Professional Documents
Culture Documents
lEl..E.l'HOtlt.
<1).,,?l1.Z5UJ
JOHN F. KRATTL!
June 6, 2012
(21))
'00
(II J) 0).)J.0')01
M t\Jl
oIoo.-..v.iI-""""
TO:
FROM:
RlClIARD P. CHASTANG
JU>C:rww
Enclosure(s)
<'"harks M. Saf.:r IW/OlI1 encl. ) Sandra Gonzales (w1enc l. ) Re becca Madera (w/cncl. )
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RONALD STAMM
Principal Deputy County COUll",,]
fPC
Rh:
llEVERLY HllJ$ "(;:"IIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT \. LACI\1TA; FEDERAL TR"-"\"SIT AD\'lINISTRA.TlON Case "fo. "8S1J7606
rhe attached. Cil';e is forwarded to 1'011 for handlm s ARMIS munhcr will be obtained from Eka1l0T Kagan from the Hall.
RPC:rww
c:
Eleanor Kagan
Metro
Interoffice Memo
DATE;
June 6, 2012
TO;
FROM:
County Counsel
Linda Hoi/ett, Legat Services
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REceiPT OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I ceOA)
SUBJECT;
the dorument
Entitled:
_ _ _ _ _
St..J,g
Print name
Date
Sigmilure
Badge number
Department
IN0
COMMENTS:
l'[cusc relurll OllC of tJlls letter to Ihls office so that we mil)' bllvc t ,'ldencc tha t docum ent hn been ltg:llly sCHcd. Thank
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICe TO DEFENDANT: LOS ANGEI..ES COUNTY ME'[ROPOLrTMI (AVISOAl DEIIIANOAD01: TR.>.NSPORTlI.TlON AU'l'lICRU'Y, DOES I
'l"lfROUGH 21).
J\
fh .... . j f..;"
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PU.IHTlFf; BEVTIILY UNIFIED (LO EsrA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): SCHOO:" DISTRICT
liAY 301011
CQu :ct
2.
MIIH:_
3.
gn
I><>Il'" of (<pocifr):
,.
,.",...
: crR'1 S, 10 (oor;>onllion\
i CCP 16.Xl (o3el'unct C(lfjlOr/ltionJ
J
4
,
7
8
HILl., FARmR &: Rl!RRIU. lLP Kevin H. Brogan (Bar No. Dean E.lknni.s (&11\0. 1126 16) Palll M. Pone:.- (Bar No. ISS8S2) On;: California PlaT.a, 371h F1aor 300 South Grand Avcnu= Lo. Angeles, CA 9C0713J 47 Telephone: (2\3) 6200460 Fu: (213) 624-4840
AUomcys for
BEVERLY lllLLS
10
11 Bl'V ERI.V HILLS UNIfiED SCHOO L DlSTRlCT,
hnti onCf.
\'S.
CASE NO.
Jl
JJ
14
15
21167,
16 17
18
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMI.'iSTKATION, DOES 21 through lO,
19
13
" " 26
27
"
3
9 5
I;-iTRODlJCTION
I.
Beverly Hills Unilioo Sch,,,,] District ("BIlUSD") nrings this action because the
,
8
hurry the dcci,ion through without awaiting full and (;()mplete information needed by the decision
Statmllenti Env; mnmenta! imjXlct Report ("EIS/ErR") and the clo,e of the ..S-day CEQA public comm ent pe riod, the Metro concluded that il did 001 have enough in[urmaii,,"utxml the
10
'
,jil!l
l i '!,l
U 1I!"p
!
11
geologic and seismic condition! of the Century City area (0 mah a deci.,ion on the two remaining vc alignment, and .,tation locations: (1) either a mule along Santa Monica Boulevard to a station under that .I",et 's median on the north
13
19 15
"
QJ:
High School campti. to a ,Iation at COI,.,tellation Boulevard_ (llecause the subway tunnd must
"
17 18 19
,urface
Exactly a ycar later, in Octob er 2011, Metro relea,ed it, ,Iudie., roncluding not
00
20
21
only that active faulting underlay the proposed locations ,tation infeasibl e, hut als" that
12
23
29
This obviously implicated the fidnciary re'lxmsibilily "fthe BHUSD Board which ordered ,t, own, more detailed and in depth , ei,mic studies of the local arca. Indeed, .\letro's studies set off
a flurry of seismic investigations by the \jelm, BHUSD, the City ofBcvcrly Hill" the California
Geologic Survey, and C,S, Geologic Snl'.'ey, which has produced no o<:tohtr 2011. And Ihan nin e report' sillCe
25 26 27 28
are more to come as th e sci entific re,,,,,rch continues 011 this oomplex
,2
\fUlFlED
co",u.<",,'f '.111"
PlJBLl:'
1 2
l
4
4.
investigation
\forfXIver,
detailed pnysical dating (If the >oils, deep borings and open trending of did not include any soil
01 trenching
,
,
8 0
deadlines; th ey nave implications not "nly for Metro's subw"\, and Bcvnly Hill, High School but als" for numerous other landholders and .,takd lOld. r., wh" liw llnd work in Century City area.
5.
Despite BHL'SD',I
that MetrD
to be wmpleted and to allow the geologi.<b the pushed fOf,vard QIl!b e most
10
schedule possible. As such, wh.:n the time came for a final vote, the decision makers and the public lacked complete infonnation on which to base a dctennination under CEQA, making the halt:baked analysis Mctro reliCti upon IcgaUy deficient. 6, Mctro was legally oound to take inl'Cstigation, whenever it WIIS
..
11 12
'''lP "11,1
,
13 14 15 16 17
2i ;
";
complete, create a supplemental report and recirculate It (0 the public tor agency and public commcnt ];l1(ru: reaching its decision. If the Metro did not have enough inlonnation in
;;1< 3
October 2010, l!f!g the close of the public eomment period, to make an infonned decision about the location of the Century City station, Metro cannot reasonably contend the publie had adequate infonnatioll for n meaningful opportunity to COnllnellt prior to that date. Metro was dUly-boulld
to circulate this inf()nnalion when complded for meaningful public ioput.
19
'"
de>pite
20
21
repeated requests that Metro comply with CEQA, create a '1.Ipp\ememal document and recirculate E IR/E IS for public comment 7, Final!}, :'>fetm certifying it, Metro refused_ an out-of-tbc-bluc Addendum on the day of the final
22
23 24
hearing that made changes to the Final EIS/ElR that wcrctoo substantial to M included in an Addendnm (a as part of" 8_ which i, again not circulated to the public) and which EIS/EIR. ond recirculation of a document containing significant new it is a typical and necessary part of the compliance with CEQA I
rA' "mom" PU 8UC RK""'"
to be
25
26 27
infonnation is 001 an unusual or exceptional process to ensure full public panicipation for a
vfR,f,[I} ,Hmo'! fOR \\'1,,1 OF _""@,\TE TO
'"
when 2 3 4 5 6 7
received after releMe or tile Dm/\ EIS/ErR. At th;, same time Metro hal been worling OJ] the W Subway Project, for exampl e, it ha.:; k en preparing cnvitonmcntal documentation on
two other large scale transit proj.:<:ts: the Regional Connc;tor Tran,it Corridor and the Crenshaw/LAX Tramit Corridor. In contrast to "Idro', refusal to recirculate th e Draft EIS/EIR lor the Subway Ivlelro, in July 2011, i,::;ucd a Supplemefllal "nvironmenlal
fot th e Regional
Drafi
Crenshaw/LAX Corridor Project. It should have dOlle so 9. All oflhis evidences a d. termination fly it bad full to rush thi, decision wilhout to Constellation location,
awaiting full and complete information for political or oilier reasons, prior to 2012, BHUSD
of all _,tooie, and in/ormation. Tn January ."d before its relcase of the Drall
-- not Santa Monica Boulevard. and that all ufthe for that decision.
It appoar! that Mdro stalThad long before SdectN the Constd lution
19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
agencies !hi: information needed to make infonncd decision" lhu, protecting not only the cnviroruncnt but also infonned ,df-go,'mnmcnt. Citizens Valley v. Board of
Snpe,vi""", (1 990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. "The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compd goyernment at alllcvds to make deci,ion. with "!lvi ronmental wnsequem:e.\ in mind_ CEQA doe>; not, indeed cannot, guarantee that th<lSe deci'ions will always l>e thole which fa,'or enyiromnental At the very lea,t, the People have a right to expoct that
those who must decide will approach lheir task neutrally, with no parochial interest at stake," Bozung v. local Agerey fQrnlation CommilSiQn of Veutum County (1 995) 13 Ca1.3d 263, 283. 11. With its quiek approval, before all the are finali7N, and the short ,Iatute of
'8
I 1 3
limiMions atwmlant to those approyrus, Metro forced BHUSD to fik this action to u!llKlld these fundam ental j)l:illCipies that undcrgird CEQA (as One Mctro Director put it in arguing against any postponement for further inl'C'lligation: going to get into a court battl. with the school
4
5
dijirict - which I hope we don't - but if we do, let's get it startcd now and not wait a year and thcn get it started" ,") 12, BHUSD therefore rcquests issuance of a wril or ilCtting aside
6
7 8 9
MWQ'S decisions on April 26, 1012 and .....lay 24, 2012 (ll G"ltil}1ng and approving the final EIS/EIR for the W cstsidc Suhway Extension Projcct ("Projed'): (2) approving the Project; and
(3) approving
10 11 12
1J. Petition.,,- BRUSD i.' a
PARTIES
school district in th e City of Beverly Hill>
organized and operating und.,,- the puhlic educalion law! of the State of Califonlia. 14. P etitioner infmm ro and and, on that basis, alleges that Resp;mdent
II
14
Metro is a local governrnent agellCY charged with Ihe authority of plamling and impl ementing transportation and transit developm . nt within
15.
15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Petitioner is informro and beli e""" and on that basis alleges, that the Proeml
Transit Administration ("F"J"A "), identified a, a Real Part]' in Interest, is a federal gov.mmcnt agency charged witfl the authority or planning and implementing new transit infra,tmdurc or impmvements to inli:a!tructun;, l'T A i.\ th e lead Igency for the Project wilh regard to the
National Environmental Pohcy Act ("N EPA"), i, charged with the duty of ellsuring the Proj ect's with applicable federallm\'", and, as such, has an interest in the Project. Petitioner is informed and believes and, on tflat ba;;i., alleges that the fTA has not yet taken final approval action for the Projcct.
16.
Petitioner is cutTentl)' unaware of the true names and cHpacitic.! of DOES 1 those parties by Illch fictitium names. DOES I thwugh COUllty, city or fcikral
25 26 27 28
20, inclusive are the agents of the agentl of Re.lpondcnt, the government who
responsible in wme manne, ror the Proj ect. DOES 21- 5(), inclusive arc
JX'fsons or entitie.' pres""tly llnlnown to Petitioner who have or claim some legal or equitable
4
5 18.
6 7
miles from its existing wcstCn! terminus at WihhirciW cs(ern to a new we,!em tennillus at the \Vcst l<ls Angeles AITairs (VA) Hospital. It plans to indude seven station.' 'paced
,
10 11 12 13 14
1'.
an Alternatives Analysis Study and authorized E1SiElR;, being prepared joindyby Metro
and the federal Transit Administration ("f'TA") under the provisions of the California Quality Aet (Public Reoourc ., Code 21 HXJ.t Environnlcntal Policy Aet (42
[j .S.C
("CEQA")
IS
the
CEQA, and the FTA is the lead agency filr '\EPA, 20. In Septemb er 101 0, Metro rdcascd thc Dnil EISiEIR, That rel ease initiatoi th e
15
16 17 18 19 20
formal, 45-day public comm ent l"'riod which closed on Octooer 18, 2010, During that comment period Peutioner submittoithr"" oomment lclters raising concerns about numerous i..,u. , and impacts on th e nigh school, including: student and teacher safety, noise urd vibration, traffic, impacts from in near oil wells and through soils containing methane gas, ,;ei,rnic future developm ent plans.
21
21
On Odobcr 28, 2010, the M..t", Board me! to consider th e puhlic commenh
and on that dutc it approved
23
Preferred Alternativc
A'') for ti.u1her evaluation in a Final ElS/EIR. In the approved Dra/\ location de,cription, (WihhirciLa Brea and Wil.hire/Rod.,o in Bevm:ly Hill,),
25 26
However, the three "rcstCITImost stations (Century City ju.,t west of Beverly Hill" and W. stWQooiCCLA and W estwoodN A Hospital) had alternative station locations which re'lLlted in
2S
alternative
station location and al ignment: (!) whelocr Lhe W"slwo<:JdiUCLA Station lI'oul!! be located
helow Wilsnire Boulevard at Gayk}' Avenu" or on property owned by UCLA adjacent In
4
5
6
Wil.hire Boulevard at Gayl.} Avenue, and (2) whether (he \Veslwood/VA Hospital Station would bo located on the north ofWihhin: BOl1levard at Bonsall Avenue or the somh :;ide of
\Vibhire Boul evard at. Bonsall Avenue, But in pointoo c<mlmst, lhc slation allcrnmi O'e,. for
7
4
9
LO
inv()i,,; ng SlgmJicamly
variation< in the
Santa .\lonica Boulevard at A Hnue of tne Star.' or a station ot Constellation Avetlnc oftnc Scars and Cmlury Park East Th e. e two
i 1 1" I
-' " r
0
11 12
13
alignments: traveling from the cast to a. Santa Monica Boulevard station, th e subway would I""'ie \VilshireiRodco and proccOO undcr Wihhire Boulevard and Santa Century City tmveling at A venue Bouleyard to the ,t"Jet" However,
-" :: "
! ., 15
>
14
16
under the
17 18
19
Con,tellation station.
22.
In the Drall EISiEiR thal 1lctro released in S.ptembt.r 201 0, tl", Santa Monica
20
21
Boulevard Station was considcred the prcterrcd or "base" station. Constellatiun w"-, identified
a,
an "optional" station location, The Draft EISiEIR determined thaI the S:mta Monica Boulevard
Station would have a higher rid=hip than Comtdlatinn, Con,tellation, and ,horten S:mta at least $60 million less than pro\'ided a more route
22
23
24 25 26
27
Con.tdlation -- all positive benefit" achieved without tunn d ing llIlder Beyerly Ilills I [igll SCh(){lL 23,
It was in the Draft E1SiEIR that '\fetro raised for the tim time the possibility that
of active
the Santa .\fonica Boulevard Station at Avcnne of the Stars might be located in taulLing making a station infeasible. But the seismic analysis in the Draft EiSiElR was
>
28
>
,
,
5
cmt .... ed
the Cr:ntury City SIII11a Monica station II the qUell;!)" ofC:tc nmrocc
,
1
8
10
20 1O.
liP'll! "lhI;
to
determined thai the Sanlll Moo i.:a llIulll.t let;,"\!, it IIad not bun
In the
Dran EJS!E IR, Mdro 81'0 ques1 ioncd whether theR: w.".., ,
11
any >Cismic impacts from the West aev ... ly Hills LmclI1llrnt, a nmtb"'ellt trending geomorphic feature. According !(I Metro: intcll'retations been proposed for the West Jleverl)' Lincam(;flt. For e:<nmple, Dolan d al (1'n7) speculated that it r"preSCllt an east-dippill Knmmal1auit anociatcrl with all along the left step het",,,,,n the Hollywood and Santa MnniCli faultil or , fold scarp along the northern extension of the b:u:k limb <.If tlte gt"ttJy east-dil'ping ConljltOn blind fault thru5t. Ho"",'a, Lang (J 994) rq"nud lhal $BMw-face IlUpping ..ithin the QlCViot Will and Be--my HiUs oil fidd" roottrained by dense subsurfa<:e control, precludes !he CXlStcnCC of the West &..,.:1Iy H,lIs UIIea1IIent. Thu.1ho: prospeet that the West Ikverly Hdls Lineame.1t i, the 'Mface marufestatioo of all active ioult h.:lS not been oonfirmed and i, has not been included intl>c tahle:.oo>o:. Further cVlluat;!)fI uf the Wes' Beveny Li" ""mem and its 10 tM Project would be: perfo rmed during design lel'cl investigati'lIU for the Project." DespIte all this uncertainty. the Draft EISIEIR concludoo:
"rk Projc.::t would not r.. in lin increased cxpo<iure to the ri sk witl! grol,lltrl shaking, nor would it cx:!CCrl:tatc preSl nta Monica existing IICIsmic ooltrlitions. Th;' crossing of fault wuuld be. potenliall )" .ignificant imQact; howcvCf. the miligation measutel abovc would signific.utt impaclj to Iel(s-thansigllificant. Implcmettuuon of the rc:commendc:d mitigation mlC3>.urcs .."OUld reduce the impacts Iclalm 10 goologlc h17.atd$ D nd hazardous malerials dun ng Ihe con'l\rucrion and opet':llio.lPI phases of the PwjCC1 10 Jess than signifiunt forall or the .lcemali",*-
,!,li i
12
II
14 15
"
11
20 21
"
"
22
25
" "
24.
