CEQA
Disappointment in ARB Case
05/15/17 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail |
Climate
Change
After three years of
hard work, TRANSDEF’s challenge
to the California
Air Resources Board’s adoption of its 2014 Scoping
Plan was rejected today by the Court.
Disappointingly, the decision was based purely on
the technical, procedural objections brought by
ARB. ARB never defended its decision to include a
GHG-increasing measure in a plan intended to
reduce GHGs.
In oral argument, TRANSDEF’s attorney, Stuart Flashman, proposed a new way to look at CEQA GHG impacts--one that we have not heard being used before: Because of the global climate change tipping point being close to the present, he distinguished near-term GHG emissions as being far more significant an impact than emissions occurring after the tipping point has been passed. While a very strong argument, the Court ruled that TRANSDEF’s comments had not made that point, so that we were barred from litigating it. We suggest this issue be raised in future cases.
In oral argument, TRANSDEF’s attorney, Stuart Flashman, proposed a new way to look at CEQA GHG impacts--one that we have not heard being used before: Because of the global climate change tipping point being close to the present, he distinguished near-term GHG emissions as being far more significant an impact than emissions occurring after the tipping point has been passed. While a very strong argument, the Court ruled that TRANSDEF’s comments had not made that point, so that we were barred from litigating it. We suggest this issue be raised in future cases.
ARB Scoping Plan Comments Filed
The Air Resources Board
produces a Scoping Plan every 5 years. It is the
guiding document for the GHG emissions reductions
needed to implement California’s climate policy.
TRANSDEF submitted a massive comment set, made up of
1). General Comments; 2). VMT Reduction
Comments,
Attachment: Comments on State-level
Strategies; 3). Environmental Assessment
Comments,
Attachment: Comments on CHSRA 2016 Business
Plan; and
4). Comments on Regional Emissions
Reduction Targets. For more climate change
resources, see this page.
Highway Widening--Crazy Business
11/18/16 Filed in: Transportation
Planning
TRANSDEF
submitted comments on Caltrans’ proposal to add
lanes to Highway 101 in San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties. The letter details how futile it would
be to add more lanes to the highway, thereby
further continuing dependence on solo driving, the
cause of congestion in the first place.
Oral Argument Scheduled
04/04/17 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Oral argument in
our challenge
to the Surface
Transportation Board’s Declaratory Order that
preempts CEQA actions from challenging the HSR
project, is being rescheduled to June or July. A
hearing will not be held on April 18.
Protecting Niles Canyon
03/03/17 Filed in: Transportation
Planning
TRANSDEF
submitted comments today on Caltrans’ proposal to
replace the 89 year-old bridge over Alameda Creek
on SR 84, to allow higher speeds “to meet driver
expectations.” i
Hearing in ARB Case March 17
02/22/17 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail |
Climate
Change
TRANSDEF’s
challenge to the Air Resources Board’s
inclusion of HSR in its 2014 Scoping Plan as a GHG
emissions reduction measure is now fully briefed
(see bottom of page for briefs). A hearing was
held March 17, 2017 at 10:00 am in Department 24,
Sacramento Superior Court.
TRANSDEF has submitted numerous comments to ARB on its 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which is scheduled for approval in April 2017.
TRANSDEF has submitted numerous comments to ARB on its 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which is scheduled for approval in April 2017.
Briefing Continues in ARB case
02/02/17 Filed in: Climate
Change |
High-Speed
Rail
TRANSDEF filed its Opening Brief in its challenge to
ARB’s inclusion of HSR in its 2014 Scoping Plan. It’s
been a long hard slog since we filed the case back in
2014, but things will move more quickly now.
See
this page
for a copy of the brief, for ARB’s Opposition Brief,
and for a description of the case’s complicated
history over the past two years. Here’s the Brief’s
Conclusion: Read
More...
CEQA Preemption Appeal Fully Briefed
05/18/16 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
The appeal of the CEQA Preemption Order by the
federal Surface Transportation Board for California
HSR is now fully briefed. Oral argument has not yet
been scheduled. The briefs are all posted on
the STB
page.
Caltrain Electrification Suit Fully Briefed
05/23/16 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail |
Transportation
Planning
The
challenge to
Caltrain’s Electrification EIR
is now fully briefed. (See bottom of page.)
Petitioners assert that the electrification project
is really the first phase of the HSR Blended System
on the Peninsula, making the EIR an impermissibly
chopped study of the project’s overall impacts. A
hearing has been scheduled for 9 AM, September 2,
2016 in Contra Costa Superior Court.
