Petition For Writ of Mandate (Atherton Et Al vs. CalTrain)
Petition For Writ of Mandate (Atherton Et Al vs. CalTrain)
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
As causes of action against Respondent Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1.
Report (FEIR) for its Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (Project) and the approval of
said Project.
2.
PETITIONERS allege that RESPONDENTs actions in certifying the FEIR and approving
the Project were in violation of provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 15000 et seq.),
and an abuse of RESPONDENTs discretion.
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 1
3.
not have an adequate project description, did not give adequate consideration to the Projects
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
PETITIONERS allege that RESPONDENT approved the Project based on a FEIR that did
adequate mitigation measures to address the Projects significant impacts, failed to provide a fair
and adequate consideration of feasible alternatives to the approved Project, and failed to provide
adequate responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted
by other public agencies, as well as by concerned organizations and individuals. PETITIONERS
further allege that RESPONDENT violated CEQAs requirements 1) for recirculation of a DEIR
after addition of significant new information, and 2) for mandatory findings, in that the findings
did not support approval of the Project and were not supported by substantial evidence in the
record.
4.
12
rescind its approvals, as well as the Courts Permanent Injunction prohibiting RESPONDENT
13
from moving forward to consider re-approving the Project until and unless it has first fully and
14
properly complied with CEQA. PETITIONERS also seek this Courts preliminary relief by way
15
of its Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to prevent RESPONDENT from
16
moving forward with implementing the PROJECT pending this Courts final determination on
17
the merits. Finally PETITIONERS, acting in the public interest, seek an award of costs and of
18
attorneys fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 or other applicable authority.
PARTIES
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5.
the general laws of the State of California. ATHERTON lies directly astride the Project and will
be both directly and cumulatively impacted by the PROJECT. ATHERTON and many of its
citizens submitted comments on the Project and its environmental impacts, which comments
were not adequately responded to. ATHERTON files this action on behalf of itself and its
citizens, who will be directly and adversely affected by RESPONDENTs decisions to certify the
FEIR for the Project and approve the Project.
6.
California nonprofit public benefit corporation, headquartered in the Bay Area, established and
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 2
existing under the laws of the State of California as a regional advocate to promote transportation
solutions favoring transit over new highway capacity, development around transit stops rather
than sprawl into the Bay Area's open spaces, and more market-oriented pricing of private motor
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
vehicle travel. TRANSDEF advocates on behalf of its members and the public at large for
effective regional planning, smart growth, improved transit service, and cleaner air. TRANSDEF
has participated in the development of Bay Area Regional Transportation Plans and
Transportation Improvement Programs for more than twenty years. TRANSDEF has actively
engaged in numerous public agency proceedings involving transportation and air quality issues,
including specifically the administrative proceedings around the Project and its environmental
review under CEQA. TRANSDEF submitted comments on the Project and its environmental
impacts, which comments were not adequately responded to. The Project, as approved, will be
counter to TRANSDEFs interest in promoting efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally
12
sound public transportation projects and will therefore injure TRANSDEFs interests.
13
7.
14
public benefit corporation, established and existing under the laws of the State of California.
15
CC-HSR seeks to inform the public about the benefits and potential pitfalls of high-speed rail,
16
and particularly its effects on residents of the San Francisco Peninsula, and to advocate for a rail
17
system that respects the rights and values of residents of the San Francisco Peninsula. CC-HSR
18
files this action on behalf of itself and its members who are citizens, residents, property owners,
19
and taxpayers within the State of California, and more specifically within the San Francisco
20
Peninsula in the general area through which RESPONDENT proposes to run the Project. CC-
21
HSR and its member will be directly injured by the Project and its direct and cumulative impacts.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
CC-HSR and its members submitted comments on the Project and its environmental impacts,
which comments were not adequately responded to.
8.
PETITIONERS and their members/citizens have a direct and beneficial interest in the
9.
established and operating under the laws of the State of California. Respondent was established
by agreement between the Santa Clara County Transit District, the San Mateo County Transit
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
District, and the City and County of San Francisco in 1996 for the purpose of owning and
operating a public commuter rail service (Caltrain) along the San Francisco Peninsula between
San Francisco and San Jose, with extended service to Gilroy. RESPONDENT, its staff, and
contractors and consultants working under its control and direction, prepared the FEIR for the
Project, and RESPONDENTs governing board certified the FEIR for the Project and gave final
approval to the Project.
10. PETITIONERS are unaware of the true names and capacities of Respondents DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue those Respondents under fictitious names.
PETITIONERS will amend their Petition to show their true names and capacities when the
12
Respondents have been identified and their capacities ascertained. Each of the Respondents is
13
the agent, employee, or both of every other Respondent or is otherwise directly involved in the
14
Project and/or its approval, and each performed acts on which this action is based within the
15
course and scope of such Respondents agency, employment, or both, or has a direct and
16
immediate interest in the Project. PETITIONERS are informed and believe, and therefore allege,
17
that each Respondent is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings
18
referred to herein.
19
PROJECT BACKGROUND
20
11. RESPONDENT owns and operates the Caltrain commuter rail line, running between a
21
northern terminus in San Francisco and a southern terminus in Gilroy, with its major service
22
between San Francisco on the north and San Jose on the south. Caltrain operates on a right of
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
way and trackage which it purchased from the predecessor in interest of the Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP), and in which UP continues to hold vested rights under the purchase
agreement by which RESPONDENT acquired the right of way and trackage, including the right
to continue to operate freight service on RESPONDENTs trackage between San Jose and San
Francisco without interference by Caltrain operations. In addition, UP retains a right to approve
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 4
or disapprove any proposed intercity passenger rail operation along RESPONDENTs right-of-
way or trackage.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12. At the current time, RESPONDENT operates, at peak weekday commute hours, six trains
per hour, and during those hours many of the trains are already filled to or near their standingroom capacity.
13. RESPONDENT has studied the expected future ridership for Caltrain. Those studies
indicate that Caltrain ridership will exceed Caltrains rider capacity, especially during peak
weekday commute hours, in the near future. RESPONDENT therefore seeks to expand
Caltrains passenger capacity.
14. The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), a state agency under the State
10
Transportation Agency, plans to run high-speed rail service along the Caltrain corridor between
11
San Jose and San Francisco. In 2012, CHSRA certified a program-level FEIR for high-speed rail
12
service between San Francisco and Merced. That FEIR identified a preferred alignment through
13
Pacheco Pass south of Gilroy and then north through San Jose. CHSRAs April 2012 project
14
approval based on that EIR called for CHSRA to share RESPONDENTs corridor between San
15
Jose and San Francisco in what it called blended high-speed rail service, i.e., running both
16
Caltrain and high-speed rail trains on the same tracks with compatible supporting infrastructure,
17
18
19
20
21
22
and directed that the Project-level EIR for that segment focus solely on the blended system
approach.
15. Also in 2012, the California Legislature, at the request of CHSRA, appropriated 1.1 billion
dollars of bond funds authorized under the 2008 Proposition 1A state general obligation highspeed rail bond measure towards construction of improvements in the bookend segments of
CHSRAs proposed Los Angeles San Francisco high-speed rail line, specifically including
improvements to accommodate blended high-speed rail service on the San Francisco Peninsula.
23
24
25
(MOU) governing the proposed blended service under which RESPONDENT promised to
26
cooperate with CHSRA to achieve blended high-speed rail service between San Jose and San
27
Francisco.
28
29
30
17. The Caltrain HSR Appropriation is a major source of funding for the Project.
18. The estimated cost of the Project, as approved is approximately $1.5 billion.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
19. Under an agreement with CHSRA, RESPONDENT would receive approximately $600
million of Proposition 1A high-speed rail construction bond funds from the Bookends HSR
Appropriation for use in the Project.
20. Without the funding being provided to the Project by CHSRA, RESPONDENT would not
have sufficient funds available to make the Project, as approved, a feasible project.
PROJECT HISTORY
21. In or about April 2004, RESPONDENT issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a DEIR for the Project. A revised EA and
FEIR were issued on or about July 2009. Based on the revised EA, the Federal Transit
Administration issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project and
approved the Project in or about that same year; however RESPONDENT took no action on the
13
FEIR, pending resolution of issues around shared use of the Caltrain right of way from San
14
Francisco to San Jose between Caltrain and future high-speed rail service.
15
22. On or about January 31, 2013, RESPONDENT issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a
16
new EIR for the Project, which had been revised to reflect agreements with CHSRA on use of
17
RESPONDENTs right of way and trackage for blended high-speed rail service. A scoping
18
process for that EIR followed, ending on or about March 18, 2013.
19
23. On or about February 28, 2014, RESPONDENT issued its DEIR for the Project for a sixty-
20
day public review period, which closed on or about April 29, 2014.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
24. PETITIONERS, their members and citizens, and other governmental agencies,
organizations, and members of the public submitted oral and written comments on the DEIR to
RESPONDENT prior to the close of the public comment period.
25. On or about December 4, 2014, RESPONDENT issued its FEIR for the Project. The FEIR
purported to provide responses to all comments received during the comment period on the
DEIR. PETITIONERS and other governmental agencies, organizations, and individuals
submitted oral and written comments on the FEIR prior to the close of RESPONDENTs public
hearing to consider approving the Project.
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 6
26. On or about January 8, 2015, RESPONDENT voted to certify the FEIR and approve the
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
27. PETITIONERS have fully exhausted their administrative remedies to the extent required by
law. More specifically, PETITIONERS have fully satisfied the requirements of Public
oral and/or written comments to RESPONDENT, prior to the close of the public hearing before
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
the approval of the Project, objecting to the approval of the Project. PETITIONERS, their
members/citizens/elected officials, other public agencies, other organizations, and members of
the public raised each of the claims presented in this petition prior to the close of the public
hearing on the approval of the Project.
28. PETITIONERS have complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section
21167.5 by mailing written notice of the commencement of this action to RESPONDENT before
filing this Petition and Complaint. A copy of that notice, with proof of service, is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
29. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.7, PETITIONERS have provided a copy
16
of this Petition and Complaint to the California Attorney General. A copy of the accompanying
17
18
30. PETITIONERS have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
19
Unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate to require RESPONDENT to rescind its
20
approval of the Project and certification of the FEIR, RESPONDENTs actions in violation of
21
22
31. If RESPONDENT is not enjoined from moving forward to implement the Project and from
23
undertaking acts in furtherance thereof, PETITIONERS will suffer irreparable harm for which
24
there is no adequate remedy at law in that RESPONDENT will move forward on implementing
25
the Project, with attendant significant environmental impacts, without having first conducted
26
27
28
29
30
adequate environmental review, which might have avoided or mitigated some or all of those
impacts.
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 7
CHARGING ALLEGATIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
35. The Project, as a local commuter rail project that is located entirely within the State of
11
California, is owned and operated by a local public transit agency and does not connect in any
12
significant way with the national interstate rail network, is exempt from the jurisdiction of the
13
Surface Transportation Board (STB). Based on this, RESPONDENT applied for and received
14
a written exemption from the STB. That exemption was never challenged or rescinded.
15
36. RESPONDENT was the lead agency for environmental review of the Project under CEQA.
16
37. RESPONDENT determined that the Project had potential to cause significant adverse
17
environmental impacts, and therefore determined to prepare an EIR for the Project.
18
38. RESPONDENT had a duty under CEQA to certify that the FEIR for the Project satisfied all
19
20
requirements under CEQA. RESPONDENT violated this duty by certifying the FEIR for the
Project where the FEIR was deficient in the following respects:
Count One: Inadequate Project Description
21
22
23
24
25
26
39.
An EIR is required to include an adequate and stable description of the Project being
considered. The description must be accurate and must contain sufficient detail to allow the
reader of the EIR to understand the nature of the Project and its salient characteristics.
40. The project description in the FEIR was inadequate because it failed to accurately describe
the relationship between the Project and the blended system proposed by CHSRA. Further, the
project description varied between the DEIR and the FEIR.
27
28
29
30
41. In the DEIR, Caltrain and high-speed rail operations were proposed to diverge in the
northern direction south of the 4th and King Caltrain station, with Caltrain trains continuing north
and east to stop at the 4th and King station, with some then continuing further north to the new
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Transbay Transit Center (TTC). All high-speed rail trains, by contrast, would continue
directly to the TTC without stopping at the 4th and King station. However, in the FEIR the
project description was revised to indicate that the 4th and King station would be the northern
terminal for all Caltrain trains and all high-speed rail trains for an indefinite future period of time
because funding for a Downtown Tunnel Extension (DTX) connecting to the TTC was not
available. This change in the Project also required a redesign of the 4th and King station.
Accordingly, the inaccurate and unstable project description requires that the approval of the
Project and the certification of the FEIR be set aside.
42. More fundamentally, the project description is inadequate and misleading in that it describes
12
the Project as a stand-alone project independent of CHSRAs blended system. Yet the
13
Project Purpose places front and center the need for the project to Provide electrical
14
infrastructure compatible with high-speed rail. In fact, this criterion is used as a basis, and in
15
the DEIR, the primary basis, for rejecting as infeasible all of the project alternatives identified
16
17
43. If the project is truly a stand-alone project independent of serving as a precursor to the
18
blended system it is hard to understand why providing electrical infrastructure compatible with
19
the blended system should be a major project purpose. On the other hand, given that this is one
20
of, and perhaps the main purposes of the Project, and given that CHSRA is providing close to
21
half of the funding for the Project with Proposition 1A funds, which are specifically restricted to
22
23
24
25
26
planning and construction of a state high-speed rail system, RESPONDENTs position that the
Project is unconnected to construction of the blended system is untenable.
44. PETITIONERS therefore allege that the Project is not an independent stand-alone project,
but is, in fact, a significant and necessary component of CHSRAs blended high-speed rail
project.
27
28
29
30
45. As such, PETITIONERS allege that the EIRs project description is defective and
misleading in failing to describe the entirety of the project as including the construction of the
full blended system extending at least from San Jose to San Francisco.
Count Two: Failure to Fully Disclose and Adequately Analyze the Projects
Significant Environmental Impacts.
4
5
6
46.
47. The significant safety impact from expanding service to or through center platform Caltrain
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The FEIR fails to fully disclose or adequately analyze the Projects significant impacts.
stations whose safety for station patrons is already deficient and will be made more so by the
increase in service;
48. The significant safety impact of expanding service through grade crossings, such as that at
Watkins Avenue in Atherton, which are already unsafe and whose safety will be significantly
and adversely affected by the increase in service.
49. The significant cumulative impacts of the Project combined with the extension of CHSRAs
high-speed rail line along the Caltrain corridor (and other projects), and particularly the
following:
a. Impacts, including but not limited to both construction and operational noise, tree
17
18
straighten curved portions of the Caltrain trackage so that high-speed rail trains can
19
run at the expected 110 miles per hour, including, but not limited to, the Caltrain track
20
21
of the San Francisco International Airport (Colma Creek to South Linden Ave. and at
22
San Bruno Ave.); 4) just south of that same airport at Trousdale Drive; and 5) just
23
north of Highway 92 in San Mateo. All of these curvatures are too extreme to meet
24
the well-defined minimum curvature radius standards for 110 mph trains and are
25
readily identified from standard US Geological Survey maps of the route area.