26
27
"
OIl Octnher 28, 20 10. following c\Ole of til. public w rnment period on the Dnl.ft
. .
"
ElSiElR, th e I\letro BoanJ. .dected the Locally Preferred and station locations. But,
,
)
4 5 6 7
8
que'li(lns and
FOT a numb." of months fo \lowing this October ]0 j () calJ for additional studies,
2011, Metro
and without the opportunity for pllblic comm<:nl, that it had dcci,kd t()
10
"' ' :-
11 12 1) 14
to avoid loc<lting it on the Santa Monic.1 Faull. Now for the lirst lime the box would ntend from just Wt:Sl ofl,{oreno Dri
26, to just w<:.Il uf
'''ll! .
j
",'
Then, on October 19, 2011, a year to the d.} alb the puhlic comment period had
closed, /vIetro released two reports: the Westside Subway Extension Century City Area Fault
Report and the Subway Extension City Area Tunndin:;: Safery
15 16 17
18 19
Report. The Report.'l identified a fairly broad Santa Monica Flult zone along Santa Monica
Boulevard in Century City crossing Santa Monica Boulevard at about Avenue ofthG Stars which, if accurate, made a station at that location jnfeasible. Newrthdcss, that tauH, acrording to Mdro's reports, does t\Qt However,
to th e relocated Santa "tonica station at Century Parl East.
20 21
22
West
considered a fault wa> lLiually a nortn"llorthwe,t trending fault that first crosses the high school property and then contin"es northward across Santa. Monica Iloulevard at about Moreno Drive, precise! y at the site ofthc rdocakd Santa ),,{onica station, Accordi ng to "'letro: '"SillCe tne Draft EISIEIR, the We,t Beverly Hills Lineament and its potential impact on the LPA. wet<: filrtner evaluated through subsurface geologic investigation along SJma Monica Boulevard and Durant Drive. Geophysical s.cismie rdkction results and bore hole mxl cone inuicate Ihal faulting and folding ha provide, furth er that the (CPT) data
2)
24
25
26
27
occurred in tho vicinity of South Moreno Drive, This Beverl)' Hill> Lin<am.:nt is the surface
28
-9-
active fault."
2
3
27,
)"Ideo might consider a station along any portion of Santa M<>nicn Boulevard in Centul)' City
infeusible; tbe Santa Moruca Faull making the orthc Stars location infeasible and the
4
5
6
Wcst Beverly Hills Lineament making the Century Park East location mfcasibk
28.
),,jetT(l' s
g"oiogi,(, becau,c, among other thing': (1) they involyed no _<oil dating work Or open trenching
on! y rdiahl e m elh,Ki to cietenl1;ne active bulting): (2) nO .lei.,mic s(udie, v"",-e cumlllded in
"
2
,tudies
\0
and appeared desi gn e'\ to confiml his longstanding "th eory" ubout the West Beverly Hili> Lineament which Metro had 29. "'specubtion" in the Ilraft ElSiEIR. faulting al'<!, underlay the with or wilhulll Melru',
"
5
>
II
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
, ..
!
.. 0
high school, calling into question the very seismic ""fety of the
tunncls beneath it, BHUSD quickly commissioned the highly regarded Leighton Con,ulting finn aud other licenscd geologists to study the heretofore unmopped. and newly identified "fault" along the West Bevcrly Hills Lineament. 30, Experts retained by Bllli SO set to work immediately to develop th<:>rough
conclusions rcgarding the extent and nature of any faults in the vicinity of Beverly Hi II . High School and the Santa ",tonica Boul evard J1!JUSD's wori< alignmmt. and ,tation . Under ,tate law,
mu,t satisfy the C"lifornia GcolQgic Survey {"CGS''} which was actively
inyoh ed in the field investigations, CGS was not involy.,j in Metro's studies. The U,S. Survey ilISQ made numerow visits to BHUSD', f,eld sites. In contrast to !cudics, BHUSD's geologic open trenching and ooil dating, the
23
24 25
only method that can ablolutely determine whether faults reach th e .,urface. 3L On January 6, 2012, BHlJSD wrote to the ITA to request it require
J
26
].7
comment Oil the new information and circwnstances once BHL'SD's this January 6 letter, BHUSD abo rais.cd the objection that Metro had
completed, In
28
precommitted to
- 10-
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8
the Com;tellation Station long before all lhe evidence Wii.' in (and even before it rdeale<! the Draft EISiEIR) by only providing infonnati(ll1 to the ITA for New Start! procels for a Constellation
even though the LPA included both Santa Monica Ronlev<iTd and Constellation Bonlevard alternative alignments and station. lor City. :Vletro lpp eared to have
the Constellation alternativc morc than a year and a half omrtier and all of the reports Metro ha, prepared and issued since apj.'Cared to be a ,!anted,
32.
Beverly Hills issued their OWn tL'p"rt [Ha;;arJ Asu.umenl S/",Jy IVa/side SubH:ay b1el1sian
ProJect, Century Cily Area, California 1 that concluded
10
11
12 13 14
15
16
"While the Century City Area TUlUleling Safety Report and C""lury City Area Fault Investigation Report outlille many of the ha7"mh ""ith the tUllllding project, such as fault nlpture, ga, explosion and ground settlement, Exponent';; overarching opillion is that neither report d.:m.onslratcs the presented findings a' b",oo on rigorous risk ass.cssmcnt( s) on tiltSe subj ects. Spe<:i fically, n() atl<!lnpt is made to quantifY or even qualitatively asseS" the potential risks from these scenarios. No quantitative or qualitative assessments have been presented to either a) e,timate the likeli/l<xH.l of SUcil events or b) characterize the potentiiU severity of "ICh events to the public. Based on the findings reported in the I>l etra.spollsored report. and suWOrting review comment', momentum 'eetnS to he bnilding against constroction of a statioll on Santa Monica Boulevard based on perceived fault ropture hazard._ It j, bponent', that the alternative Con'tellation Boulevaru ,mtioIl, while g"".,,-ally in a more favorabl e location with "'gards to faulting il instead faced with potential mdhaoc gas hazards that eOllld at least a, great" hazard to the public as the faulting hazards a,,,,eialoo with (he Santa .\-lonica ooulevard station. In the absence ofa quantitative risk assessment, the choice between the moW likely to be madc on the basis (If risk perception rather than risk 4l1antillcation. Additional steps can and should be pcrfonued both station locations to better qnantify the seismic and gas ha.oard. at these locations. Potential i>djustments to the proposed locations should also be considered." The City also commissioned a report from Shannon & Wilson [Preliminary Revi,,",,'
Comments on Cenlury Cily Area - Faull [nve.ftigation Rep0rl- Wesl,idrSuhway fxlen.,lon ProJectl whi"" reviewed Metro's Scismic Studie" and th eir underlying data.