Opening Brief Filed in STB Appeal
12/07/15 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
TRANSDEF and its
allies Kings
County, Kings County Farm Bureau, California Citizens
for High-Speed Rail Accountability, Community
Coalition on High-Speed Rail, California Rail
Foundation, and Dignity Health today filed the Opening Brief in
their appeal of the federal Surface Transportation
Board’s Declaratory Order. That decision eliminated
the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s need to
comply with CEQA, due to the STB’s assertion of
federal preemption of all federal, state, and local
regulations pertaining to interstate railroads. See
the Briefs.
TRANSDEF Files STB Challenge
02/09/15 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
In the second of two
lawsuits filed today, TRANSDEF joined a coalition of
non-profits and Central Valley county governments
to challenge the decision of the federal
Surface Transportation Board (STB) preempting the
application of CEQA to California’s HSR project.
In what we consider to be a shocking use of state
power, the California Attorney General has
previously sought to eliminate the application of
CEQA to the state’s HSR project.
On October 9, 2014 the CHSRA petitioned the STB to block California courts from issuing injunctions that could stop construction of the HSR project. In an ugly turn of events, the STB issued a ruling on December 12, 2014 that blocked not only injunctions but all application of CEQA to the HSR project. Read More...
On October 9, 2014 the CHSRA petitioned the STB to block California courts from issuing injunctions that could stop construction of the HSR project. In an ugly turn of events, the STB issued a ruling on December 12, 2014 that blocked not only injunctions but all application of CEQA to the HSR project. Read More...
TRANSDEF Files Caltrain Electrification Lawsuit
02/09/15 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail |
Transportation
Planning
TRANSDEF today joined
in two litigation coalitions to file suit. In the
first lawsuit, it joined the Town of Atherton
and the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail to
challenge the Caltrain electrification
EIR.
TRANSDEF’s concern here is that spending $1.5
billion on electrification will not do much to
help ridership. That same money would have a much
bigger effect on ridership if it were spent to
build the Caltrain Downtown Extension to the
Transbay Transit Center. Worse, by trading its
current surplus capacity to the California
High-Speed Rail Authority for electrification
funding, it places a cap on its future ridership.
In an era of climate change, in which we need
transit operators to greatly expand their
ridership, this is a profound strategic error.
For thirty years, Caltrain has wanted to electrify, but never had the money. TRANSDEF believes that this longstanding desire blinded it to the agency’s best interests. We see this as tragically similar to the Biblical tale of Esau selling his birthright to his brother Jacob because he was hungry one night.
TRANSDEF filed extensive comments on the DEIR and the FEIR. See the Caltrain Electrification page for he background. Read More...
For thirty years, Caltrain has wanted to electrify, but never had the money. TRANSDEF believes that this longstanding desire blinded it to the agency’s best interests. We see this as tragically similar to the Biblical tale of Esau selling his birthright to his brother Jacob because he was hungry one night.
TRANSDEF filed extensive comments on the DEIR and the FEIR. See the Caltrain Electrification page for he background. Read More...
Contra Costa Stuck in the Past
10/15/14 Filed in: Transportation
Planning | Climate
Change
Contra Costa County’s
Transportation Authority has released a
draft 2014 Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. It is a classic suburban plan
that ignores the fundamental challenges posed by
climate change and congestion. TRANSDEF
submitted comments that attempt to identify a
different, more realistic pathway. We believe
these comments are widely applicable to suburbia.
See the Contra
Costa page for more.
CHSRA Declares Independence from CEQA
10/09/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
In a move that screams
desperation, the California High-Speed Rail Authority
filed a petition with the federal Surface
Transportation Board for a declaratory order that
would prevent any California court from issuing an
injunction to stop the construction of the
Fresno-Bakersfield portion of the project. CHSRA
wants to hide behind federal preemption. See
this page.
By running to the feds for protection, CHSRA has told the world it cannot and will not play by California rules.
In an earlier move seeking to protect its claim to federal preemption of environmental laws, CHSRA asked the Supreme Court to depublish the appellate decision in Town of Atherton II. See bottom of this page.
By running to the feds for protection, CHSRA has told the world it cannot and will not play by California rules.
In an earlier move seeking to protect its claim to federal preemption of environmental laws, CHSRA asked the Supreme Court to depublish the appellate decision in Town of Atherton II. See bottom of this page.
New Papers from MTC Lawsuits
09/30/14 Filed in: MTC
TRANSDEF received the
fruits of a Public Records Act request from MTC
today. Legal papers from Bay Area Citizens v. MTC,
including the Index to the nearly 57,000 page
Administrative Record, and the settlement agreements
in two other cases are posted at the bottom of
this
page.
