California Environmental Quality Act

Protestants assert a failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code (P.R.C.) Secs. 21000 et seq., as a basis for denial of these applications. Association asserts that there is no environmental review of the proposed at-grade crossings at Avenue 45 and Avenue 50 in Los Angeles. (O.B. p 4) It points to the testimony of Applicant's environmental witness that a separation was never considered for these streets (Tr 637), and that there is no reference to any specific environmental analysis of these crossings other than their location on a map. (Tr 1396) Similarly, NOBLAG's Opening Brief (p 40) cites the testimony of Witness Ross that the four proposed crossings in Pasadena are not assessed in the environmental documents. (Exh 33, p 3)

Blue Line does not dispute these assertions. Rather, it contends that the environmental documents provided sufficient notice to anyone concerned with the location of proposed crossings on the project, and no more is required under CEQA. (O.B. pp 120-122) Not stated, but certainly implied, is the assertion that the alleged deficiencies should have been raised with the lead agency at the time the environmental documents were being considered, not at this late stage. We call the parties' attention to the ALJ Ruling of March 23, 2001. At that time the parties were told that errors in the environmental documents should be brought to the attention of the agency that certifies these documents. At this stage of the proceedings it is not our duty to second-guess the lead agency. As a Responsible Agency our duty is to review and consider the environmental documents produced by that lead agency before we grant an application. (CEQA Guidelines Secs. 15050(b) and 15096) This process was accomplished in our Interim Decision in this proceeding dated January 9, 2002. There we stated:

"Of the 14 applications now pending before the Commission (excluding A.00-04-022 already approved by the Commission), only two of those applications involve rail crossings for which any significant environmental impact has been identified in the Environmental Documents: A.00-11-016 and A.00-10-039." (D.02-01-035, mimeo. at p. 13.)

These pertained to loss of parking and traffic impacts which would result whether a grade separation or at-grade crossing were constructed. The Commission determined that neither of these significant impacts stems from the proposed grade crossings, and thus findings thereon need not be made. (P.R.C. Sec. 21153(c) (Id. at p 14) See also CEQA Guideline 15096(d).

The remaining environmental issue concerns whether the information in the environmental documents is stale or has been superceded by recent events. NOBLAG argues that under the provisions of P.R.C. Sec. 21166 a supplemental study is required. (O.B. pp 42-44) It claims that the environmental documents pertaining to traffic estimates at the crossings in Pasadena are now woefully inadequate. Addendum #3, which is the most recent environmental document, reviewed the proposed project and determined that the facts triggering P.R.C. Sec. 21166 were not present. This Addendum was adopted in October 2000. Our record does not disclose a protest to this document by NOBLAG. As a responsible agency we have no statutory basis on which to challenge this Addendum in this Opinion.