Print
Case Law Updates on the Environment (CLUE)
Case Law Update Details
Case Title
Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC v. FTA
Court
U.S. District Court - California
Project
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension
Project Type
Transit
Project Description
The project was the second phase of a 16-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, including a new BART stop at the existing multimodal Diridon Station in downtown San Jose, California.
In 2004, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) prepared a joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), respectively) for the full 16-mile extension project. The 2004 Draft EIS/EIR stated that two parking structures would be built near Diridon Station to accommodate an anticipated parking demand of roughly 2,000 spaces. No action was taken to finalize the 2004 Draft EIS under NEPA.
FTA and VTA published a new Draft EIS in March 2009, followed by a Final EIS in March 2010. The EIS studied two alternatives: the full 16-mile extension and a 10-mile “Phase I” extension. The EIS stated that the full extension project would include construction of a new parking structure with approximately 1,300 spaces near Diridon Station and implementation of measures to mitigate parking demand at Diridon Station. In June 2010, FTA issued a Record of Decision that selected the Phase I alternative.
In December 2016, VTA and FTA issued a Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR (SEIS/SEIR) for the 6-mile Phase II of the extension project. The agencies published a Final SEIS/SEIR in February 2018. The SEIS/SEIR stated that no parking would be provided near Diridon Station as part of the project. FTA issued a ROD approving the Phase II extension project in June 2018.
Case Summary
The plaintiff raised various claims under NEPA. The plaintiff alleged that FTA’s and VTA’s decision to not provide parking near Diridon Station was predetermined and was not adequately explained; that the analysis of the project’s impacts on parking near Diridon Station was flawed; that mitigation for parking impacts was not sufficiently detailed; that the SEIS should have analyzed potential mixed-use developments by VTA adjacent to the new BART stations; that FTA should have prepared a supplemental environmental analysis of tunnel boring construction; and that the SEIS did not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. The court ruled in favor of FTA on all issues. As of January 2021, an appeal was pending.
Key Holdings
NEPA
Predetermination
The plaintiff argued that FTA had predetermined its decision to eliminate parking at Diridon Station in 2013, before completing the NEPA process for the project. The plaintiff cited to a 2013 letter from VTA inviting other agencies to participate in the environmental review process for the Phase II extension. That letter stated that VTA and FTA were considering a BART extension with no parking proposed at Diridon Station. The plaintiff also cited to a 2015 scoping report prepared by VTA and FTA, which stated that parking was no longer proposed at Diridon Station for the Phase II extension. The court concluded that neither document indicated that FTA made an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, and therefore FTA did not predetermine its decision before completing the NEPA process.
Parking Impacts
The plaintiff raised various arguments challenging FTA’s analysis of the project’s impacts on parking in the area around Diridon Station.
Methodology. The plaintiff argued that FTA should have analyzed parking impacts near Diridon Station by studying “unconstrained” parking demand (i.e., assuming BART riders’ decision to drive to Diridon Station would not be affected by the availability of parking near the station). Instead, the SEIS had used a “constrained” model, which assumed BART riders generally would not drive to Diridon Station in the absence of available parking. The court explained that FTA’s technical analysis and choice of methodology were entitled to deference. Moreover, the court found FTA’s methodology to be reasonable and adequately explained. The SEIS explained that the new BART stop at Diridon Station was expected to be a destination, rather than origin, station for commuters; the existing Diridon Station was well-served by other transit modes; and FTA’s decision was consistent with BART’s and the City of San Jose’s land use policies, which discouraged parking and automobile trips at Diridon Station and the surrounding area. These factors “reduce the likelihood that BART riders will park-and-ride at Diridon Station in the absence of BART-provided parking . . . [and] supported the FTA’s decision to utilize constrained mode-of-access modeling.”
Direct Impacts. The plaintiff challenged FTA’s analysis of parking impacts. The SEIS explained that construction of the project would permanently remove 715 existing public parking spaces near Diridon Station (roughly 5% of the 14,450 total spaces within a half-mile of Diridon Station), and roughly 1,700 parking spaces would be built at two nearby stations as part of the project. The SEIS estimated that most park-and-ride users would park at those nearby stations, with an average of 68 weekday riders parking near Diridon Station. The parking analysis in the SEIS determined that building a parking structure at Diridon Station would shift some park-and-ride users from nearby stations to Diridon Station but would have a negligible effect on total system ridership. The SEIS also described measures that VTA could take to control parking demand near Diridon Station. The court held that the SEIS took a sufficiently “hard look” at parking impacts.
