Changes to the Move Culver City project that were challenged in court will move forward as planned after L.A. County Superior Court Judge Richard L. Fruin, Jr. ruled in favor of Culver City in a 21-page judgment released Tuesday. 

Approved in September 2023, the proposed modification will replace the current configuration of one traffic lane with a bus lane and a bike lane in the western segment of the project —on Culver Boulevard from Duquesne Avenue to Canfield Avenue and on Washington Boulevard between Canfield Avenue and La Cienega Boulevard — to two lanes of traffic and a shared bus/bike lane.

A petition to challenge the proposed modifications was filed on October 17 by a party known as “Friends and Families for Move Culver City” represented by lawyer and Santa Monica City Council Candidate Ellis Raskin, alleging that an environmental study would be required under CEQA before the project could continue.

The challenge was based on requirements from the California Environmental Quality Act that modifications that would adversely impact the environment be subject to an environmental review. The city claimed an exception that the petitioners argued did not apply to the project, but the judge ruled that the evidence supported the city’s claim for an exception.

Move Culver City was initially proposed as a pilot project, a fact that the city argued allowed them to modify the project. The “Class I” exemption the city claimed allows for modifications to return a street to its “former use” that does not lead to a potentially significant environmental impact without an environmental study.

However, certain former-use projects are not protected under this exemption, including those that would create a significant detrimental impact on the environment. The petitioners argued the return of the second traffic lane to the Culver Boulevard corridor would result in more vehicle minutes in the corridor, and thus more greenhouse gas emissions

But the judge wrote in his ruling that there was not enough evidence to support that assertion. Several pieces of evidence presented by the petitioners were also dismissed from the record due to legal technicalities, including the petitioners’ attempt to present the concept of induced demand — an economic concept that states when the supply of something like street space rises, so too will the demand or use of that commodity — as evidence that car traffic will increase with an added lane.

Judge Fruin rejected this argument due to a lack of evidence or data directly supporting the idea that increasing the space for vehicles in the 1.3-mile corridor, dismissing induced demand as an “economic theory” as opposed to a proven principle. The petitioners presented video evidence and public comment as testimony to support their case, but Fruin determined that it was not enough — in part because many of the testimonies related to suffering incurred by unsafe pedestrian conditions were not in the project area.

“There is no substantial evidence that the modifications of the Pilot Project will cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly,” Fruin wrote.

One of the other arguments made was that the modification was not in line with the city’s General Plan, but that was also summarily dismissed. Instead, it was determined that the project changes qualified for exemption not only as a former use modification but also under an exemption in a different law for “bicycle facilities, transit prioritization projects, and transportation demand management programs.”

This exemption — under California Public Resources Code 21080.25 subd. (b) — was argued invalid because it would induce single-rider vehicle traffic and add an auxiliary lane to the street, the project did not qualify under this exemption. However, further in the law is the stipulation that states these qualifications can be made optional “for minor modifications needed for the efficient and safe movement of transit vehicles, bicycles, or high-occupancy vehicles,” which the judge ruled the project fulfilled.

Following the ruling’s release, both the city and Friends and Families for Move Culver City released statements reacting to the result. Culver City’s release states that pre-construction activities for the project will begin quickly after the ruling.

“During the lawsuit, the City delayed work on the Downtown Corridor with the goal of aligning the final decision of the trial court with the start of pre-construction activities for the MOVE Culver City Pilot Project,” the release stated. “It will now begin the next steps as approved by the City Council in September 2023.”

On the other hand, Friends and Family for Move Culver City expressed disappointment in the ruling and stated that additional options are being considered. Despite the judge’s decision, they still feel the modification is not beneficial to the city. 

“We believe that the evidence in the record clearly supports the conclusion that the Modified Move Culver City Project would result in substantial adverse environmental impacts, including human health and safety impacts,” a statement from Friends and Families for Move Culver City said.

They added, “Safety and common sense should transcend politics, and it is unfortunate that the city is continuing to move forward with the Modified Move Culver City Project.”