Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles
(2024) (Case No. B320547)
In Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the City of Los Angeles’ compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when processing its Westside Mobility Plan. This decision, published in August 2024, upheld the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the City Planning Commission, finding the Commission was a proper decision-making body under CEQA. The decision also validated the City’s reliance on a categorical exemption and rejected claims that the EIR failed to adequately address growth-inducing impacts and the implementation of mitigation measures.
Background
The Los Angeles City Council directed its Department of Transportation and Department of City Planning to prepare a study addressing traffic congestion and mobility challenges on the Westside, an area historically reliant on cars. Of relevance here, the resulting Westside Mobility Plan included updates to the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan (CTCSP), the West Side Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (WLA TIMP), and the Livable Boulevards Streetscape Plan (Streetscape Plan).
The CTCSP and WLA TIMP initially were adopted in 1985 and 1997, respectively, to create a transportation impact assessment (TIA) fee program requiring developers to pay a one-time fee before obtaining building, grading, or foundation permits, with the funds allocated to transportation improvements necessary to mitigate impacts from new developments in the designated areas. In response to the direction from the City Council, staff updated the fee program within the CTCSP and WLA TIMP by revising the TIA fees, extending fees to previously exempt land uses, offering credits for affordable and transit-oriented developments, and updating the lists of transportation improvements to be funded. These updates, referred to in the Court’s decision and within this summary as the Fee Program Updates, were designed to ensure that implementation of the transportation improvements would align with the approved Streetscape Plan. The Fee Program Updates and Streetscape Plan make up the “Project” at issue.
In 2015, the City published a draft EIR for the Fee Program Updates. After a 60-day review period, the final EIR was published, identifying significant impacts on air quality, noise, and transportation, despite the Fee Program Updates also being deemed statutorily exempt from CEQA.
In 2018, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (CPC) certified the final EIR, determined that statutory and categorical exemptions also applied, adopted the Streetscape Plan, and recommended the Fee Program Updates for approval to the City Council. The City then filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) and a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the Project.
The appellant challenged the CPC’s actions on these three components (CTCSP, WLA TIMP, and Streetscape Plan) of the Westside Mobility Plan. The appellant argued the City violated CEQA by failing to properly analyze the environmental impacts of the Project and by wrongfully delegating authority to the CPC to certify the EIR.
Key Issues
- Whether the CPC was authorized to certify the EIR.
- Whether the Streetscape Plan was correctly classified as categorically exempt under CEQA.
- Whether the EIR sufficiently addressed growth-inducing impacts and the implementation of mitigation measures.
Appellate Court’s Findings
CPC’s Authority
The appellant argued that the CPC was not a “decision-making body” for the Project and thus lacked the authority to certify the EIR. The appellant contended that only the entity (the City Council) authorized to implement the component of the Project causing the “primary source” of environmental impacts—the Fee Program Updates—could certify the EIR. The appellant emphasized that while the CPC could adopt the Streetscape Plan, it could not adopt the Fee Program Updates, which were within the City Council’s exclusive authority.
The Court rejected this argument, stating that, under the CEQA Guidelines, a “decision-making body” is any entity permitted by law to commit the agency to a definite course of action for the whole of a project, even if multiple approvals are required. Additionally, the Court observed that CEQA permits a non-elected decision-making body within a lead agency to certify EIRs.
Here, the Court held the CPC was authorized to certify the EIR because it had the power to adopt a key component of the Project, the Streetscape Plan, which was intertwined with the Fee Program Updates. The Court further noted that nothing in CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines supported the appellant’s “primary source” argument, such that application of their proposed delegation test would improperly expand CEQA in violation of Public Resources Code section 21083.1.
Categorical Exemption
The City had determined that the Streetscape Plan was categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15301, which applies to minor alterations of existing public structures with negligible or no expansion of use. The Court agreed, finding that substantial evidence affirmed the City’s conclusion that the Streetscape Plan’s improvements, such as adding street trees, lighting, and pedestrian crossings, fell within this exemption. The Court noted that the Streetscape Plan would establish standards and guidelines for minor alterations to existing rights-of-way that would improve their aesthetics, functionality, and safety, but would not expand the use of those rights-of-way.
The appellant challenged application of this exemption, arguing that the Streetscape Plan might have significant environmental impacts due to “unusual circumstances.” However, the Court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the Streetscape Plan would have such impacts. The Court concluded that the City met its burden of proving the exemption applied, and the appellant did not show that the Streetscape Plan fell within any exceptions to the exemption. As a result, the Court upheld the City’s finding that the Streetscape Plan was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Growth-Inducing Impacts & Mitigation Measures
The appellant argued that the EIR’s analysis of the Fee Program Updates’ growth-inducing impacts was inadequate. The EIR concluded that the Fee Program Updates would improve existing infrastructure without causing additional growth. The appellant claimed the EIR ignored concerns about potential incentives for affordable housing and transit-oriented developments. However, the City’s record of proceedings included evidence explaining that the Fee Program Updates would not change zoning or land use designations, and any incentives provided would not significantly impact existing or future development patterns. The Court was persuaded by the robustness of the City’s record evidence on this topic.
Finally, regarding Mitigation Measure MM-T-2, the appellant asserted that the City failed to ensure its proper implementation. The Court disagreed, finding that the City had provided substantial evidence that the measure would be funded through TIA fees and implemented based on identifiable traffic conditions, as outlined in project-specific studies. The Court held that the City’s approach was consistent with CEQA requirements, and found the appellant failed to show that the EIR’s analysis was deficient or that the City had not complied with its obligations under CEQA.
Conclusion
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles, thereby upholding the City’s CEQA compliance demonstration for its Westside Mobility Plan. While it does not necessarily break new ground, the decision addresses several practical realities of the CEQA process and its analysis of delegated decision-making authority, the CEQA Guidelines’ Class 1 categorical exemption, and growth inducement and mitigation adequacy within EIRs may be useful to CEQA practitioners grappling with similar issues.
[This alert does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or responding to this alert. Legal counsel should be sought for answers to specific legal questions.]