Indirect Impacts. The plaintiff argued that FTA did not adequately consider indirect effects of a lack of parking near Diridon Station. The SEIS determined that that there would be no adverse effects on traffic or air quality caused by cars looking for parking near Diridon Station because the agencies’ parking analysis indicated that most riders would not park near Diridon Station in the absence of available parking. The SEIS also determined that that the project would not have an adverse impact on parking for arena events because the new BART stop at Diridon Station (across the street from the arena) would encourage event attendees to take transit rather than drive. The court held that the analysis of indirect effects provided the “reasonably thorough discussion” that NEPA required.
Mitigation. The SEIS recognized that project construction could cause short-term impacts on parking near Diridon Station and described three mitigation measures that VTA would implement, resulting in no adverse effect on parking. The plaintiff claimed that one of those measures—development of construction management transportation plans and traffic control plans—did not contain sufficient details. The court disagreed. The court noted that the SEIS described five components of the plans and explained how the plans would be organized and implemented. The SEIS also assessed the effectiveness of the plans and determined that they would reduce traffic impacts to non-adverse levels and would provide for safe travel by pedestrians and bicyclists during construction. The court held that this discussion was sufficiently detailed to satisfy NEPA’s requirements.
Change in Proposed Action
The plaintiff claimed that FTA’s decision not to provide parking at Diridon Station lacked a reasoned explanation. The court disagreed. First, the SEIS explained how not providing parking would be consistent with the project’s purpose and need. The court noted that agencies have considerable discretion in defining a project’s purpose and need. Here, one of the project purposes was to support local and regional land use policies. The SEIS explained that BART’s and the City of San Jose’s land use policies discouraged automobile use and parking in the area around Diridon Station. Second, the SEIS also explained why FTA departed from the parking analyses in prior environmental documents, including the 2004 Draft EIS/EIR and the 2010 Final EIS: the SEIS accounted for planned development near Diridon Station, local land use policies, the availability of parking at nearby BART stations, and a determination that the negligible increase in system ridership did not justify the cost of building a parking structure at Diridon Station. In sum, the court concluded that the SEIS provided a reasonable explanation for not providing parking at Diridon Station despite parking being proposed in earlier environmental documents.
Scope of NEPA Analysis
The cumulative impacts analysis in the SEIS included the effects of mixed-use developments that VTA proposed undertaking jointly with private developers on property adjacent to the new BART stations. The plaintiff asserted that the SEIS should have analyzed this development as part of the Phase II extension project, rather than as a cumulative project. The court held that VTA’s proposed transit-oriented development—which would not receive any federal funding—was not required to be considered as part of FTA’s proposed action in the SEIS because it was not “sufficiently intertwined” with the BART extension project. “Here, the [transit-oriented development] was a proposed independent action by VTA alone and was placed outside the scope of the federal SEIS. The [transit-oriented development] has independent utility and may be constructed simultaneously with or after the Extension Program dependent on the availability of funding and subject to market forces.”
Supplementation
The plaintiff argued that FTA’s decision to use tunnel boring construction rather than “cut and cover” construction for part of the project —which allegedly was made after publication of the Final SEIS—was significant new information that warranted supplemental environmental analysis. The court noted that the Final SEIS included detailed description and analysis of tunnel boring construction methods, their environmental effects, and mitigation measures. The court held that FTA adequately analyzed tunnel boring in the SEIS. “Even if the decision of which tunneling method came after the publication of the Final [SEIS], information regarding the methodologies, possible adverse effects, and mitigation strategies was already available in the record. NEPA does not require the FTA to re-analyze an option that the FTA already analyzed.”
Alternatives
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the SEIS did not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, because the plaintiff did not respond to the agencies' arguments on this issue and did not identify any specific alternative that FTA should have considered.
File Attachments