17
18 19
20
21 22
23
24
25
Shannon &
27
Studies, stating:
I
2
The Shannon & Wi L,ol1 Report al&Q emphasized the need for additional testing aloog
Comtellation Boulevard:
4
5 "11 is our opinion th.t [Metro J should provide juotificalion filr that the )lToiile drawn for the nisting; eXpl(}rntions along the Con.,tdlation Boulevard alignment j, sullicient, or label it as prel iminary, warrant; ng a much great.". of study RS was
6
7
8
9
10
II
12 13
undertaken in. oH,er area' (even in some ar:as where fault, were not previously mapp<:d) .. ,[ I]n Quropinion, ooditionlll explorations at Constellation on are warranted ha,ed On the qnestions I<'C dil'Cl1';"ed above regard; ng [Metro Sei"'llic Studic:;], C<luplcd with the directives for th e,," ,muie., rhe directive on I ofthc Fault Report stllles that' .. Melm sIaJ!wa., direc/"d to jilly investigl1l<' the /la/urI' and 10mtion offaul" in City and Iheir po/elltial impart on the pmpo.,ed slalion locatiO/!!1 Based on this directive, ....e rfIJ not believe WBHL and the COllsidlution Stalion were jillly jnvestigated particularly ....hen compared witlt the performed at Santa Monica Stlltion. "
J J,
Also in February 2() 12, J\-fetm rde"",d ilS Century City Stlltion Low!iol! Report to
14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
evaluate dle alternative station locatiom lor Century City. [( concluded: "In light of the urunitability of the Santa Monica Boulevard sites for a Ccnmry City Station due to :;eismic considerations, flJld the conclusion that tunnels to the Century City ('-.Jnstcllation site ellll be constructed safely and witfl(lUt ooverse impact to the properties above. it is recommended that the Century City StIltion he sited at Constdlalion Boulevard." 34. 0" February. 23, 2012, in a Icttcr to the ITA, BHUSD requested that the Pi nal until BHUSD' s e:<:perts completed their work, and that the Ff A and HHlJSD', . :<:pert, and the Exponent
23
24 25 26 27 28
35.
On March 8, 2012, with field work ,lill continuing, the fo-rA declin.d tn require a geologic ,tudi"" w.,,-e "simply a
subsequcnt tcchnical analysis of geotechnical inlormation regarding geologic hazards already discussed and made available to the puhlic in the Draft EISiEIR" It enough, the ITA
"'mtended, [hal the Draft ElS/ElR stilted the area was a "seismically active region" and identified multipl e segment, of the Santa Moruca Fault .., wel l as the \Vest Beverly Hills Lineament and - 12 -
1 2 3 4 5 6
that locations where those cros8ings occur "coulll rep,esent earthquake fault t1lpture hazards to the Project," The FT A abo noted that the Octol>er 20t 0 1,letro Board action "included a
,;,commendation that both the Santa Monica Boulevard and Constellation Boulevard Station options be camed fOl'\vard for further study, and spea lically noted that' [t Jhe DElS/r:U{ geoteclmieal 8mdi.:.!! dctmnined thai the station option at Santa .\ionica Boulcvard/Avenue of the Star:; would Ix: locakd llir""tl) a ,";smie faul!." Tl1crc was 00 ackilowkdgemrnt by the of the pllblic comment time to
FT A that the Ck:toher 20 I 0 \-letto Board action occurred , ller the p"",x1, that :\-leITo Bourd that
9 10
j
mah a
wa, no detenninmion in the Drall that the Santa Monica moved th e Santa Monica station further to the cast to avoid to Dr_ Dolan' ii "th eorid' about the W cst YHills
12 13
well as declaring Beverly Hills High School underiain bJ active f.ults. 36. On March 9, 2012, "ietfo releasro its Fina: EIS/E1R_ According tu that Report: 'During the Final EIS/EIR phase, :>ietto conducted furth er geotechnical studies, which identified two lctive fault zo ",", in th e City area" .. This investigation that hoth the Santa !...loniea Fault zone and the waHL are fault zones, ... Based on the results of th ese fault inve"tigatiol1', there i., clear evidence that the station locations on Santa Monica Boulevard (both cast and west) would he in active fault 70n e, and are ]]ot viable locations for station optio]],_ Th e station on Constellation Boulcvard would oot he withi]] an fault zone and i, a 'iiable option for a station location, In slimmary, bOlh of the Clnlury City Santa Moni"a Slation options arc within active fault zones, hut Century City Constcllation Station .ite is located outside zon", of adi vc illUlting: and can b e conside:ed a viable option," And at another JX1int it ref="d to ,tudi", ilnd concluded:
14
15
16 17 18
19
20
21
22
23
and studi.:.!! provide fully suffident data (I) to ,uPJX1r( a reasonahle condusion that the adverse environmental impacts and safety risb of a1tLmati vc infeasible, and (2) to Con.tellation Station, if not City Santa Moni"a Station render that the selection of th e Centur)' City
24 25
26
27
28
37,
cOll$ultants or
Metro's
hydrogen
sulfide) posc a hazard during construction and operation, Impacts dlLe to these p"y cm)(iitions
are discussed
Lndcr NEP ,\, loilowing reiea-,e of the final EISimR, theN: is an additional 30--day
,
8 9 10 11 12
puhlie COlllment period; there i. no sim i[ar additional statutclfY period undcr CEQA.
39.
On -"fareh 2n, 20l2, nm;so made requests to both the IT A lor a 30-day
of the :"EP A puhlic C(lm ment period and a similar requcst that /vldro noi mow, fmward , during that period in order to allow for the continuing seismic siudies. BHC'SD wmW tu \1ellw "As noted in the letter lIJ ITA, the 30-day willdow for puhlic comments on the FEISiFEIR is agaill,t th e public interest given the importance uf these i,sue.. Similarly, g;v" , th e 10llg time for such project" additional 30 days will create no overriding hardship. In ""nlra.t, ifMetw to jwgmellt without the wmpktu infurmation, the public may be h.. med, [t i. the goal of both the state lllld natiollal la'vs to provide the dccisiun makers with accurate and wmplete information available A great deal of time and c:QX'1lSC has intu pwvidillg thi, npert informatiOll, and the Metro Board desnws to have the completo pict\lre before it decide" what route aHcmati ve best servcs the plLblic illtere.,t" 40. On April 3, 2012, mmSD requested Mctro delay its C<'ln.lideration Ill'the Fillal
\3
14
15
16
IS
19
20
21
23
24
"BHUSD b elieves that its ongoing cooperation ...ith all invulved public agellcies is Ilecessary to allow a reasonC(1 dcciiun making pro=, and evaluation of the impact' of Metro's proposed Westside Extension project on its schu,,] pmperties, Ilowever, that process is not or tu (he mnstraints imposed by pwposed It doe. nut allow BlIUSD to fully and compldd y re>p<lnd to the complex i8Sues rais ed by Metro. Adhering tu the CUllent time eorutrainls a, proposed will thc :>'-lctro Board of the opportunity !o fully alld completely evaluate Extension project. Weare the impacts of I!S proposed \" confident that this is not a rcsult that is desirable to the Metro Board or in the inkrcst ufthe public it SCNCS .... BHUSD and its Board is confident that thc .\fetro Board would of its investigation and ullderstanru the benefit from the importance of the nced for Mctro to have th e opportunity to consider all relevallt data in making this very important decision whieh InlI impact UUT community. BHL'SD further believes that the re,ull, of report" and the data and analysis contained th.,,-ein, are llnpurtam for the Metl1J Board (0 consider beforo certifying th e 14
v",mel} fOR WRIT Of M!I!>!'" IT TO c;m",l. m"" .. l,l-IC[ CAl.IfOIl'lIA rusuc '-ECORD.'; ..v:T
25
26 27
FEIS/FElR. Delaying the Metre) Bnard vote until May wi\l allow
2
,,
41.
the Hoard melllhers aJld staff sufficient time to fully review and all reJXlrts prior to consideration of the FElS/fEJR for the Weotside Extension project. This i, Icawnablc in light of the scope and potential impacts of the propmed Prtlject."
BHUSD reported that it had spent to that poinl in execs! ofSLOOO,OO (j for
vc geotechnical
"i\. on e month extel1,ion
5
6
to
8
9 10 11
makes no sense, after sevetal years (If developing: an ErSiEIR, for the Metro Hoard to vote ollthe
FEISiFEIR without first at least reviewing the critical iniimMtion that will be conta;n.d in BHUSD', mports - particularly after the Diwict has gon e thmugh such great lengths and incurred such exp.",,-<e to create this report."