CHSRA Tries to Ditch CEQA
09/22/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
After losing part of
an appellate
decision,
the California High-Speed Rail Authority filed a
request with the California Supreme Court today,
asking it to depublish the 7/31/14 ruling. That
would mean no other court could consider the
ruling to be precedent, thereby making it easier
to argue that CEQA doesn’t apply to railroad
projects that are under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Surface Transportation Board. All the
papers are posted at the bottom of
this
page.
Plan Bay Area Court Decision Released
Alameda County Superior
Court Judge Grillo issued a ruling today in
the Bay Area
Citizens v. ABAG challenge to Plan Bay Area. He
denied their petition that sought a ruling that the
EIR was inadequate. See the decision and the briefing
at the bottom of this
page.
This page also contains the settlement between the
MTC and Sierra Club and Communities for a Better
Environment.
Six Challenges to Fresno-Bakersfield FEIR
06/05/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
TRANSDEF has collected the six petitions that
challenge the
Fresno-Bakersfield project level FEIR. The
show begins...
Multiple Suits Challenge Plan Bay Area
Multiple lawsuits were
filed, challenging the FEIR for the Bay Area’s
regional plan under CEQA. Interestingly, they attack
the plan from different directions:
The Sierra Club/Communities for a Better Environment suit seeks a reduction in greenhouse gases and air pollution that affects communities of color in West Oakland. The “Bay Area Citizens” suit is a right-wing challenge to what it views as an assault on Americans’ God-given right to live in suburbs. The Building Industry Association suit makes interesting claims that have never been litigated: that the regional plan violates SB 375 by not providing for feasible levels of housing for the entire population of the Bay Area, including in-commuters from the Central Valley.
For the associated documents, see the bottom of this page.
The Sierra Club/Communities for a Better Environment suit seeks a reduction in greenhouse gases and air pollution that affects communities of color in West Oakland. The “Bay Area Citizens” suit is a right-wing challenge to what it views as an assault on Americans’ God-given right to live in suburbs. The Building Industry Association suit makes interesting claims that have never been litigated: that the regional plan violates SB 375 by not providing for feasible levels of housing for the entire population of the Bay Area, including in-commuters from the Central Valley.
For the associated documents, see the bottom of this page.
HSRA seeks federal protection from lawsuits
08/09/13 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
The California
High-Speed Rail Authority filed a brief today asking
the State Court of Appeal to dismiss the
Atherton
petitioners’ appeal on
the grounds that the federal Surface Transportation
Board had asserted federal jurisdiction over its
project.
This brief involved a massive amount of gall, seeing as the High-Speed Rail Authority had not applied to the STB for permission to construct its project until very recently, long after all the briefing in this case had been filed. All materials related to the appeal are available here.
This brief involved a massive amount of gall, seeing as the High-Speed Rail Authority had not applied to the STB for permission to construct its project until very recently, long after all the briefing in this case had been filed. All materials related to the appeal are available here.
TRANSDEF Comments on Plan Bay Area
TRANSDEF filed comments
on the Bay Area’s Draft Sustainable Communities
Strategy today. By a fascinating coincidence, U.S.
PIRG released its study today, called
A New
Direction,
which is directly relevant to how to approach a
regional transportation plan. This study points out
the transportation planning consequences of the
emerging pattern of millennials driving less. These
documents are available here.
Our Legal Team Has Been Busy
10/17/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Round
2
On October 15, 2012, petitioners in the Atherton I and Atherton II cases filed their Appellants Opening Brief, challenging several elements of a largely favorable court ruling back in February. For the brief, and details, see the bottom of this page.
Round 3
Two days later, our team filed an Objection to the Authority’s Return on the Writ. This is a procedure in which the High-Speed Rail Authority, represented by the Attorney General’s office, is seeking to demonstrate that it has completed a series of actions ordered by the Court, back in February. The Authority claims that its April 2012 Partially Revised Final Program EIR complies with CEQA. Our Objection claims that the EIR violates CEQA because it refuses to analyze as an EIR alternative the Blended System described in the Revised 2012 Business Plan. For details, see this page. Read More...
On October 15, 2012, petitioners in the Atherton I and Atherton II cases filed their Appellants Opening Brief, challenging several elements of a largely favorable court ruling back in February. For the brief, and details, see the bottom of this page.
Round 3
Two days later, our team filed an Objection to the Authority’s Return on the Writ. This is a procedure in which the High-Speed Rail Authority, represented by the Attorney General’s office, is seeking to demonstrate that it has completed a series of actions ordered by the Court, back in February. The Authority claims that its April 2012 Partially Revised Final Program EIR complies with CEQA. Our Objection claims that the EIR violates CEQA because it refuses to analyze as an EIR alternative the Blended System described in the Revised 2012 Business Plan. For details, see this page. Read More...
