Japanese Village, LLC v. FTA, No. 14-56837 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAppellants appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees on Appellants' claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321. Appellants argue that Appellees' environment impact analysis for a new underground light rail line project in downtown Los Angeles was inadequate. As a preliminary matter, the court declined to take judicial notice of the three documents on Metro’s website. The court declined to consider Japanese Village’s argument that the mitigation monitoring and report plan (MMRP) was not properly attached to the Record of Decision (ROD). The court rejected Japanese Village's challenges to the adequacy of the mitigation plan included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) regarding construction-related noise and vibration; operational noise and vibration; subsidence; and parking. The court also rejected Bonaventure's claims that Appellees (1) failed to analyze Closed-Face TBM construction as a reasonable alternative tunneling method for the Lower Flower portion of the Project in the FEIS; (2) failed to adequately analyze certain impacts and impermissibly deferred certain mitigation analyses in the FEIS; and (3) failed to prepare a Supplemental EIS to analyze nighttime construction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of federal and local transit agencies and officials (appellees) on claims under the National Environmental Policy Act brought by Japanese Village, LLC and Westin Bonaventure Hotel alleging that appellees’ environmental impact analysis for a new underground light rail line project in downtown Los Angeles was inadequate. Japanese Village and Bonaventure own real property near the rail line project. 4 JAPANESE VILLAGE V. FTA As a preliminary matter, the panel declined to take judicial notice of three documents on the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority website because the documents were already in the appellate record. The panel also declined to consider Japanese Village’s argument, that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was not properly attached to the federal Record of Decision, because Japanese Village failed to present the argument to the district court. The panel rejected Japanese Village’s challenges to the adequacy of the mitigation plan included with the Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 2012. Specifically, the panel held that appellees analyzed and adopted additional mitigation measures for construction- related noises and vibration in Japanese Village after the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the failure to see the need for these mitigation measures at the time the impact statement was released in January 2012 did not violate NEPA. The panel further held that regardless of whether temporary relocation was considered a mitigation measure or a source of harm, appellees did not violate NEPA as long as they took a hard look at each alternative and discussed the extent to which adverse effects could be avoided. The panel also held that appellees did not violate NEPA by not specifically requiring “isolated slab track” technology to mitigate operational noise and vibration from trains passing below Japanese Village. The panel also held that appellees’ plan to mitigate potential building subsidence due to tunneling under Japanese Village was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise in violation of law. Finally, the panel concluded that appellees’ analysis of off-street parking impacts was sufficient to pass muster under NEPA. JAPANESE VILLAGE V. FTA 5 Addressing Bonaventure Hotel’s arguments, the panel held that appellees were not arbitrary or capricious in finding that Closed-Face Tunnel Boring Machine construction was not a feasible alternative as a tunneling method for the Lower Flower portion of the Project. The panel also rejected Bonaventure’s challenges to the sufficiency of the project impact and mitigation analysis in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Finally, the panel held that no supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was required, and rejected Bonaventure’s claim that appellees were required to prepare a supplemental statement because Los Angeles Metro applied for noise ordinance variances to accommodate nighttime construction on Lower Flower after the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.