1.2
13 14 15
42.
On April 6, 2012, :>letro denied the pO.<tp<mL"IIlCnt BIIUSD had reque'tM and
noted that the M,,1ro Board Planning and Pmgramming Committee would consider the Final E lSiEiR on April 18, 2012 and the full Metro Board wouk! oonsider the final 26,2012. R on April
1.6
17
41.
In pointed contrast, on April 6, 2012, the FTA granted the requ,,",ted exten,ion of
the NEP A comment period until :>lay 22, 2012 "given the importance of th e ProjI'Ct."
1.8
19 20 21 22
44.
On April 10, 2012, BH USD again rcq ucstcd Mctro postpon e illl process in light of
ITA', decision granting the delay. Metro denied this request on April 13, 2012. 45. On April 18, 2012, the Metro Planning and Programming Corrunillee mct to
.:ansidcr rCWlrunendation, to the Metro Board for the Final EtS/ElR. BHUSD objected to Metro's decision to proceed ''bclorc all the en"ironmentalltudie" are received and oonsidered and to do 00 de5pite the fact that the ITA ha" determined that it needs to wait and consider these
24 25 26 27 28
llll<kr NEP A." BHUSD obje<::ted to th e the studies still pending, (2)
Metro's precommittment to Constellation before considering all the evidence, (3) Metro's failure to reeilculate the Dratl EIS/EIR lor public revi ew COlnment with the !lIpplementil and
"igniticant new information devd oped after the close of the public oomment perioo in Cktober - 15 .
,
l
4
201Q tIIld (4) the im propriety of :<.Iwo deferring its dcilcription of (he Project and the these ' q>Ortl; (Ihm would normally be $et forth in Dmfl EIS/EIR) IQ the ,'(113) ElSiEJR The:
of
MellO Pl anni ng and ProgmomUn8 Couunittcc droi ed these reque$\$, brulhed aside the objections
I!lld recommended that 1he Metro Board oonslder and
1012 &lard Mccling.
,
7
46.
City COUllcil
,
10
the proposal to
Hills Jligb &hool." The statule mjuircd the Metro Board 10 SCI the heann! nol less than IS and not morc than 60 days therea fter 47, On April 23. 2012, l..eighlUn COn!;ulting released it, fiAt report (In Ille possible
I ' '.!I I
Ii
fault presence along the West Deverly Hi ll! LineamCllt anl condu dlXl then: W EIS 110 ".,idem:" or active faulting. "Based on 5it e-specifie
and logging, we tbund uo act ive fnull"; , .. ther
17
"
\lnfaulted and substantially older than I I ,SOO yean, the ddimng nwnber for an acti > " f..uh UI California. (kep borings. rOvCT)' and intcrpre1.alion of continuous cores and cone pc:ru:tmmete.dala vmfy our obscrvauons and dotUlnmtahon oflbc on-gIC wncl\ldc that ,If)
}()(), (ii)() ye<l'J
20
"
"
expo$Ul'e6.
we
This
21
WfI.! in di reet conflict with Metro 's Octol:>er 20 11 study. If th ere wa. no active fallltmg on the Wo:$t Beverly Hills Lineament, I station at Contur), Park East on Uoulevard would
2l
"
be feasi ble_ M"reo\'Cf. this "'I.!I the fj l'Jt of throe reportll exp.:ctcd fIDm BH USD ', geologic a n:.rull, BHUSD apin requcsted:
Gf Ilk: letter thaI follows urges me Metro
" 26
27
"
Board 1 (1 po'llJKIRC its ccrti tlcatiQl1 of tI.e FElSiEIR (as the FT A has done) uncil aU of the scim tific _ information ...oovro. TIl.:: infonnation contained ID the Leighton
MellO BoW PTlxeco.!s with its CCftificalion deeisinn on Apri l 26. 201 2 in the fuce of b.:lth th is n"",,'. 'ignificant evidence from J.eiglmm anJ the - 16 .
28
h.; ignoring
California Enviwnm ental Quality Ad aml dellying the public infonllalioll thal;, decision"
48.
its
On April 26, 2012, the \1etro Board met to consider th e Final f.lSiELR. In taking Metro
5
6
action, it approved only Pha.<e 1 oflli e Project from Weslem Avenue we:;t to La
dcfcrr.:d final action on the prQj eGt p<:nding the PUC 30639 hearillg requested by the City of Bever! y Hills, But igllming HH lSD's request that it defer action JX'nding additiQ!llll and de,pite the fuct that the pIlcling PCC 30639 hcaring would directly involve the envimnmenm! and geologic issues act; ,'ely being
proceeded to emify the entire Final EIS/EIR j(,r the and discussed,
7
R
\imro Bocrrd
.
j
10
, T
.,
,
11 12
13
including the following oonclusion: "[nhere i, decrr evidence Ihat the stalinnlocation" on Santa .'.1onica Boulevard (both elm and
WCSI)
-. '(hi
""
<
..
lor .lation oplions. The slalion on Constdlati,m BQulevard wOlLld "ot he within an active fault zone and is a viable option for a ,tationlocati()n" 49. On \1ay 14, 2012, after Metro had emilie<! the Final EIS/EIR for the entire report on ""ismie is ,ucs: RespoI,," 10 Ldgh/on ComuW,w Reporl.
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
Project, it i ucd
According to Mdro: "The Leighlon investigation provide<; wek<lme new dala lu help constrain the locRtions of identified faull.'l within the ,,,,BHL, beneath am! adjacent to millS. However, there is nothing in the Leighton report data that contradicts Metro's conclusion that there is no safe location to site a station on Santa \lonica Boul evard in Century City." Metro also postulated that despite Leighton's findings, "[gliven the urban infrajtructure and logistical constraints, especially th e presenc e of.ub,urface infraslructure (e. g., !torm drains, water mains, gas, sewer and el ectric lines), it will be impos>iblc to confirm Ihat all ()fthe fault. that Metro has identified along the WBHL are 50. especially in thc area of Monica Boulevard." 30639 hearing would be held
21
22
23 24 25
26 27
on May 17, 201l at 1:30 pm. On May 1i, 2012, '\fetro <:<Jnductcd lhat hearing 00 the reasonabl enes' of Centnry Cit) Station location but omy after having already voted on April
28
26 l<l certify the final EIS/EIR and it, concllLsions lhat the Santa Monica Boulevard locations " 17 -
...-ould be in
faull
011 May
1 3
11. however, clearly refined these COI'IchlsioR!l_ The City of 8"'"",ly Hi lls prcseokd rnm h0Ur3 of the iOO""'1IIIOOI cxpa1 witncsseg, including licensed geol()gis15, "'hn le111ifi.:d [0 a nllmber of
i "el uding: (I) the We,! BCI'cr!y
not
(2)
,
S
,
!!'ill
I'
! ,
p=ence of mc/han;;: gas, as idcnlllied by lixpommt in illl rqJOrt; and (4) :'-.14f1l has dedind! It! CORlAA:\ as ';gom... ........
l, Ii /'1'11
10
II
,"'w of these iSSllI:S fOT the Coostclla1ioo S1ation as ;1 has for the S1\IIla
aoo prcrommitmenl10 Omslcllalion. AI u,., or permit any of its cltpats to be cros.se:r;aminl"t!
11
I)
cllnlficd f inal
14
" " 11
18
On Ma) 21, 2012, il!!UStl submiUcd yet wother r":l'kl-l thutlbc dec;,,,,,, on
J>1Iucs 2 and 3 of the Project be postponed and that Meuu coo"me a n>fing of all retaiow
c.<pert geologists ..ito have studted these lru:atiOIU, including geologists fi"om!he Y1ifomia
Geologica.! SUJ""Ve)', to
resolve tbe outswuting patincnl
10 and 'Q,\.,,,,,ble
" 10
11 11
On May 24, 2012, tho.: Mo:Im B"ard met aoo adopted il.! Decision of the concludmg tlle Con.tcllatlOn Station and lhe related $ub"ay naw e!