26
b. Other impacts from the Core Capacity Projects agreed to in the MOU between
27
28
29
30
system high-speed rail trains to use the Caltrain system, including upgrades to
stations, grade crossings, tracks, bridges, and tunnels and the addition of passing
tracks.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
c. Impacts from construction and operation of interim high-speed rail station facilities
at the 4th & King Caltrain station as the interim northern terminus of the high-speed
train line in San Francisco, due to there being insufficient funding to complete the
Downtown Tunnel Extension (DTX) between the 4th & King Caltrain station of the
TTC. These impacts would include increased traffic in the areas surrounding the 4th
& King Station, with resultant congestion, decreased pedestrian and bicycle safety,
and local air quality impacts, none of which were addressed in the FEIR;
d. Failure to consider the potential impacts if UPs unwillingness to agree to allow
blended service, or a court decision declaring that blended service violates the
12
13
14
15
e. Failure to consider the cumulative traffic impacts of the Project in conjunction with
16
the blended high-speed rail system; more specifically, the EIR fails to identify and
17
analyze the cumulatively significant traffic impact on roadways crossing the Caltrain
18
alignment at grade crossings from the disruptions caused by safety gate closings at
19
grade crossings for Caltrain trains combined with gate closings at those same grade
20
crossings for blended system high-speed rail trains, and even more specifically for
21
gate closings at grade crossings when high-speed rail trains are using passing tracks
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
because of the schedule space occupied by blended system HSR trains, with the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
including commercial and industrial uses and air conditioning uses, the cumulative
13
increase in electrical power use can be expected to exceed available renewable energy
14
power sources and require the construction and/or operation of additional natural gas-
15
powered peaker power generation plants, which will significantly increase the
16
cumulative GHG production and air quality impacts, a potentially significant impact
17
18
50. All of the impacts from blended system high-speed rail identified in paragraph 49 would
19
result from, and would not occur but for RESPONDENTs approval of the Project, making them,
20
21
22
51. Under CEQA, an EIR must identify all feasible mitigation measures with the potential to
23
significantly reduce a potentially significant project impact, and specifically must identify any
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
and all feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impact to a less than
significant level.
52. The FEIR asserts that tree removal and pruning impacts could be partially mitigated by
repositioning the installation locations for some catenary support poles to a center position and
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 12
planting replacement trees, but asserts that the impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable. However, while the FEIR considered and rejected as proposed mitigation
separating the tracks over the entire project length to allow for a global repositioning of the
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
installation locations of all catenary support poles to a center position, and rejected moving
tracks further apart when it would result in increased noise and vibration impacts on sensitive
receptors, it did not consider or analyze the potential for selective track movement and center
pole positioning where tree removal/pruning impacts would be particularly severe, could be
mitigated by repositioning the installation locations of catenary support poles to a center
position, and where sensitive receptors would not be impacted by the change. The failure to
consider this mitigation, which could have reduced an impact identified as significant and
unavoidable without causing a significant secondary impact, violated CEQAs mandate and was
an abuse of discretion
12
53. As noted above, the EIR does not identify numerous potentially significant impacts
13
particularly impacts associated with changes to the EIR after the DEIR had been circulated for
14
public comment. Because these potentially significant impacts were not identified or analyzed,
15
feasible mitigation measures were not proposed to mitigate these impacts. This represents a
16
violation of CEQA requiring that the EIR be revised to identify and discuss feasible mitigation
17
measures for the additional new or increased impacts and then recirculated for public comment.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
54.
Under CEQA, an EIR must identify and discuss a reasonable range of feasible alternatives
to the proposed project. What constitutes a feasible range of alternatives depends on the specific
fact of the project under consideration and surrounding circumstances.
55. If a projects feasibility is less than certain, the range of feasible alternatives that must be
considered increases.
56. The Project is not part of the high-speed rail system described in Proposition 1A and for
which Proposition 1A bond funds were approved by California voters. It does not meet the
intent of the Legislature in writing Proposition 1A and of the voters in approving it because it is
not consistent with the EIRs for the high-speed rail system that were certified in 2005 and 2008.
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 13
(Streets & Highways Code 2704.04 subd. (a).) Further, it cannot be part of the high-speed rail
system described in Proposition 1A because the blended system cannot meet the maximum five-
minute headway capability required by Streets and Highways Code 2704.09 subd. (c).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
57. The $600 million contribution from CHSRA towards the Projects funding is subject to legal
challenge because it was not authorized by California voters as a permissible use of those
Proposition 1A bond funds.
58. Under the terms of Streets & Highways Code 2704.08 subd. (d) and of SB 1029, the 2012
legislative appropriation that appropriated Proposition 1A bond funding for the high-speed rail
system, including the $600 million proposed to be used in the Project, the $600 million
contribution of Proposition 1A bond funds for the Project from CHSRA may not be expended
towards construction of the Project until and unless CHSRA has approved and submitted and the
California Director of Finance has approved a final Funding Plan for the Project.
12
59. The final Funding Plan for the Project submitted to the Director of Finance must be
13
14
requirements of 2704.08 subd. (d) have been met. Among the requirements that the
15
consultants report must address is that the Project, upon completion, would be suitable and
16
ready for high-speed train operation. Based on the nature of the Project as approved, the
17
consultants report would be unable to indicate that this requirement would be met because the
18
Project would not meet the maximum curvature, positive train control, headway, and other
19
20
60. Because the independent consultants report would not be able to support the requirements
21
of 2704.08 subd. (d), the final Funding Plan for the Project, even if approved, would be subject
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
to legal challenge.
61. For all of the above reasons, because the availability of the $600 million in funding from
CHSRA is highly questionable, the feasibility of the Project as approved is open to question.
62. Because of the nature of the Project, it would not be possible to implement the Project on an
incremental or reduced scale basis if full funding for the Project was not available. This was
improperly not taken into account by RESPONDENT in evaluating the feasibility of different
alternatives.
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 14
63. Other project alternatives identified as feasible in the EIR for the Project could be
implemented on an incremental basis (i.e., they are scalable projects whose scope and timing can
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
alternative is acknowledged in the FEIR to meet many of the Projects objectives, while it would
have lower overall cost and could be implemented on an incremental basis. Further, while the
FEIR presumed that ridership for the DMMU alternative would be less than ridership for the
Project, there is no evidence or analysis in the record to support this presumption.
64. An additional alternative that would achieve even more of the Project objectives would be a
DMMU alternative with partial electrification. This would provide for electrification for
portions of the route, while on other portions of the route, the units would use diesel power.
Because the electrified portion would be shorter, costs would be less and this alternative, unlike
the Project, could be incrementally implemented, allowing its completion even if the $600
12
million of CHSRA funding was unavailable. While this alternative was mentioned in the FEIR,
13
and would achieve almost all of the project purposes identified in the EIR other than providing
14
an electric power source compatible with use by high-speed rail, it was not fully analyzed and
15
was rejected by RESPONDENT as infeasible, even though it would have fewer significant
16
impacts, would achieve almost of the identified project purposes, would have a far lower cost
17
than the Project, and, unlike the PROJECT, would be scalable and could be implemented
18
19
65. The FEIRs inaccurate and incomplete analysis of project alternatives violated CEQAs
20
requirements that an EIR include analysis of a reasonable range of feasible project alternatives
21
that might avoid one or more of the projects significant impacts and that the discussion of
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
project alternatives provide the decision makers and the public the information needed to make
an informed decision. Accordingly, the approval of the Project and the certification of the FEIR
must be set aside.
Count Five: Failure to Adequately Respond to Comments on the DEIR
66.
An EIR must include adequate written responses to all comments, both oral and written,
received by the lead agency during the public comment period. The FEIR was inadequate
because the responses to many of the comments received by the lead agency during the public
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 15
comment period were inadequate. In many cases, the responses were perfunctory or conclusory,
and in other cases the responses were not supported by substantial evidence. Specific comments
4
5
6
7
8
comments on the failure to adequately address the impacts of the blended high-speed rail service
and its connection to and facilitation by the Project, comments on the cumulative impacts of the
Project in conjunction with implementing the blended high-speed rail system, comments on
feasible alternatives, comments on safety impacts of the project at grade crossings, and other
comments on issues identified in this petition. Accordingly, the approval of the Project and the
certification of the FEIR must be set aside.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
arisen after the close of the previous public comment period that would require substantial
18
19
69. RESPONDENT violated its duty under CEQA by not recirculating the DEIR for public
20
comment after changes to the EIR resulted in addition of significant new information. This new
21
information included:
22
23
24
adopt.
