Neighbors for Smart Rail, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Exposition Me — Baxter, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Baxter concurred in affirming the judgment upholding certification of the environmental impact report for the light-rail project and agreed with rejecting the spillover-parking claims. He dissented from the conclusion that the agency abused its discretion by using projected 2030 traffic and air-quality conditions instead of existing conditions, reasoning that the selected baseline was realistic, supported by substantial evidence, and suited to the project. Justice Liu, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the baseline rule but would have found the omission of an existing-conditions analysis prejudicial.