23
"
al ignment beneath Beverly HtUs I righ School w.:rc rea>olllIble. BHUSD objooced cuntcoding that the f indings $it1lpl}' ralionalu.: the conclll'lions Metro
thll decision
1S
16 11
"
MetIO' $ ple,iml.'l reports. This again i, <:\idence that Metro J)fecommiled 10 the Con:llcllatiotl
- 18 -
, ,
,
6
4
location without a full ilDd fair, impartial iIWC$lIg3lion, cnmidcralion 4nd weighing of lhe .... 53. impach .. r;1'I (/b."isjon. Alltu: '"C\)' Malo 24, 201 2 hearing \{ew did call upon its
c,tpt:n. a,
CIln.uhan[, to puhl idy rebut the (lvidence that had been presented by the May 17, 2011. llM cal led its expcrtJI to testify undc<" oalh at
City of Beverly Hills would have hntl the opport lLnity to crI,,-,exomine the expert<.
ny 001
length on \Iay
,
1
9
calling them to testify.m May 17, bUI inSltad Jl.uvidin g th..., frc rcilPllll upine
24, nOl undef oath and without
dcctsion and insulated il from all JUbsl.anlialanalysis h"""""... it had tong befrn'e prcoommitttd to the Constellation Slation location for poJlllcal or otho::r """",ns. 54.
On Ma.y 24, 2012 !be Metro Board "lslI approved the remaining
10
l II
a
II
oflhe
!Pli
,
!:il!! "
11.11'
12
" "
" " 19
"
la.st ditch plea for '\ielro to wail an.! consiuer the c()ntinuing
request thai Metro prepare a Supplemental EIS/EIR
circubrion of the DE[S/ [R and the d osmgofthc official comment period On the OCJ:SII![R,
be.,., no lou t!WI nine rmoru (with at [US( two mo,.., ""pect..u) regardi ng lleismic
20
activity Bround the Santi Munica and Wtst Beverly Hills Lineament
"
"
evidence has been prcsenlOO since publication of the FEIRJElS. The existing portions of the FF.1S/EIR on geologic Rnd scismic impacts present an iruuffLci cnt discussion of those i8$UC/l."
finally, it incolp(lrated the objections arod
RHUS D' s legal counsel to the rT A id.:nlif)'lng the defici0JlC1CS of \hi: Final EISIEIR.
55.
On May 24, 2012. the MClro Boan! abo 1Jdoptcd an Addendum to
Final
EISJEIR.. The Addendum had not bec:P mado 3vail:ible prior to May 24, 2012. AClion on this OOcwnCtl! wa. oolmcluded in were not me minor agendas for !he Mi.Y 24, 2012 hearin!J. The oonte\IIS of the appmpriate for
lin
- 19-
revis;nm; to the docum ent that required '1upplcmcntal documentation lhal mu,! be
2
3
4 5
0
56.
BIlL'SD i! informed ami hdieves and, on !hat basis, all eges that a '\'otice of
Determination lor the April 26, 2012 approyal, was filed with the Lo, Angeles County Clerk on
April 26, 2012 and pusted a, r"'luired by hI" on April 30,2012. 57. On or about May J(), 2012, BJ [USn mailed its Notice ()flnlrntion to Commence
Action under Puh. Res. Code 21167.5. A copy, along with a proof as Exhibit A.
58. On or about May 30, 2012, BHUSD
is attacnc(i hereto
7
8
to
tho Record
j,
,
j
.. t"
10
Exhibit B.
i 'Ii
<
II
12
IJ
result of J\\etro's approval" HAUS D will ,urfer great and im:parable bann as alleged herein,
.'ll -'1'". W
'" I
illlCSD has
(i(J,
tl()
14 15
I6
17
This action i, brought to enforce important public policies with respect to on public by
,
0
<
protaoti on of the em;ronment ull(ler CEQA and will confer a protecting the public from
18
I9
FIRST CAL'SE OF ACTION !Failure to comply with CF.OA)
20
21
22
2J 61. 62. Petitioner realleges and inC<lrpomtc8 Paragraphs I through 60, certification of the Final EIS/EIR md approval ofthc Project 1,iolatcd
24 25 26 27 25
CEQA in at least th e following way' : A. comment on the Draft EISiEfR, Following circulation and the close of public Board expressed an inability to decide upon a
definitive site for the Century City Station. That decision would dct.nnin" not only the location of the excavation, construction and operation of Ivietro 's unciergroWld
- 2() -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
location, depth and alignment for thc lUnnek l\ktm location and a scientific analysis IVa. investigate cnvlmmnental
and ;1.ab Ie project de.<cription, indicating that additional to fmalize the sMion initllming th e d""ision For a year, l>Jetro continued to
a"
Relying on signiticrnlt new information develo["'d i nth. year since the draft EIR w .., circulated, Metro decided "l"'ll a location, shifting tile "ite num Santa r>loniCJ to
Constellation. Althmlgh Iv/dra updated the Final FlSiEIR to include the new data, Metro failed to circulate new dala and in draft form. Metro wa-s obligated to circulate a
Supplemclllil Draft of
EIS/ElR that included new datl and the critic"l decision regarding
project description. By Jailing tn pmceed with a definite, stable project description lind then failing to circulate lhal de",cnpti(Ml hya "npplemental Draft fIS/EIR, Metro committed a prejudicial abuse of diSLntiol1 for which the Pmj ect must be set aside. SaaamenlO Old
City AWl_ v. City Council (1991) 229 CaLAppJd 1011, 1023; [An accurate description of the
proposed th e potential 16 J7 18 19
i., 'the heart of the EJR process," and is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of effects of a proposed activity]: McQueen ,. Board of DircctUr5
(1988) 202 CaLApp_3d lBo, 1143: /lio Vi"la Farm Burea" Center v. Counly o!S<Jiano (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 351, 369-370, quoting Sacramento Old OfyAJ";', >. Ol}, Coundl (1991) 229 C"l.App.3d 1011 ["All stabl e and finite proje\:t description is the sine qua non of an
20
21 12 23 24 25 16 27 28
Inadequate Analysis of Sci:mlic hnpact,. On numemm occasions over the past silt
months, Petitioner repeatcdly requested "tetro delay its deci,ion on the Final ElSiEIR nntil Petitioner'! indeJl<'udent scientific analpis conJd be completed and presented lor cOl"ici.,,-ation. in detail tbe nature of the infol1nation and analyses being p!.'"r/orrnoo, and that work and analysis spawned by "'l.tro', October 2011 RqXllis was being done by agenLi"" and reputable finn, with particularly acute ex[",rti.l. in the areas addressed. Melro Petitioner wa! sJl<'nding in excess of S I ,(J()(J,OOO to oonfinn or that
October 20 II seismic rcports. Iv/etro refused the fe<]ucstcd delay, dismissed the information, ""d proceeded to adopt the Final EIS/fIR without considering or including Petitioner's additional
- 21 "
infonnaLion and Without wairins I hr studiC'l wulerw31' to be compldcd. Givffi the DC'W scicutific
,
6
CEQA by adopting lntn.:.atcd proct.U fOf presentation and I)lI'lI'Oval of tile Final F. lk, ond in
to grunt a poltp,melnent wallow Pch tioocr lime to
the puhlic and Petition er III he
,
7
me public of any
mcamngful opportunity to oommCl\! Uf'OD the nc", ,.;;;cnlific data. particularly sinc.: Petitioner h.d thai ad!IiliOlt.ll1. and si!;llificant infonnariun .... as forthcornil1!1_ By faihng 1 0 postpOne its
dCClSIon ulllillhc scismic InVCSligaUOIl3 "en: oompi<.1t; Metro conuniuetl Dprejudlci.!1 abuse of
8 9
10
di1lCl1:lion for which the Project approvals mu\l he set asi.tc. Cal. Colk R"J!,l., ut 14, 15126.6, sub<!. (d) [A n IR must provide sufficient in formal i"n ror mCllllingrol cvmluatinn of the ccmpMltive merit. ,,the propo:s.ed projCCt Md eaoh
J 5144;
J); Cill. Code Regs., lit. 14,
!!'lI i
!. '!,!ji
l,
II
12
\J
14
We.!l
ASJn.
