C OUNTY OF LO S A N GELES

OF FICE OF THE C OU NTY C O U NS EL
IlIYi S JOl<

Olf! GA 1611''' Y ,lAZ,\

lOS ..... OH. L.S

lEl..E.l'HOtlt.
<1).,,?l1.Z5UJ

JOHN F. KRATTL!

Actiog Cou nty Coumd

June 6, 2012

(21))

'00
(II J) 0).)J.0')01

M t\Jl

oIoo.-..v.iI-""""

TO:

ELEANO R KAOA)/ Gt'nerni Litigation P i-·i slan

(

FROM:

RlClIARD P. CHASTANG

Principal Deputy Coumy Cou!l:.ci TranSpOrtlllion L>ivision
BE\,l:RL\, fULLS l'NrFlED SCHOOL IlISTRlC!'". LAO·ITA; FEDERAL TRAI"SIT AOl\l[NI.STRATlON Cllse No. 8 5 137606
T bis is being bandied ;n(emally in the T nlllspon:lIioD Divbion (see attached). Please issue II RMI S number fur this case.

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",,]

RICHARD P. CUASTAKG D'1luty County Counsel

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

LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

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;

I. the underslgned, acknowledge by my signature, tllal l (5):

the dorument

Entitled:

BEVERLY HillS UNIFIeD SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. LACMTA

Claim or Case No.

_ _ _ _ _

served on: 616/2012

St..J,g

Print name
Date

Sigmilure

0

Badge number

Department

IN0

COMMENTS:

WES TSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT

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).

11'-4," 1,;' At>""'"" H ..... r""'.

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


2

J
4

,
7
8

5

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 9C071·3J 47 Telephone: (2\3) 620·0460 Fu: (213) 624-4840
AUomcys for

BEVERLY lllLLS

u't>, lFJED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ATE OF CALIfORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF TUE-

9

COUf\TY OF LOS ANC':U:S

10
11 Bl'V ERI.V HILLS UNIfiED SCHOO L DlSTRlCT,
hnti onCf.
\'S.

CASE NO.

Jl

PETITIO,'>; JIOII. "lUT OF i\lANIHTE
[CCr §§ Hl8S, 1094.S Mnd Clllfnrnla

JJ

ED,-ironmental QUglity Act, Pub. Re., C. §§
2 I HiS.!)

14
15

21167,

I..OS ANGELES COL"'!\TY .Y!E1ROPOUT AN TRAKSPORTA'rJlN AUTHORITY: DOES 1 THROt:GI120,

16 17
18
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMI.'iSTKATION, DOES 21 through lO,

______ 1R"cal Partie! in [ntcrest. 1 20
21
2l

19

13

" " 26
27

"

1


3
9 5

0

I;-iTRODlJCTION

I.

Beverly Hills Unilioo Sch,,,,] District ("BIlUSD") nrings this action because the

L{l5 Angeles County '\ftrtmpolitan Tran.,it .\uthority's (".\lerro") California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") fa; led due to a rosh-lo-Judgment by the '\klm Bo:ml designed to

,
8

6

hurry the dcci,ion through without awaiting full and (;()mplete information needed by the decision

makers and the public to mah informed environmental choice>.
2. I" October 20 10, after Metro's of dIe Drall Environm""t"l Impact

9

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

"

()f CeplUry City,

QJ:

(2) a more southerly routc

r

'" i <' • < ... I ',. .

under re,idences in Beverly HilL< and

under the ce'ltral portic'n of th e Beverly lIills

§

High School campti. to a ,Iation at COI,.,tellation Boulevard_ (llec·ause the subway tunnd must

"
17 18 19

1Is.co:rid the hill h<.hil1d tm high .mool to

Constellation, the tu!ll1e1s pas.s rdatively near the

,urface

the ,choo!.) So on O<:tob.,..18, 2010, the l>-Ielm Hoard defelTed a decision on a
additional scismic by rvletro's consul!allts.

Century City station localion to ),

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

Santa Monica Boulevard making that

Hills High School itself was crossed by an acli vc /auk

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

and now widespread seismic invcstigation.

