates included credits for affordable housing developments, among other updates. The City prepared an EIR, which noted its analysis was limited to the potential impacts of the Fee Program Updates only, further noting that the related Streetscape Plan, intended to provide guidance for street functionality and improve pedestrian and bicycle experiences and safety, was exempt from CEQA.
The Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging actions taken by the Commission. The trial court entered judgment in the City’s favor and Petitioner appealed.
The Commission had Authority to Certify the Final EIR
The Commission, which was authorized to adopt the Streetscape Plan but not the other components of the Mobility Plan, nonetheless certified the EIR for the Mobility Plan as a whole. The Court noted that a lead agency’s elected decision making body may delegate authority to certify an EIR to a non-elected decision making body permitted to “commit an agency to a definite course of action” for a project. Petitioner argued that the Commission was not a decision making body for the Mobility Plan because it lacked authority to adopt the Fee Program Updates, urging a different analysis for multicomponent projects such as the Mobility Plan. The Court declined to adopt Petitioner’s approach. Because the Commission could commit the City to a definite course of action by virtue of its authority to adopt the Streetscape Plan, and the Streetscape Plan and Fee Program Updates were “separate but intertwined components” of the Mobility Plan, the Court concluded that the Commission had authority to certify the final EIR.
The Streetscape Plan was Categorically Exempt Under Section 15301
The Court found that the Streetscape Plan qualified for a categorical exemption because it did not propose any changes that would expand or alter the use of streets in the area. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, a project that involves existing facilities and would allow only “negligible or no expansion” of the existing or former use is exempt from CEQA. The Court found that the Streetscape Plan required only minor changes to existing rights-of-way. Though Petitioner argued that the EIR’s statement of overriding considerations acknowledged significant and unavoidable impacts, the Court found that these did not result from the Streetscape Plan.
Moreover, the Court held that Petitioner did not demonstrate that the unusual circumstances exception applied, which renders a categorical exemption inapplicable when “there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” While Petitioner argued that the Fee Program Updates would have a significant effect, the Court noted that Petitioner had not shown that the Streetscape Plan would as well.
The EIR’s Growth Inducement Analysis was Adequate
Petitioner argued that the Mobility Plan’s EIR failed to adequately analyze growth-inducing impacts or respond to comments on the topic. The City had responded to those comments, explaining that the area covered by the Mobility Plan was already a developed urban area, and that the Fee Program Updates would simply enhance existing transportation in an area with sufficient existing infrastructure. The Fee Program Updates were also not land use plans and would not change existing zoning or general land use designations. Moreover, the affordable housing credits offered were not a sufficient inducement to increase the development of affordable housing in the area. The Court found this to be an adequate response and analysis.
Adequacy of Transportation Mitigation Measure
Finally, Petitioner argued that the EIR failed to ensure implementation of a mitigation measure for transportation impacts because no funding source was identified. The Court disagreed, pointing to statements in the EIR that the mitigation measure would be funded through TIA fees and that implementation would be required if certain development conditions were met. Specifically, the mitigation measure would be applied when other projects on the Fee Program Update lists are implemented and the projects divert traffic onto adjacent residential streets as determined through project-specific traffic studies based on Los Angeles Department of Transportation policies and procedures. The Court found substantial evidence supported a finding that the mitigation measure was enforceable.
Key Takeaways
- A lead agency’s decision-making body can delegate EIR certification authority to a nonelected decision-making body with authority to commit the agency to a definite course of action, even where the project has multiple components and is subject to multiple discretionary approvals.
- The existing facilities categorical exemption can apply to citywide plans.
[View source.]