HSRA Approves Pacheco Yet Again
04/19/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
On April 19, in
accordance with writs issued by the Sacramento
Superior Court in response to litigation by TRANSDEF
and its allies, the CA High-Speed Rail Authority
rescinded its previous certification of the 2010
Revised Final Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central
Valley portion of its HST project, and rescinded its
approval of the Pacheco route.
After that action, the Board certified a Partially Revised Final Program EIR and adopted the Pacheco route. While the result was the same as its 2010 action, this time was different. Authority Board members went to great lengths to appear to seriously consider the Altamont route. This was a striking change from the arrogance of past Boards. Nonetheless, the outcome was the same: nothing has changed.
The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. TRANSDEF provided this testimony, which criticized the EIR and called out the EIR preparers’ underhanded tricks: Read More...
After that action, the Board certified a Partially Revised Final Program EIR and adopted the Pacheco route. While the result was the same as its 2010 action, this time was different. Authority Board members went to great lengths to appear to seriously consider the Altamont route. This was a striking change from the arrogance of past Boards. Nonetheless, the outcome was the same: nothing has changed.
The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. TRANSDEF provided this testimony, which criticized the EIR and called out the EIR preparers’ underhanded tricks: Read More...
Hospital Required to Mitigate GHGs
03/28/12 Filed in: Climate
Change
TRANSDEF, along with
fellow litigants the Sierra Club and the California
Nurses Association, prevailed in a challenge to
Sonoma County’s approval of a new Sutter Hospital on
the fringe of Santa Rosa. They challenged the
Environmental Impact Report as being inadequate in
mitigating greenhouse gases, because of the site
being totally auto-dependent. After several hearings
and appearances before a judge, the County agreed to
require Sutter Hospital to provide a shuttle to the
hospital from the nearest SMART rail station. Sutter
will also provide free bus and train passes to its
employees, in addition to other incentives for
vanpooling and carpooling.
These may possibly be the first mitigations in California imposed specifically for GHG impacts. Check out the Press Democrat story.
These may possibly be the first mitigations in California imposed specifically for GHG impacts. Check out the Press Democrat story.
LA Times Covers HSR
03/29/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
The Los Angeles Times
has given excellent coverage to questions about the
legality of the HSRA’s Central Valley project.
TRANSDEF’s David Schonbrunn was interviewed in this
article about the Governor’s attempt to get other
environmental groups to go easy on this
project.
Other HSR articles in the LA Times:
A detailed look into whether the blended system would comply with Proposition 1A.
Peter Calthorpe’s Vision California vs. right-wing defenders of the status quo.
Other HSR articles in the LA Times:
A detailed look into whether the blended system would comply with Proposition 1A.
Peter Calthorpe’s Vision California vs. right-wing defenders of the status quo.
Yet Another HSR DEIR
02/21/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
TRANSDEF, the Planning
and Conservation League, the California Rail
Foundation and the Community Coalition on High-Speed
Rail filed comments on the Partially Revised Draft
EIR today. This is the HSR Authority’s third attempt
to come up with a legally defensible EIR for the Bay
Area to Central Valley portion of the Statewide HSR
project. TRANSDEF and its allies, which include the
cities of Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto,
successfully challenged the previous EIRs.
These comments propose an entirely new Altamont route, based on the Altamont Corridor Rail Project Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. (See an earlier Newsletter for an overview of this exciting project.) By avoiding the environmental impacts identified in earlier DEIRs, this alternative poses a challenge to the Authority’s stubborn insistence on the Pacheco route: An unbiased evaluation would determine the new Altamont alternative to be environmentally superior to Pacheco.
The comment letters and attachments are posted at the bottom of the Altamont page.
These comments propose an entirely new Altamont route, based on the Altamont Corridor Rail Project Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. (See an earlier Newsletter for an overview of this exciting project.) By avoiding the environmental impacts identified in earlier DEIRs, this alternative poses a challenge to the Authority’s stubborn insistence on the Pacheco route: An unbiased evaluation would determine the new Altamont alternative to be environmentally superior to Pacheco.
The comment letters and attachments are posted at the bottom of the Altamont page.
Court Rules Again Against HSRA
11/10/11 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
On Thursday, November
10, Judge Michael Kenny of the Sacramento Superior
Court released a pair of decisions 38 and 40 pages
long, invalidating the Environmental Impact Report
for the Central Valley to Bay Area section of the
California High-Speed Rail project--for the second
time. The Judge found that the California High-Speed
Rail Authority had failed to adequately address a
series of challenges raised by the Petitioners,
comprised of the Town of Atherton, the City of Menlo
Park, the City of Palo Alto, the California Rail
Foundation, the Transportation Solutions Defense and
Education Fund, the Planning and Conservation League,
Patricia Giorni and the Mid-Peninsula Residents for
Civic Sanity.