,2
\fUlFlED

""'m OF I>f ,,",nul' TO

co",u.<",,'f '.111"

PlJBLl:'

"f(DRns ." :1'

J

i

1 2
l
4

4.
investigation

\forfXIver,

studies CalU10t be completoo overnight; more

detailed pnysical dating (If the >oils, deep borings and open trending of did not include any soil

atTcc(oo area.>. Ivldro'.< own investigations __

01 trenching

_. look OHr a year to compiete. Tncsc sluciie, cannot

cut short by arbitrary politiclll

,
,
8 0

5

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.

I

5.

Despite BHL'SD',I

that MetrD

iL, approval ,chcciuk a mailer of

months to allow (he _,ci.l1liiic
chance for

to be wmpleted and to allow the geologi.<b the pushed fOf,vard QIl!b e most

on the true seismic picture, the Ivletro

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

"" ' "i
... 'j

2i ;

";

complete, create a supplemental report and recirculate It (0 the public tor agency and public commcnt ];l£1(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

<)r refinements are made to a project midstream or 'ignifi<:ant new infonnation is

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

A"fm'menl iRecirculated Section,

0/ the Draji Environmenlal Impaci
issued a

fot th e Regional
Drafi

Tran,it Omid.)!, and in Februar:. 2011, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1n 17 18

EIIf'ironmenral Imp"CI SlmemenriRecircuial<,d nrafl fl'n,ironmemalimpact Report for thc

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

that nearly a year aoo a half

EIS/ErR, Metro ,taiT submitted

to the PTA to justify 1\"e", StJl"h funding that only

indnded dowmeniation for ihe Constellation Stati()n

-- not Santa Monica Boulevard. and that all ufthe for that decision.

It appoar! that Mdro stalThad long before SdectN the Constd lution

reports it preparcd md i»11oo since were a sl:mtro,
10.

19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

The essential pU11'Ose of an ErS/EIR is to give tbe public and govcrmnental

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

rcMcd environmental documents,

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

territory in compliance with CEQA,

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

through 50, inclusive, and therefore

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

5

or ,)ther responsibiliry in or for the Project. 2 3 th" ProjOLt. Petitioner i,

or hendicially interested in Mwo', decisions with respect to

4
5 18.

HISTORY Of TIlf, PROJECT AND PUBLIC PROCESS
The Projcct, if implemcnted, will PUTI e line ,ubway

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

at apl'Tmimatdy t -mile intervab.

1'.

In January 2(){)9, "l etro

an Alternatives Analysis Study and authorized E1SiElR;, being prepared joindyby Metro

preparation ofa Draft E1SiElR for the

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

4321 et ""'I-l ("'1EP A"), .Mt:tro

lead agency for

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.

concerns, alld incompatibility with thc high

21

21

On Odobcr 28, 2010, the M..t", Board me! to consider th e puhlic commenh
and on that dutc it approved

Drafl EIS/EIR incl<Iding se btion of the locally

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,),

EIS/EIR, four of thc ,cven stations had fimlly

25 26

and Wil,hire/F airl:u in los Angel e., _ WiL,hire/La

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

options for the subway west of Wil<!ure. Rodeo, The \V

+

station and the \V cstw""dIV A Hospital alternative locatiuns
1
3

only minor variations in

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

Celltury City presented more dramatic station locations and The

inv()i,,; ng SlgmJicamly

variation< in the

"e.\ for Century City calletl fm eitn.r a station on hem'een

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

presented widely divergent

1 "';1 .e rI< '" !
> " "

i 1 1" I

-' " r
0

j

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,

or the Stars, principally under tho",

-" :: "

! ., 15
>

i

14

trum \Vihhir,,/Roow to a Cnnstdlation Station, the propmed alignment dmps
and Santa I"tonica BDulevards, traveling fir,t under

'igllificantly to the .."uth residential Campus, including the .. and then

16

under the

of the Beverly Hill .. High School

17 18
19

() f its exi,ting building', heillf" climbing

hill to Cenlnry City and

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

7

>

,",conclusive. Metro conlnlClOrs in 2009·2010 had conducted preliminary ge<:lIedmical\ests in

,
,
5

2

the Dr "", amI, ba=.! on IhCM.'IWics, Mclru

cmt .... ed

the Cr:ntury City SIII11a Monica station II the qUell;!)" ofC:tc nmrocc

A __ roue of the 81=. Oe$pite this decision, the Draft ETS:'EJR

"f the Santa MorUca Faull as an
Boul evard. According 10 Metro, nl of

cast-wcsllrending fauh gcnetRlly lllong

,
1
8
10

20 1O.