City
1I1!!1
cfT"'"
10
1.386 [Under CflQA, the lcad ag<-ncy must not decide i>SUeS wiihou\ the data neceswy to make
an infonned ass ....'IIIlent o r the Cllvirorunental impact orlbe proposed prQjt1; Sierra Club V.
&1. ufFort!.SU} (1 994) 7 Cill. 4th 121S, 1220- 1221 (UndaCF.QA, the lead agency must not
6e-cidc im."" without Ihc data nec:eAAafYto make an mformed ofthe pro]XlllW prOJect)
C.
oflhc
2J
22
2l
Pdilioncr's objcctioll1l, Metro now insi!U that the original circulation of the Draft EISiE fR, Okltidics its public discloSUf1! and Wlnmen! obi igatioru and !"II)
iii
e!I,ironmenbl
"
U
"
requiroJ.
project. description, tlw did nol include impot'WtI et....i!Oll(DClltal in formatIon Ib.t infonPed its
21
"
response to thoSCCOIO tnml$ in Ihe Final EISIEIR Metro released it, Dr.1I1 EISlEtR 100 early in
2
l
project dmription . Cal. Code Regs., lit 14, 1500S(b) [requinng thaI
,
6
7 8
"J; CIJ.
Rep. , Ii!.
additional !;Iudies, the Dl1I lt ErSlEIR tlliled to providl: sutlicicnt illfonn ltion for mc.:lllingful
evaluation of the
n..:nts or lh" PropI)iIed proj<:cl :!lid each a.herlWiI.... Cal. Code or lbi" prematwc On fi ElSiEIM , CEOA lUjuucd
9
10
Maro 10 either: (a) issue BOO d",;uMe a SlIpplcmemal [kill EISlE[R deSoCribingand new s.."icnlific dat., and
IH!j
"'1
II
or (b)
12
Il
14
prnding receipt of (he lisnitlcanl environmental mfOHll ati"n should aho of tile enviromncntal attlllrsi$ of Ihal addltioolll (and, as Metro a.$CM.S,
a deferral
inf0l'!!18tion.
" 16
17 18 19
20
$1 1Othct" (i.e.., SupplancllIal Dr.Ift EIR or Subsequent EIRl, Mi.1rO comru.iued a prejudiC14l abuse
of di.Kretion for wtuch the Projt U ppl'O\"als must be sd ;side.. Cal. Pub.Res. Code, 121166 1,\
BUb$equml or UR
and cvuld !'KIt have heell known althe time the "mironmcn(allmpact rql(ln W1U \:.CI'tilkd as
complete, where
i, a substantial
21
22
ullIlerl}ing the project haw .1gnificAntlr changed]; C1l1, Cooe Reg! " lit, 14,
(a)(l) & (2); Riwr Vallq Prl$(1'W11lol1 PrlJjw v.
Ii'ami!
15162, wbd,.
Yd, (t995)
2S
" "
21166
it i.s
n.co:s/Illry 10 explon: !he cnvironment.1l rtrni lications ola substamial chang.< no! COIISidcmi wthe origin:d EfRJ; Fund/or Enl'irQllmllmal Deftns,. v. Counly o{Orangt (1988) 2().1 Cal. AJlII. 3d
26
" ,.
- 23-
LJ.
2
3
even
ElSifilR imd
5
6
oomprchcnsive scientific cnviroruncmal d.1ta developed by Petitioner: (3) refusing Petition. !"'.,
r.asonabk rC<Jlk:sl fOT a<lilillOnal bmo \0 oompkt c and pw;enl it. Ici<:ntific a.ld environmental
S
9
10
fro", the
Geologic
rc=h.., the ptf1inm t
to
the entire Projo;t before cnndu'-1;ng the PCC 30639 hearing on thrM vcr)' same teulIlIic issues, Melm ,'iolated prohibi,itlllS prccommilment In I Projoo. '1 bcfon: ftll the evidence
01
II 12 13 14 \S 16
17
project_" CaL Cod e Rcgs., tit 14, 15OtJ4. Hy before the evidoo.oc 1'.'1.'1
Qf
Metro committed a prejudicial .lbu,e o f di,;cn;tioo fur winch the Project If'pn>"rus must be set
aside. Bozung y. Local Agen<y f-O",",#OII Conrmis.rWn ojVt:ntura CoWl/)' (1995) 13 CaI.3d 263,
2681"AI tbc vay least, however, the reapl.: hi,".: a right w up! that those "'00 must decide
will approoch their tau IlCnlTllll y, with no inle-rr:st Mak,,'l: Sa"" Tllm v. Clly oj w.,s/
III
19
20
21
22
Jna9ttlUate Ana l."jA of the lmpads orthc Constd11oliQ I! StQlion. De!pitc the Metro
Bourn' . October 28, 2010 directi on 10 Metro sta tlthat it "lully inv""tigate the natun: and location
23
of
in the Century City IIlU ,"Ind their potcntilll impact OIl the pmposed SllItiOll iocatiOll.!,"
Metro did !KII . ubject the Constell ation location to a seismic invcsrigllion 8.' risorous u tIw
2S
26
27
28
conducted fur Santa Munica. Several o f the ex pert repom commalted on this raiJure by Mdro to pro,ide a full and fair comparaLive Cunstcl!ation site. l here VoilS also
vulncrAble to an
and the potcDlial for 5Cismie concans at the
was p:>tentially
ignored !h()llc
2 J 4
5
hponenl, commmllcd ()n the in<>dequacy of Metro's analysi s of tunneling through soils heavil y laden with methane gas io the vicini ty ofBcvcrly Hills lrigh School and Constellation, Metro's refusal 10 complete the analysis to provide decision makc:1l and the public with suftlcicnt inlonnation to mllkc an inlonncd decision violated the informational ""lUircmcnl' of CEQA <:on>[iluling a abuse of lor which the Project appm,'als must be sd
Cal. C,><Ie Reg!., lit. 14, 15126.6, :llLbJ, (d) [An EIR must provid" ,uftjeient iniimnation lor meaningful eyaluation of the comparative merit' of !hi) proposed proj ect atld each altrnlati ve];
9
10
11 12
*15144; SUlinpaie
and disclose all that it reasonably can;"J; Id. at 1386 [['11th" lead agency must not decide issue' without the data necessary to male an
13
14
project]; S, erm Club v, Swu Bd. qf ForC3/ly (l'l94) 1 Cal. 4(h 1215, 1220-1221 [[T Jh e lead agency must not decide issucs "ithout the data nece." ary tu makc an infonncd Msessment of th e impact of the proposed
15
16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 2J 24 25 26 27 28
F.
of Santa Monica and Constellation Hills consuHanl, Exponent, also , e<;omm ended that
Metro provide a comparative ri,l assessmenl of the Santa Monica and Constellation station. ifMdro cannot be lOO'Y, asoured that a Santa Monica station is completely out,ide an active faull, TIlis because th e Constellation ,Mion is also 1Klt withoot dangerous ri,l" (e.g., significant
methane gas, unmitigahle noise impacts, etc) and the Santa Monica s!;!tion could be a feasible way to mitigHte or avoid lhosc ri8ks dC!X'vding upon th e magnitude of the ,"i,mic risk at Santa MonicH, rcfu,cd to undertake sudl an anal y,i . in,tead contending that any evidence of an
active fault at Santa llilonica rules out that location for a,tation. Metro's refusal to complete the analysis to pmvide informed makers and the public with ,ufficient infonnation to make an of CEQA con.ltituting a prejudi<:ial tit 14, cyaluation of the
abuse of di!cretion fm which thc Proje<;t approval.' must be set aside. Cal, Code 15 126,6, subd. (d) [,-\' n EIR TIlU,t sufficient inforulution for - 2S-
comparative
tit. 14,
2 3
4
5
15144;
City
App. 4L':t 1351, 1382 ["Drafting an FIR .. , necessarily involves some degree offorccasting" and "an agency mlLst lise it, hest efforts to find out and disc\o,e a ll that it reasonably can'']; Id. at \381i [[T]the lead agency must not decide without the data neces.,ary In make an intiJTmed
of the en,ironmcntaI impad of the propo,ed j':CojC\:t J; Sierra Cluh v, Slate Bd. ()f
Furg"i'Y (1994) 7 CaL 4Lh 1215, 1220-1221
,
" >-f :' ij.5 I
-j
"
the data
te) make an ; nfonl1 ed asses,m ent ofthe environmental impact of the proposed
, i
C
W
11
Metro rel eased an Addendum to th e Final EtSiElR (which wa, not included on the Board's agenda) involving changes to the air qllality impact .,ox;ti,." in particular changes that increased the nllmkr of impacts that collid be mitigated to ofin'ignificancc. An A,jdcndllm may
12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
20
only be used where none of the conditions de'\Crihed in the CEQA Guidelines 15162 calling for preparation (If a subsequent ElR are met. Here, the chan!>", importance that did not qualify as minor revisions "" ''''''''''y for neW infonnation of substantial AddL1l<ium. Metro's use of an
....
inappropriate Addendllm C(lllStitnted a prejudicial abllse M discreti()n for which the Project approvals must be let aside. Cal. Regs., tit. 14, 15164.