The court found that the project’s Revised Environmental Impact Report had failed to discuss significant impacts, failed to consider information from the Authority’s parallel project-level studies, and failed to recirculate the document for public comments.
For the second time, the Court ordered the Authority to rescind its approvals selecting the Pacheco Pass alignment and its certification of the associated Revised Final Environmental Impact Report.
Gary Patton, co-counsel, stated that "The court's decision tells the California High-Speed Rail Authority that it can't keep ignoring the public's right to participate. The court's decision in the Atherton II case says that the Authority failed in its duty to recirculate the CEQA document to get public comments, and this was a violation of the law.”
Richard Tolmach, President of the California Rail Foundation, declared that “Twice in a row, the Authority ignored the requirements of environmental law. The Judge found they still have not done a proper study.”
Stuart Flashman, lead counsel, stated that “In rejecting the EIR, the Court has upheld the principle that significant project impacts cannot be swept under the rug for later consideration, after the key decisions have already been made.”
Because the EIR challenge was divided procedurally into two parts, there are two decisions: Atherton I and Atherton II. Read More...
The court found that the project’s Revised Environmental Impact Report had failed to discuss significant impacts, failed to consider information from the Authority’s parallel project-level studies, and failed to recirculate the document for public comments.
For the second time, the Court ordered the Authority to rescind its approvals selecting the Pacheco Pass alignment and its certification of the associated Revised Final Environmental Impact Report.
Gary Patton, co-counsel, stated that "The court's decision tells the California High-Speed Rail Authority that it can't keep ignoring the public's right to participate. The court's decision in the Atherton II case says that the Authority failed in its duty to recirculate the CEQA document to get public comments, and this was a violation of the law.”
Richard Tolmach, President of the California Rail Foundation, declared that “Twice in a row, the Authority ignored the requirements of environmental law. The Judge found they still have not done a proper study.”
Stuart Flashman, lead counsel, stated that “In rejecting the EIR, the Court has upheld the principle that significant project impacts cannot be swept under the rug for later consideration, after the key decisions have already been made.”
Because the EIR challenge was divided procedurally into two parts, there are two decisions: Atherton I and Atherton II. Read More...
Round 2 in HSR Litigation
10/04/10 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
A coalition of three
cities, three environmental organizations, two
citizens’ groups and a taxpayer today filed suit
challenging the Environmental Impact Report for the
high-speed rail connection between the Central Valley
and the Bay Area. The report was issued by the
California High-Speed Rail Authority, which is
responsible for planning a statewide high-speed rail
system. Five of the parties had challenged the
previous version of the report, resulting in the
court throwing it out and ordering it rewritten.
The cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton joined the California Rail Foundation, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund and the Planning and Conservation League. Palo Alto had not been a party in the previous challenge, although it filed a supportive brief. Also joining are two citizens’ groups centered in the San Francisco Peninsula: The Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail and Mid-Peninsula Residents for Civic Sanity. The Rail Authority’s chosen alignment would run through the Peninsula along the Caltrain/Union Pacific rail corridor.
Click here to see all the documents Read More...
The cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton joined the California Rail Foundation, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund and the Planning and Conservation League. Palo Alto had not been a party in the previous challenge, although it filed a supportive brief. Also joining are two citizens’ groups centered in the San Francisco Peninsula: The Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail and Mid-Peninsula Residents for Civic Sanity. The Rail Authority’s chosen alignment would run through the Peninsula along the Caltrain/Union Pacific rail corridor.
Click here to see all the documents Read More...
Statewide CEQA Guidelines Revisions
11/15/09 Filed in: Climate
Change
In response to SB 97
and AB 32, the California Resources Agency has been
revising the Guidelines under which the California
Environmental Quality Act is implemented. These
revisions call for the analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions as part of standard environmental review
under CEQA, including the analysis of the impacts of
the emissions and their mitigation. Check out
their website.
Comments Filed on Sonoma Transportation Plan
06/22/09 Filed in: Climate
Change |
Transportation
Planning
TRANSDEF filed comments on the Draft
EIR for the Sonoma County Transportation
Authority’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Find them next to the New! logo. Read
More...
Comments on the DEIS for BART to San Jose
05/08/09 Filed in: Transportation
Planning
Summary only available
when permalinks are enabled. Read
More...