the Slale of Calitomia identifi ed the

.. Moni"" falLlt a. "active" baiOO

liP'll! "lhI;

most lhofn"gh s.cicnttfic !'esc/u'ch

to

date [)n th" fiwH" hy Prol""..'!(J(

of use in 2000; "[{!hi! infonuatioo is used a! !he prilThlr)'
Metro rontinucd: Ihis re5earCh

soU@: Ii", ""mlific infurmauon about the f<wll

determined thai the Sanlll Moo i.:a llIulll.t let;,"\!, it IIad not bun

to lead to. couclusion 011

the pITci,c location of Ih& fault

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 g¢t"ttJy east-dil'ping ConljltOn blind fault thru5t. Ho"",'a, Lang (J 994) rq"nud lhal $BMw-face IlUpping ..ithin the QlCViot Will and Be--my HiUs oil fidd" roottrained by dense subsurfa<:e control, precludes !he CXlStcnCC of the West &..,.:1Iy H,lIs UIIea1IIent. Thu.1ho: prospeet that the West Ikverly Hdls Lineame.1t i, the 'Mface marufestatioo of all active ioult h.:lS not been oonfirmed and i, has not been included intl>c tahle:.oo>o:. Further cVlluat;!)fI uf the Wes' Beveny Li" ""mem and its 10 tM Project would be: perfo rmed during design lel'cl investigati'lIU for the Project." DespIte all this uncertainty. the Draft EISIEIR concludoo:
"rk Projc.::t would not r.. in lin increased cxpo<iure to the ri sk witl! grol,lltrl shaking, nor would it cx:!CCrl:tatc preSl nta Monica existing IICIsmic ooltrlitions. Th;' crossing of fault wuuld be. potenliall )" .ignificant imQact; howcvCf. the miligation measutel abovc would signific.utt impaclj to Iel(s-than·sigllificant. Implcmettuuon of the rc:commendc:d mitigation mlC3>.urcs .."OUld reduce the impacts Iclalm 10 goologlc h17.atd$ 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",*-

'''II! "il I,.!I: /. ,II ,

,!,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

. .

"

1

ElSiElR, th e I\letro BoanJ. .dected the Locally Preferred and station locations. But,

for the subway alignment

, •
)

to .Metro, "the Board deferred the decision on the ;Mion
location of the Santa Monica j'lUlt and the sit"." furth.,,-, tile

site at Century City bas ed on the uncertainty of

4 5 6 7
8

,,,,rety of con,;tructing and operating a ,!atioll at the Santa ""Ionica

Boanj "dire Gt."f that

additional.stl1<iie, k carried out t{) re'pond to

que'li(lns and

concel1l8 raised during 25,

Draft E1S,TlR public comment pen(HI,"

FOT a numb." of months fo \lowing this October ]0 j () calJ for additional studies,
2011, Metro

!vldro rcka,oo no infOlmati(\n on the seiomic situatioll. Thffi, in

9

ann()unced ()n it,

and without the opportunity for pllblic comm<:nl, that it had dcci,kd t()

10

shift the station box for the Century City Santa

Boulc,'anl Itation "ignifieamly to the east
:....lonic.a ,tation Parl Ea.<t.

• • "' ' :-

8

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

reports al,o detennined tnat

West

Hills Lineament, heretofore not

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,

These Octob.r 20 11 report. were the fi rst time there had

any indication that

)"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.

Alma,( imm ediately,

),,·jetT(l' s

,,'Gte q ucslioncd by licensed

7

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

the vicinity or the pmpmed Con>;te\l at;em station; and (:1)

,tudies

over.,een by Dr. Dolan

\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

Moreover, because of Metro's conciu,ioo that

, ..
!

''ii" ,,< , ... .. .1,
0: _

.. 0

t

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

Snppl.. nental Draft EIS/EIR to address the

c i"ue.' and allow the public an Qpportunity to
Were

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.

h% rationalization for that decisin"_
consultants tor City 0 f

In early Fcbmary 20 12, ExpoMnl, Inc.,

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,idr·Suhway 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

Wilso!] Report contradicted lhe conclusio!lll reached in the .\-Ietm

Studies, stating:

WBH l d(l"" not appear 10 be acti vc b",<ed on the trencni ng - 11 -

I
2

completed at BHHS, but, ..< di:;cm,e<i uf>\lI'c, should be confinued
with additional tretKhing along Santa Monica Boulevard."

