Almanac

News - March 6, 2013

California High-Speed Rail Authority wins legal battle

by Gennady Sheyner

An effort by Peninsula cities to stop California's high-speed-rail project came to a screeching halt last week when a Sacramento County judge upheld the California High-Speed Rail Authority's environmental-review process for the highly controversial project.

The lawsuit was the second one brought against the authority by Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto. As a result of the first suit, the judge required the rail authority to revise parts of its environmental impact report.

The three cities, along with several coalition groups, had argued since 2008 that the rail authority failed to adequately review the Altamont Pass before it chose the Pacheco Pass as its preferred route for the Peninsula segment of the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line. The cities had challenged the rail authority's ridership projections for the Pacheco segment and argued that the agency did not adequately describe the project in its program-level environmental impact report (which is broader and more general in scope than the project-specific reviews).

Most recently, the cities had argued that the rail authority's environmental analysis is no longer sufficient because of the changing nature of the project. Initially envisioned as a four-track train system, with Caltrain running on the inside tracks along the Peninsula, the project has since morphed (under considerable pressure from Peninsula cities and lawmakers) into a "blended" system in which Caltrain and high-speed rail would share two tracks.

This significant change, the cities contended, means that the original environmental analysis is no longer valid. The original EIR, plaintiffs argued, fails to accurately describe the rail system currently under consideration.

Judge Michael Kenny dismissed this allegation and found that the rail authority had "fully complied" with prior rulings, which required revisions to sections dealing with traffic, noise and vibration impacts associated with narrowing the Monterey Highway in San Jose to accommodate the new system.

Judge Kenny also decided that the rail authority did indeed consider the two-track system, even if its original EIR focused on the four-track one. The judge specifically cited parts of the EIR that dealt with "phased implementation" of the system and the "blended system concept." The rail authority had previously considered the "blended system" as an interim step while the state proceeds with a four-track system.

The discussion of the blended alternative in the EIR, Judge Kenny wrote, was sufficient even if the document does not explicitly set forth this alternative as the finished product.

"Specifically, the discussion of the phased or blended system disclosed to the public, and to the decision-makers, what the changed effects of such a system would be," he wrote. "That disclosure served the information purposes of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) whether the blended system in the Caltrain corridor is an interim step toward final construction or whether, as petitioners contend, it may be the final end point for construction."

He also rejected the cities' contention that the new emphasis on the blended approach should require the rail authority to recirculate its EIR, triggering a fresh public-review process.

The environmental report's discussion of phasing and implementation of the blended system, he wrote, "served the goal of meaningful public participation in the CEQA review process."

The rail authority, he wrote, "adequately disclosed to the public how the project would be implemented and described in adequate detail what the environmental consequences of such implementation would be."

"Even if the process was not absolutely perfect, it was sufficient to comply with CEQA," he wrote.

Even though the Peninsula cities' arguments didn't carry the day, Judge Kenny's ruling could be a mixed blessing for the municipalities. The rail bill approved by the state Senate last fall allocated $1.1 billion for long-awaited improvements to the Caltrain corridor. This will include $700 million for electrification of the popular but cash-strapped system — a project that the agency has been studying for more than a decade. The funding may have been in jeopardy had the lawsuit gone the cities' way.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, recently proposed a bill that would further lock in the funds for Caltrain.

Judge Kenny's ruling is the latest of several notable victories for the once-beleaguered rail authority. Last year, the state Senate approved by a single vote funding for the first segment of the rail line, which would be constructed in the Central Valley. Judge Kenny's ruling in favor of the authority allows the rail project to bypass another potential delay.

Rail authority CEO Jeff Morales celebrated the legal victory with a statement that called Judge Kenny's ruling a "testament to the fact that the Authority is committed to delivering the high-speed rail project in accordance with the law and in partnership with the public."

"We continue to move forward to start construction this summer and create thousands of jobs in California," Mr. Morales wrote.

Comments

There are no comments yet for this post

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Choose a category: *

Since this is the first comment on this story a new topic will also be started in Town Square! Please choose a category that best describes this story.

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields