228 Cal. App. 4th 314
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- California High-Speed Rail Authority plans Bay Area–Central Valley alignment; Pacheco Pass chosen over Altamont Pass; CEQA review via PEIR/EIS and program EIR tiering conducted since 2008.
- Atherton and allied petitioners challenged PEIR adequacy, including project description, alternatives, and traffic impacts; Setec Altamont alternative proposed but rejected.
- STB jurisdiction over HSR raised federal preemption concerns under ICCTA; petitioners argued CEQA remedy preempted; court found market participation doctrine creates exception to preemption.
- Courts analyzed whether Authority acted as a market participant/proprietary actor in CEQA compliance; found state ownership and Proposition 1A bond framework support market participation exception.
- Court affirmed judgment, holding Authority properly used program EIR with tiering to defer site-specific vertical alignment analysis to later project EIRs; ridership model and Setec alternatives challenged but deemed adequately supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICCTA preemption of CEQA remedy | Atherton: CEQA remedy preempted by ICCTA | Authority: ICCTA preempts CEQA but market participation exception may apply | Preemption exists but market participation applies |
| Failure to discuss vertical alignment impacts | Vertical alignment impacts deferred improperly | Tiering allows deferral to project-level analysis | Properly deferred; no CEQA defect |
| Ridership model adequacy | Model flawed; headway coefficient inflated bias toward Pacheco | Model built on professional judgment; credible experts support Cambridge’s approach | Model deemed sufficient; not clearly inadequate |
| Consideration of Setec Altamont alternatives | Setec alternatives required due to new information/opposition | Alternatives analysis complete; Setec alternatives infeasible or similar | No requirement to reconsider Setec; collateral estoppel applied to train-splitting issue |
| Dumbarton and other corridor options | Dumbarton crossing and South of Livermore route merit further analysis | Alternatives already analyzed; feasible/regulatory constraints shown | Authority not required to re-open Setec Dumbarton/Altamont analyses |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Auburn v. United States Gov't, 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998) (preemption of environmental review by ICCTA; STB jurisdiction context)
- Green Mountain R.R. Corp. v. Vermont, 404 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2005) (state police power environmental regs can withstand preemption if non-discriminatory)
- Elam v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (ICCTA preemption scope for rail transportation)
- Bay-Delta, 43 Cal.4th 1143 (2008) (program EIR/tiering; defer analysis to second-tier EIR if appropriate)
- Cardinal Towing & Refracting v. City of Bedford, 180 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 1999) (alternative test for market participation: proprietary action or narrow scope)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (2012) (gatekeeping on expert testimony; substantial evidence standard applied)