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

RIS/ElR 'lot be Metm

a Supplemental EISiElR to addre" the work

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

Supplemental Draft EIS/ElR b . cause, according to the IT 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

7

FT A that the Ck:toher 20 I 0 \-letto Board action occurred , ller the p"",x1, that :\-leITo Bourd that

that it did not havo enough in/ol1llation at

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

"active," that Metro had that fault, that Metro had

I

12 13

Lineament as "speculation," or that

Metm ,hKlie, rulcll out the relocated station M

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

E1S/ElR did not addre.<., the work being done by

City', Exponent Report. Alth(mgh th e report did acknowledge that with - IJ -

rcspect !o the Constellation Station: "llazardous subsurface gases (methane 2 3 4 5

hydrogen

sulfide) posc a hazard during construction and operation, Impacts dlLe to these p"y cm)(iitions

and technique, and meQ,UfeS to
in Section 4.15."
38.

thi, potential impact duri ng

are discussed

Lndcr NEP ,\, loilowing reiea-,e of the final EISimR, theN: is an additional 30--day

,
8 9 10 11 12

6

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

ElSiEiR until th e eIld of lI-lay to allow for continuing seismic smdy:

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 dcci£iun 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

condu.,ion'. BHL-SD concluded:

i. consistent with Mdm practice on (lther projoct< and gil'Cll the

7

morc than seven

already spent in project development wil! have a negiigihl e imp""!' It

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

5tuciie! in order to .:amply with its

llll<kr NEP A." BHUSD obje<::ted to th e the studies still pending, (2)

process bas . d npon (I) thc incomplete seismic analysi s

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.

the Final EISllilR

its April 26,

,
7

5

46.

On April 22, 201 2, th e Beverly

City COUllcil

L'Iililies Code § " lemt Bu ard

J06Jll lUld r"'l.ue..IM a hearin!! under that sccliun tu be .xmducted by

,
10

8

the proposal to

tIw: Iocalion of a subway slation Iilcilit)' It CoruldlariOl1 Buulevard in

CII)' and the proposal In

the luC3l;un uf lhe roaled subway tunnd alignment beneath !k>'crly

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

• ,

!"Hl j!!!!! .! • ;. ! , "

'I 'I' " 13 "

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

we ex[l<lsal sediments and $(IUS, dated by a vari ety o[rclative

numerk al method!, a. being

17

"

\lnfaulted and substantially older than I I ,SOO yean, the ddimng nwnber for an acti > " f..uh UI California. (kep borings. r«OvCT)' 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

/au/I.' Q.tloc/lIIed Mlh lilt WHIII,

fupWred In Iltt !wfou for 01 lellSl
."

and as .."clt poses no hu:ard /()

BHHS campus or nearby J/I"U{;/II1'U

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

pro\-i des further reason

for the continuanCt_ a! heretofore

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

FTA's decision to wait ii)r th. additional studies, it will
2 3
4

h.; ignoring

its obligations under
!(l

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 p¢Ilcling 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

9

\imro Bocrrd

.
j

10

\Veslcm lu Westwood hoj""l

, T
.,
,

11 12
13

including the following oonclusion: "[nhere i, decrr evidence Ihat the stalinnlocation" on Santa .'.1onica Boulevard (both elm and
WCSI)

would)", in active lauH Lone>; and arc not viahle location<

-. '(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 8, 2012, Metro announced lhat tho PtX

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

and n04 viah!e slallon locations. The

011 May

I

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

4

Lineament "'3.'! formed by

not

(2)

,
S

Ihal the claimed fault! pl otted (and rcpl l1llcd) by Metro' s
and the Sant3

on the )jl:\'o:rly Hills

r au lt Zo ne werc either ,,,,nexistent or ,'oCcurred wel l before the
and

1

Ho l,o<;en" Period, rendering tbem like]>'
adequately

(3 ) >lctro's !tudi"" haH' Jailed ta

,
!!'ill
I'
! ,

8

and uwcstisatc geologic unca1aintiCo! of tt.., C"nslcll.\!l<JfI location, "-, ",elias

p=ence of mc/han;;: gas, as idcnlllied by lixpommt in illl rqJOrt; and (4) :'-.1¢4f1l 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.s·e:r;aminl"t!

