On Wednesday, November 13, 2024, the Humboldt County Superior Court issued its decision in the latest Richardson Grove case, Bess Bair, et al., v. California Department of Transportation, et al. The decision, authored by Judge Timothy Canning, ruled in favor of Caltrans. EPIC is still reviewing the decision but notes that we previously lost at the Humboldt County Superior Court only to win at the appellate level.
Caltrans has been trying to push this project through for the past 17 years. The purpose of the project is to allow larger trucks to pass through the narrow section of highway 101 that passes through Richardson’s Grove State Park. The project would widen and straighten the 1.1 mile drive through Richardson Grove State Park to allow industry standard-sized tractor-trailers to navigate the narrow pass. In doing so, the project would damage the roots of many of the old growth redwood trees that line the side of the highway, threatening their future survival.
Caltrans has continuously contended that any arguments regarding the substantive adequacy of the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were barred from being heard because the Court previously ruled on the project’s EIR in our previous lawsuit Lotus v. California Department of Transportation (2014). Initially, we were hopeful because Judge Canning rejected this argument, and allowed our attorneys to argue this issue both in briefing and oral argument. Yet in this latest decision, it appears that Judge Canning has changed his mind, and decided the substantive adequacy arguments were barred and thus could not weigh on his decision whether to grant an injunction. Therefore the decision is limited to the procedural issues of whether Caltrans adequately responded to the public comments to the Addendum and whether the project approval complies with CEQA.
The decision is short and thin, a mere 5 pages, and many of those pages lack rigorous engagement with the case. Despite finding that the substance of the Addendum can’t be considered, the Court goes on to opine on whether Caltrans provided enough evidence to support the finding of no significant environmental effect from the project. The Court claims that the Petitioners did not satisfy their burden to show Caltrans decisions were unsupported by substantial evidence and found that nothing in the public comments—including a tree root study submitted by EPIC showing even adjacent trees could be harmed by the project—required Caltrans to change its determinations made in the EIR. The Court concludes by stating that the project will purportedly benefit the public by providing for the transportation of goods and materials in and out of Humboldt County, and thus on balance the petitioners did not make a significant showing of irreparable injury to the public interest, a finding necessary for EPIC to succeed with the injunction.
This decision has proven to be particularly frustrating because Caltrans has not done the proper environmental review it needs to do, it simply needs to be forthcoming with the potential harm to redwood tree roots, and use a reliable method of determining that harm. The decision also provides little rationale for its findings, such as whether the standards that Caltrans used to determine harm to trees were adequate enough to show the public how this decision was made.
The coalition of petitioners will need to decide together whether or not to file an appeal. While disappointing, it is great that we have held back Caltrans so long—with help from our supporters like you. Luckily, Caltrans will not be able to move forward with the project immediately as it still needs to secure funding and obtain certain administrative approvals.
Comments