WHEREFOR E, Petition..- prays lor relier as foliowl: I. F()r a peremptory wlit ofmandatc commar.aing Metro:
A.
21
n
23
24
ProjecL (2) approving the Project, wd (3) approving other related environmental documents;
B.
25 26
2. injunction
For stu y, tLmporalY restraining order, prdiminary injunction and permanent and prohibiting any actiollS by :Vletro in furth.:rancc of the Proj ect Ilntil
27
28
3.
4.
,
6
7
,
9
HlI.L,
&. (RRILL L l P
8
Be
10
/). '1/(/='<---'.,-------11
j.
P ",!i'
II
12
II
14
IS 16
17
18
19
20
21
" "
24
27
28
" "
- 27-
YERIElQAIION
STATEOFCALIHlRN1A
) )
)
'"
,
6 7
IIIIll tbc ''resident of lhc Board or EducaOOn of !he &--"'y Hi lls Uninoo School Diwicl. I MW nJad t..'u: Petitio.. f or Writ of Mandate and know illl ooot<:olJ. The
it lire of my o"'n knowledl!" .:wept
to those: matte,.,
I'..
stlU=d io
,
\0
is 1M and =1.
Xeeuld DI Los Angeles, Califomill OQ Ml>y 201 1.
II
12
II
14
" 16
17
"
"
21
"
21
24
27
EXHIBIT A
""' ....
SOQ
Lo!! County MetropoUtan lhmsport.'lUon Author1ty One Gateway Plaza Lo!! Angeles, CA 90012
Federal Transit Administration Region L,( 20 I Mission SL:n:c:I. S ulle 1650 San Francisco. CA 94103- 1839
Federal Transit AdministratiOn Region IX Los An.geles Metropolitan Office 888 Figueroa St.. SUite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 900 17
Re :
Notice of Intent to Ole CEQA Petition in the lIUItter or the approval of the Cren.haw-Leu:: Transit Conidor Prolect
To the Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransportatiorJ Authortty and Federal Transit Administration:
This letler serves to noUry you of the in tention of the Beverly tll lls Unlfied Sehool Dlslrk l ["BHUSD1 to commence suit under the CalifornIa EnVIro nmental Quality Act and other a pplicable law against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authol1ty {"Metro1 and the Jo-ederal1Tanslt Administration.
Petltloner requests Issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate setting aside Metro's decisions on Aprtl26. 2012 and May 24, 2012 (1) certifying and Rpprovlng the Fln..l Environmento.l1mpact StaternentjEnvJronmentaIlmpact Report ("FEIRjEIS") for the WestsIde Subway Extension Project ("?rojeet' ) under the California Em1ronmenta.J Quality Act r CEQA1: (2) appro\wg \.he Project; and (3) apprming other rela ted cmironm ental documellts.
"",,2
1 2 3
PROOF OF StiRVIC!?
I, Lisa Mooney, declare: I am I resident of the stale of Califomii. aM O'et' tilt; age of cighteal yean, and n04 I party to the: wilmn t Clion; my busirv:s, addres! i.;; Hill. 1 'lIITe' & Bwrill LlP, One CaJifomi" PliI7J1, J 7th Floor, l os AngeiCll, California 9007 1-3147. On !vIay 30, 2012, I sm-ro the "'i lhi n docum""b:
LETTER RE NOTICE OF INTEST TO I<1LE CEQA PETITION L'i THE MATTER OF THE APPROVAL OF THE CRENSllA W-U. W TRAl'iSIT CORRIOOR PROJECT
,
1
9 10
o o o o
by tmnsll'lItting via facsimile the IO rlh below on this dale bciore 5:00 PJD.
by pladng the s\)(we in a scaled \m\'clopc with thereon fully prepaid, in the United Slate.! mail at 1.0$ Angeles, ilddrcssed a, forth below.
by caming pcnonal delwcry by of LIIe r=on(S) III the m ro:mb belO\l'.
'I !l
/'
!IIU'
i
h i!
j'!I!'
12
13
"
."
1
by placing the documcnt(i) listed K tx",e in I !c3lcd envel ope ana Ih. envelope 10 Ix: dcliver. d In a anixing a prepaid air bill, and agenl for delin'fY.
by
16
11
Jislcd
to the- PCl501I{S) !U
1S
19
20
21
J am r. miJil\C with flnn's pllldice of colleen"n and procal5ing COlTespundcncc for mailing. Under thai il would be deposited willi the U.s. po,tal Servin. OJ] that wnc diY with postage thtn"On fuJly plepaid in the ordinary roLUSe of busiroc:ss. am aWlIIe thai on moticn of the party 1oeIVed, !lel"Vicc: i, pre:lwnCl,\ in"alid if taneellalion date of deposit for mailing in dale or pastas" meter date i. more than one day
300VC
22 23
I c!ccllIl'e under penalty of petjury under the 1111'S of Ihe Slate of Califomia !hat the i, true and corrcct.
urcutcd 011 !<by 30, 2012. al!..os Angeles, C.Jif(1mia.
13
26
"
21
"
1
2
SERVlCE LIST
L.oII Angeles County Metropolitan Transpm1abon AtU hority Gateway PllIU Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tran!it Administration
l
4
j
,
9
10
los Angcles MetmpnlilaIl 888 Figueroa St" Suile 1850 Lo! Angeles, CA 90017
U9Q!M
11
12 13
14
15
16 17
18
19
20
21
22
2J
24 25
26
EXHIBIT B
1
1
3
4
5
6
HILL FARRER &. Bt.:RRU, L LLP K.,\;:lli. fl rop" (lIa, Nc. 089421) De!lli3.llauUs(llarNa . (1 2616) One 37th FI,xlr 300 Grillld A_en ue 'XlOil -31 47 Telephone.. (1 13)&20-0460 Fax: (213)624-4340
AlulTneys fnr Petilil>neJ
("()L-:\T\' Of LOS
to
11
12
CASE NO. PETITIONER'S ELECTJO:of TO PREPARE THE RECORD OF PR OCEEDINGS FOR THE PROJ ECT
Ihl>. Rtl. C. 2lIli7.6(b)(l)]
Petit;ooer,
IJ
]4
IS
16
17
18
19
FIODER AL TRANSIT
W
11
____________ 1
..
"
24
25
26
"
28
"
..
1
SER,,'ICF. LIST
2
J
,
7
Tnnsporulhln Authori ty
One Gateway PIIUlI Los Angeles, CA 90012
8 9 10
Chllfles Safer General C<lIDuci Lo, AIlgele; County f>h:tropo\itan T rlinsport:t1inn ,\uLhonly Or.: GatCll-'ay I'la:LlI Los Angeles, C." 90012 From! 'Transit Adminislnllion RcgiQll IX 201 Mis:;iun Strt:i:t, SlIite 1650 San francisco, CA 941051839 FedcrAllransit Administrati<.>ll Region
LO! Angeles "'lclropolitlUl Ot1icc 888 Figueroa Suite 1850 1"'$ AngciC;!i, CA 90017
l!
!,ill!
P 'j.,I;
f
i"
i
II
12
I3
IX
i!!r! ,. Ii
14
I, I'
l7
18 19
20
21
22
2J 24
" 26
27
28
-2-