"tonica Sm.ion, furth", I;\i,dcncing 17 hcaring./\."1et,,, did not call single

11
I)

ii!< ,' .1, 111

the Code provilks bllt rclied instead on the ooneluston> in it.

cllnlficd f inal

14

ElS;EIR lIlid related documcnu.
51.

" " 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

• consensus on the IIJIJlI"OPtiate te<ring protocol
BHl'SP argued that

10 and 'Q,\.,,,,,ble

" 10
11 11

appfCllch is necessary \0 brina COJlll'i ete the 52. hearing no(

fOTa numbo:r of stal:eho lders in the &lea. as well a.. to thiSrequeST . 17

req\liroo by CEQA. Metro

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

when at the May
date with

16 11

il ca1i fi cd the Final EI RlEIS . The Filldinp basically ignore the
11 hearing and make no effort to tttOnci!c the .eiSlnICinY""lig:ah()n$ J)fcscnled 00

"

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

May 17, 20 12 hearing, the ;

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..., fr£c rcilPllll upine
24, nOl undef oath and without

fmt ..... "",d""""" h<lw Melm ha.< ",shed this

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

Pmjo:<:t to the We'ilwoodlV.... SI,\uon, Th.'iC
and

indudro the de<:ision to proceed ....1th the and

tL)igllment, and we adoption of Findings of

" "
" " 19
"

Statement of Overriding ConsideratioN f<.!r

l',.ojo:<:t. At the May 24 hearing, BHUSD mooc a st\ldies. It alllO Its

la.st ditch plea for '\ielro to wail an.! consiuer the c()ntinuing
request thai Metro prepare a Supplemental EIS/EIR

all of the siSlliikanl new mata.al

for hoth geology and

llanrds at COl1$tellation ill order 10 compl)' widl CEQA: "Smcc

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

2oJm'll. SubSllIntial new

"

" " " ,. "
2l

"

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

in a May 22. 2012 letter from

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

Addendum and involved sub>lanliJl

- 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

Respoooent of Petitioner', EI""I;o"

9

to

tho Record
j,

for the Project Im,.kr Pub. Res. Cooe S 21 16Hi\hX2). A
atllli:hcd hereto
fIS

,
j
.. t"

10

topy, along with a proof oflcnice, 59.

Exhibit B.

i 'Ii
<

!

II

BHUSO exhalt,ted its administrative remcdics, both orally and in writing, As a

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()

adequate remedy at law for Ihi, iULllamblc ham!.

,

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

vironmcntal hann. BI [USD acts as a private attomey gelkOCal to

o::nforao these public policies and prevent SUcil harm,

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() -

but also th.

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

the discu"ion and Jeci!inn

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"

to the station location and

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

inforrnaliYe and legally .ufficient fiR").
B.

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

the conclusiot15 in Metro's

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

2

and cI]\1ronmenlal data proffered by Mc1ro io ib studies

in Oclober 201t, :-VIeiro 'l-iolalcd

,
6

1

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

and pl'CSo:tll its i!lId;cs. T"

w .malyzc in a few 'ihort month! what took Metro a

year to prepare an<I ana lyzc is un,""u5jmuble, and

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

City CouncU (2010) 19D 0,1.
;",,,Ives some degree and

1I1!!1

"' /' I . , "
16 17 J8
\9
20

App. 4th 1351, 13&2 ["Draf'ling nn fiR ...
"an agc:ocy mil.! lIS" its

cfT"'"

10

find OQt IWd

all that it rea5(:mllbly can,"); ld at

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 prQj«t1; 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

RcfusallO Prepare and RcciIculat£ Supplemmlal Drall E1SIElR, Over

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.

relillnoe On a.rl inwmplete Draft EIR, with a.rl inadequate, urutahll:

project. description, tlw did nol include impot'WtI et....i!Oll(DClltal in formatIon Ib.t infonPed its

