Briefs filed in HSR Challenge
04/25/11 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Briefing has commenced
in the challenge to the EIR for the High-Speed Rail
connection between the Bay Area and the Central
Valley. Plaintiffs filed their Opening Briefs today.
The case has been divided into two parts:
Atherton
I is a
continuation of the challenge to the 2008 EIR by the
Town of Atherton, the City of Menlo Park, the
Planning and Conservation League, the California Rail
Foundation, and the Transportation Solutions Defense
and Education Fund (TRANSDEF). Atherton II
is a new lawsuit
challenging the legality of the revised EIR by the
City of Palo Alto, the Community Coalition on
High-Speed Rail, Mid-Peninsula Residents for Civic
Sanity, and Pat Giorni. The current schedule is that
the two cases will be heard together on August 12 in
Sacramento. The briefs are available here:
Atherton I
Atherton I (Declaration of Elizabeth Alexis)
Atherton II
Atherton II (CC-HSR)
The principal contentions in the briefs are:
Atherton I
Atherton I (Declaration of Elizabeth Alexis)
Atherton II
Atherton II (CC-HSR)
The principal contentions in the briefs are:
- The project description was inadequate in failing to properly address the newly-discovered inaccuracy of previously-published modeling of the project and alternatives and failing to provide reliable information on ridership and revenue for the Project and alternatives;
- The Revised EIR failed to acknowledge significant or significantly increased traffic, noise, vibrational, air quality, visual, and blight-inducing impacts caused by changes to the Project since certification of the prior FPEIR;
- The Revised EIR failed to respond adequately to comments received on the Revised DEIR;
- The Revised EIR failed to adequately evaluate a feasible new alternative that would have substantially reduced or avoided significant Project impacts, but which the Project sponsor refused to either seriously consider or adopt;
- Respondent failed to recirculate the Revised EIR in response to the above new information;
- Respondent adopted inadequate findings in re-approving the Project. The findings were not supported by substantial evidence in the record.