| |
 he Back Country Coalition (BCC), a nonprofit
citizens' association, has filed suit in Superior Court challenging Caltrans'
illegal approval of a negative declaration for the State Route 94 Passing
Lanes project. The suit asserts that the project is in blatant violation
of requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
petition asks the Court to set aside Caltrans' approval of an illegal document,
and required them to prepare and circulate for public review and comment
a new, legally adequate negative declaration or a legally adequate environmental
impact report. These steps must be done prior to any subsequent reconsideration
or approval of the Project by Caltrans. The petition reveals both major
procedural defects and substantive deficiencies with the Project.
 Caltrans released an Initial Study/Environmental
Assessment (IS/EA) for public review and comment in July, 1997. The IS/EA
indicated that a negative declaration was the appropriate environmental
document for the Project, which would include mitigations for environmental
impacts. There were many comment letters on the IS/EA, including BCC's,
which made fair argument for significant, immitigable environmental impacts.
Those arguments require the preparation of an environmental impact report
rather than a negative declaration.
Either document should have been
circulated for public review and comment as a DRAFT, which Caltrans has
failed to do. Instead, Caltrans filed the document with the State Clearinghouse
on June 5 as a FINAL negative declaration, allowing no public review or
comment, omitting significant new information and ignoring changed circumstances
since the IS/EA was issued in 1997. Caltrans added 14 pages and hundreds
of lines of revised text to the document.
BCC's attorney, Courtney Ann Coyle,
stated, "Caltrans obviously is trying to keep the public from participating
in the environmental review for the project. There are new environmental
studies and a new accident report mentioned in the negative declaration
which are public records, paid for with public dollars that Caltrans has
refused to divulge. Caltrans' premature approval of the Project shows they
don't want any significant new information to be entered into the administrative
record. This is the largest project to date in SR 94's 70 years of existence
and the public is being denied its rightful participation in its planning." |
 |
Caltrans has continually said that
this project is being proposed for public safety. Yet, that agency's own
documents show that accident rates on SR 94 for recent years have declined
by fifty percent. Bonnie Gendron, BCC's Coordinator, commented, "Caltrans
says that this project is one of its 'highest safety priority projects,'
yet a 1992 UMA Engineering report, relied on by Caltrans, indicates that
these passing lanes are, in fact, NOT listed as the highest safety priority.
One of the project's lanes is not even on the list. Also, the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) reveals that the passing lanes are chosen
for the cheapest locations, not those with the highest safety concerns."
Gendron adds, "Caltrans' own Route Concept Report for SR 94 (Jan. '91)
says that SR 94, from Otay Lakes Road to SR 188, is inadequate for use by
30-foot commercial trucks, kingpin-to-rear axle. If Caltrans is concerned
about public safety, why hasn't it made a good faith effort to implement
the Board of Supervisors' unanimous recommendation to restrict truck lengths
on rural SR 94 to 38 feet? Safety is Caltrans' smoke screen to push this
project through illegally."
"They're trying to build a four-
to six-lane highway on rural 94, segment by segment," said Karen Rodgers,
BCC's Administrator. "Caltrans has as much as admitted they are trying
to avoid doing an EIR because the necessary mitigation requirements would
be too great and they don't have the funding for the buildout," she
adds. "In fact, the CTC says the state has better places to spend the
$400+ million. So Caltrans is illegally piecemealing their planned highway,
trying to do it without public review and getting funding for segments under
the guise of 'Safety and Operational' needs. Eventual buildout of rural
94 will make a few contractors rich but will cost hundreds of millions of
public dollars with no EIR or comprehensive plan having ever been prepared."
Rodgers continued, "Building this project may destroy SR 94's prospects
for State Scenic Highway designation. Because the project's 'mitigations'
are so minimal, SR 94 would no longer qualify as scenic - by Caltrans' own
guidelines - if this project is implemented."  |