(feci.iun, incloolllg the nine additional consullluil IC"J'Orts!hal
mOle to CoOJm:,

been released in tho:: mlerim. ",illl Dstable projed eonclodins with I

21

CEQA', rcquimnml for a

"

descripli,m, f"llowed by a meaningful commcm period 0<\ thaI draft ·22·

response to thoSCCOIO tnml$ in Ihe Final EISIEIR Metro released it, Dr.1I1 EISlEtR 100 early in

2
l

the Jl'occ.\.'l before the

had been done so thaI the !l.lctro Bo.lrd o>uJoJ

project dmription . Cal. Code Regs., lit 14, § 1500S(b) [requinng thaI

ti!R be rreparnl "lai c

,
6
7 8

4

enough to provide meaningful infunnntiu" lor environmental
14 , § 150S2( a)( 1) [requiring, at a minimum, project"] And mlotmatiol1

"J; CIJ.

Rep. , Ii!.

in;:ludc the "10C:l.tion oft h"

c(llll;nnoo by Metro' 3 own actions in Jdcrring the dediioll 1'110.1 oolllmissioning

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

R"SS-, ti t. 14. § 15[26.6, MlI>d. (d).

Maro 10 either: (a) issue BOO d",;uMe a SlIpplcmemal [kill EISlE[R deSoCribingand new s.."icnlific dat., and

IH!j
"'1

P j!!d ' .ipl!
/ ' I!

II

ClIIIIJC of actlonlo coo"ruCl the Slillion &I

or (b)

12
Il

iSSl,le suh""l\Jcnt EISIEIR, CAL Old.! Rep., iiI. 14, §§ [5 1
dd'er the

15163. Metro co\l[d not .• imply

and 81ill rely on

inoomplele Draft H IS/ElR, Its deferral oCt[le

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

By fail ing LO recirculate the new e.wironmcntlll

fur public romlnent, in on.: fonn or

$1 1Othct" (i.e.., SupplancllIal Dr.Ift EIR or Subsequent EIRl, Mi.1rO comru.iued a prejudiC14l abuse

of di.Kretion for wtuch the Proj«t U ppl'O\"als must be sd ;side.. Cal. Pub.Res. Code, 121166 1,\
BUb$equml or UR

requited where tha-e i. r>eW infonnalion which was nol known

and cvuld !'KIt have heell known althe time the "mironmcn(allmpact rql(ln W1U \:.CI'tilkd as
complete, where
i, a substantial

21
22

to the project, or where the

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

" "

17 Cil. ApI'. 4th 154, 167 [I supplan<lntal E[R il prep.ud unde.-

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

" ,.

153S, I !'i44 [Where

I\;J.ve changed significantly, a supplemental EIR is l'lOI[ulrcd].

- 23-

LJ.

Ria.. in P!Wj!mmjlLment I/) tbo: O!Dstdlarif'n Statim By (I) . ubmitting
program only for thcConsIcllalrOll
on the in.:l(lt<j .... Droll

2
3

d..... 1lt1lClltat ion to the ITA (or the N.....
Ilef<>rc it

even

the Onfi EISltiIR; (2) lNShing fOTVl"dru in
to allow

4

ElSifilR imd

and tM inclusion of resp!)n., iv. zmd

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

7

studi"" ;ll1dinr om,en. a mt.'dill): of all of the rctainoo CXi'C't

Including grologists tcsllng protocol

S
9
10

fro", the

Geologic
rc=h.., the ptf1inm t

to

r..nnulale a coruc:mms on the

questions; and (4) cmil)ing the FmaJ H SlEJR fof

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

is coosidcrcd and giving "impetus to a alternatives or mitigation

foreseeable pmjoct in a m.1nnC( tMt foreclo ses

th ot W Q uld ordinarily be pm of CEQA review of th.tt public to the altemahve

project_" CaL Cod e Rcgs., tit 14, 15OtJ4. Hy before the evidoo.oc 1'.'1.'1
Qf

",idence to wpport the San ta Moni.:a

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

IfollywM (2008 ) 45 CIl1.4th 116, 132.

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

g<:clogisl talimony IMI is;n fi ll.
·14·

was p:>tentially
ignored !h()llc

due to lalerill rll!;\:ing

I

suggestions, Moreover, a number of

in particular, the City of Beverly HilL,' consultant

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

6

7

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

Cal, Code Regs" tit 14,

*15144; SUlinpaie

Neighbol'lwod Ass/I, ". City o/Sunnyvale City

Council (2010) 19Q CaL App. 4th 1351, U 82

n A1n aget"'Y must use its b est efforts to find [mt
a"""m""t of environmental impact of th e

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.

