Briefs filed in HSR Challenge

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:

  • 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.

Comments are closed.