25
26
27
28
29
30
70. RESPONDENT violated its duty under CEQA by failing to recirculate the DEIR for public
comment after this new information was made available. Accordingly, the approval of the
71. PETITIONERS hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs 1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
being provided by CHSRA might not, for legal reasons, be available. As a result,
17
the findings improperly assumed that full funding would be available to complete
18
the Project as approved and that the Project was therefore fully feasible as
19
approved;
20
b. The findings on rejection of alternatives failed to consider that, if the $600 million
21
of Proposition 1A bond funding was not available, less money would be available
22
to implement a project, and therefore the analysis and findings should have
23
considered the benefit of adopting a project that either had a lower total cost,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
c. Because did not properly consider factors influencing a proper decision, the
findings did not support the decision made by RESPONDENT and were therefor
an abuse of discretion.
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
PAGE 17
in the record did not support that conclusion and, to the contrary, indicated that
b. The findings determined that the Projects tree removal/pruning impacts were
refused to adopt might have reduced the impact to a less than significant level;
c. The findings improperly found that numerous cumulative impacts from the
Project in conjunction with the blended high-speed rail project were either
10
11
12
13
14
15
(a) vacate and set aside its determinations approving the Project;
16
(b) vacate and set aside its certification of the FEIR for the Project; remanding the
17
18
19
2.
20
RESPONDENT, its agents, servants and employees, and all others acting in concert with it or in
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
For this Courts temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining
its behalf, from taking any action to move forward on implementing the Project pending a final
decision on the merits by this Court.
3.
For this Courts permanent injunction restraining RESPONDENT, its agents, servants and
employees, and all others acting in concert with it or in its behalf, from undertaking any activity
or activities in furtherance of the Project until RESPONDENT has fully complied with this
Courts writ of mandate and judgment and taken all required actions that may be necessary to
bring the FEIR and all project approvals into compliance with CEQA.
4.
5.
For an award of attorneys fees under C.C.P. 1021.5 or other applicable basis; and
6.
For such other equitable and/or legal relief as the Court considers just and proper.
5
6
7
8
9
by:
STUART M. FLASHMAN
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Exhibit A
Law Offices of
Stuart M. Flashman
February 5, 2015
Ms. Martha Martinez, District
Secretary
Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board
P.O. Box 3006
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
RE: Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project).
Dear Ms. Martinez,
Please take notice that the Town of Atherton, the
Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, and the
Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail (the foregoing,
collectively, Petitioners) intend to file suit against the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (PCJPB) challenging
its approvals for the above-referenced project and its
associated environmental review. The lawsuit will allege
violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in
connection with those approvals.
Petitioners would be willing to engage in negotiations with
PCJPB to attempt to address their concerns without the need for
litigation if PCJPB would be willing to enter into an agreement
with Petitioners to toll the statute of limitations for filing
legal action. Please contact the undersigned immediately if you
wish to enter into such an agreement.
Most sincerely,
Stuart M. Flashman
Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman
Attorneys for the Town of
Atherton, the Transportation
Solutions Defense and Education
Fund, and Community Coalition on
High-Speed Rail
By:
Stuart M. Flashman
Stuart M. Flashman
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND are filing a petition for peremptory writ of
20
21
(Respondent) in San Mateo County Superior Court. The petition alleges that Respondent
22
23
violated provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA in granting approval to
the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project and its associated Environmental Impact Report.
A copy of the petition is enclosed herewith for your reference.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
PAGE 1
NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
2
3
4
STUART M. FLASHMAN
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
PAGE 2
NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
Stuart M. Flashman