Inadequate Comparative Ri,k StatiQl)s. Th e Cily of

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

violated the infonnational

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

of tile proposed project and each alternative]); Cal. Cod.

tit. 14, §

2 3
4
5

15144;

iVeJl NeiXhborhood A.,.",_

City

Cify Council (2010) I 'Xl CaL

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

6

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

7

agency must 1101 decide issues without

,
" >-f :' ij.5 I·
-j
"

8

the data

te) make an ; nfonl1 ed asses,m ent ofthe environmental impact of the proposed

projox;tJ. G. tnarrmrriate Addendum. On the morning final hearing On 24, 2011,

, 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

....

f

§

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

To vacatc and sct aside ill;

(1) certifying the Final EISiEI R for the

ProjecL (2) approving the Project, wd (3) approving other related environmental documents;
B.

25 26
2. injunction

To C(lmply with Cr:QA pri()r to any future approval, of the Proje,t;

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

Metro has C(lmplied with all requirmlcnts of CEQ A: - 26·

1

3.
4.

For costs of suit; f or attorneys
and olher Inig:l1ion op<llSC5 under C.c.P. § I 02 L .5 Of OIher

1

,
6
7

3

applicable 13w; and
S. For $lith other IIlld
rclid .... the ('-00<1

,
9

ju.>l lnd propcc.

DATED: M ay 30, 2012

HlI.L,

&. (RRILL L l P

8
Be

10

BI::VERLY IlIL!.» UNIFIED SCIIOOL

KEVIN H. BR(XiAN Att«ney. for Plaintiff

/). '1/(/='<---'.,-------11

!li!l! '"' H I i' !' 'i

j.

P ",!i'

II

12
II
14

.

IS 16

17
18

19

20
21

" "
24

27
28

" "
- 27-

I

YERIElQAIION
STATEOFCALIHlRN1A
) )
)

2

3

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

'"

• ,
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

hich lIN stlted 00 inforrnatioo and

,
\0

8

belief, arulas to til",," matt"". 1 beli.VI: them to be true.

I

under penalty of peljury under the

of the Stale of C.lifornia that th<

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

Obt Col!f.,."io I'Wt

Gnod A ..n.,. llIII.\qflu. CoIjli:tmia

May 30.20 12 Via U.S. Mall

1·)\.'Ia.; ,... .." ...... hlllf.".,.<om

,KOOIl: (2,l! 610-<1460 •.IX: (31.3) 634'4840 n:w:r: (3'J) hHl8'5

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.

Los Angeles County Meu opolitan
Fe<leral1'ransit Adminlstral10n Federal Transit Administration VIII. U.S. MaD

"",,2

OF HILL, FARRER & BURRILL 11.1'
1I ' l77U B1'III2WZ

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

4


9 10

o o o o

by tmnsll'lItting via facsimile the IO rlh below on this dale bciore 5:00 PJD.

tilled above 10 !he fax number(s) sd

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

"

lU1ed above to the

,

."
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 pre·paid air bill, and agenl for delin'fY.

by

16
11

dcli,"CJIng the set rOM bdow,

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

6

Region IX 201 Miss; ,m Street. Sui te 1650 San f flIIl';_CO, CA 94105·1839
Federal Tl'ilmit Administrntion
Region lX

,
9
10

7

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

1lF.Vf.RLY HII.lS UNlFI ED SCHOOL DISTR ICT
7
R

SL'nRIOR COURT OF TUt STAn: 0" CALlFOR."]A

9

("()L-:\T\' Of LOS

to
11
12

BEVERLY HIllS t,;-'-IFIED SCHOOL DISTRlCT,

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

LOS ANGELES COlr.>lTY

METROPOLITAf..'TRANS PORT AnON

AUTH ORITY; DOES 1 THROl.'G H20,

17

18
19

ADMTNSTRATlON, DOES 21 t[,mugh 50,

FIODER AL TRANSIT

W
11

____________ 1

..

"
24
25
26

"

28

"
..
1

I

SER,,'ICF. LIST

2
J

Cler\( of the Board Los Angclc:! CoUllty M<:trup.llilan

, •
7

4

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 94105·1839 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-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful