Tale of an old Christmas tree farm in the Badlands

The Transit Coalition ran across a very minor, but interesting piece of recent history during a study. We were looking at the satellite aerial imagery of the 60 Freeway corridor through the Badland hills in between Moreno Valley and Beaumont and checking out what kinds of rail and highway work would need to be done to prevent this freeway from being congested or bottlenecking at either end of the wildlife corridor should the World Logistics Center warehouse hub proposal in Moreno Valley become real. During the study, we ran across something that appeared natural but was actually planted by man not too long ago.

On the south side of the expressway portion of Highway 60 just east of the Jack Rabbit Trail intersection, there are some rural properties with sections of naturally growing pine trees. These pines are actually not part of the natural ecosystem nor simple landscaping, but are healthy trees that were left to grow from an old Christmas tree farm. In the late 1980's through the 90's, one of our volunteers who was a child back then passed through the Badlands regularly and remembered when the farm was in its robust state. A 2011 Google Street View snapshot currently shows an old Christmas tree farm entry sign posted at the property gate. Today, the farm is out of business, but the pine trees themselves continue to grow, mature and have become adapted to the natural ecosystem given the presence of a nearby creek and plenty of groundwater.

The groves are on private property and cannot be visited without permission from the owners, but if you ride along through this area regularly or take bus Route 35, 210 or 220, take a peak over on the south side of the 60 just east of Jack Rabbit Trail and take note of a small, but growing Inland Empire pine tree ecosystem several years in the making with each tree originally destined to end up in the living rooms of the Inland Empire.

Disposable Home Appliances, Safety and Pollution

It is a disturbing fact that many household appliances have now become disposables. In the past, when an appliance breaks down, it gets repaired. What's troubling now is that repair costs are so expensive that users find it more affordable to purchase a brand new appliance than to have the broken one fixed; thus more refrigerators, ovens, dishwashers, stove tops, coffee makers, and washing machines end up in the trash.

The amount of e-waste is so high that it has become an industry of itself. Numerous resources are being spent to handle the recycling of such waste. However, much of that "recycling" involves the demanufacturing of the product. Without strict regulations and safety procedures for protection, such labor is damaging to both the worker and the environment. Worse yet, recycling companies are finding that the cheapest way to demanufacture broken appliances is to ship them to third world countries where protective safeguards are not existent.

Demanufacturing

The evidence of pollution from disassembling appliances is overwhelming, but here's the stat. According the textbook Principles of Environmental Science, taught in California's colleges and universities, groundwater and surface water contamination in China's demanufacturing areas alone are found to be as much as 200 times dirtier than what the World Health Organization considers safe.

It gets worse. A significant portion of the very cargo ships that are used to haul our consumables from developing countries which may include the very vessels that export our natural resources and electronics waste to China are dangerously demanufactured by boys and teenagers in Bangladesh. The groundwater has to be polluted beyond belief, but worse yet, such workers are regularly injured and killed under the dangerous conditions.



The Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights is credited for exposing that colossal scheme back in 2009. When presented with such shocking evidence like that, repairing and reusing such ships, the broken television set, desktop printer, or rice cooker might not be such a bad environmental and economic idea after all. We are now living in a disposable culture and the environmental and safety costs are grave even with the recycling programs. If every living person in the world lived like us, the entire globe would be flooded in such contamination. Have Congress, President Obama and the union-pandering U.S. Department of Labor cracked down on this maltreatment of workers?

Repair and Reuse

So what exactly makes repair costs so expensive? In many cases, the spare parts are proprietary or outsourced. Therefore, many parts are simply not available at your local Home Depot. What's worse is that many cases of broken appliances center around faulty electronic control panels, whereas the rest of the hardware works perfectly. Replacing such proprietary parts such as the computer microchip would be too expensive and therefore near impossible for the user. So, throwing out the whole unit and replacing it with a another one is the only option left. The cycle normally would repeat itself well before the next decade.

Today, there is certainly a market demand for a return to appliances and electronics that are not only user repairable, but also last for decades at a time. Many people are fed up with the disposable culture. The fact is that if appliances are built to last, less would end up in the trash and fewer units would have to be demanufactured. The question is what exactly is preventing start up companies from introducing such premium products into the marketplace? It's true that many companies capitalize on the sales of brand new complete units, but why not profit from the spare parts or on the repair guy? It's certainly doable. Look at commercial-quality machines. Look at the Odyssey Electronic Validating Farebox found on a transit bus near you. How about electronic traffic control systems like the stop light? Profits can still be made with premium quality appliances.

"Energy Star Plus" Concept:
A powerful sell item toward
appliance buyers looking for
long lasting products that can
be easily repaired.

Tax Incentive: "Energy Star Plus"

Many appliances today carry the Energy Star logo. The famous symbol is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency voluntary program that provides an incentive to manufacture and sell clean and energy efficient electronics. The star has been a powerful sell item toward buyers. If one sees the seal on an appliance, he/she knows the machine won't drive up the utility bill. However, because most machines cannot be repaired by the user let alone a professional repairman, the Energy Star symbol becomes absolutely meaningless whenever a breakdown occurs and the appliance has to be thrown out.

Perhaps Congress should authorize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement a second incentive program called the "Energy Star Plus" with the tagline "Long lasting with user repairable parts." This powerful seal combined with a tax rebate would incline manufacturers to get back into the business of manufacturing durable appliances that can be easily repaired.

The incentive includes the requirements needed for an Energy Star seal, but would also entice manufacturers to design and develop long lasting appliances with common user repairable parts and open source circuit board firmware which can be easily replaced should they fail or break. This would include spare user repairable microchips, electronic components, display screens, and buttons for easy repair of defective appliance circuit boards. Such common spare parts would be sold all throughout the marketplace with plenty of competition to keep quality high and prices low. The man of the house would once again be able to fix broken down machinery. Servicing jobs would be created as both supply and demand for affordable appliance repair would significantly rise. E-waste pollution would be significantly reduced. Deaths and injuries in developing nations caused by unprotected demanufacturing would drop. What's the hold up?

Moving forward with the Perris Valley Line lawsuit ruling

It is quite evident that the Riverside County Transportation Commission is doing whatever it can within its power to get the Perris Valley Line moving, and the agency has every right to do so given that the rail line is environmentally friendly, the right-of-way is publicly owned, and the majority of the public supports it. Earlier in May, Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters ordered that RCTC decertify the project's EIR within 90 days because of puritanical environmental issues which could be easily resolved. RCTC had a number of options to move foward:

• RCTC can appeal the judgment at a higher court.
• According to Len Nunney, the secretary for Friends of Riverside Hills, RCTC can engage in a settlement without having to recompile its EIR.
• RCTC can lobby the state legislature for CEQA reform

RCTC has basically selected "All of the above." The Commission board voted in closed session at its 6/12/13 meeting to appeal Judge Waters' ruling. RCTC filed the appeals paperwork with the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Even with the appeals papers filed, the two parties remain open to settling the case without RCTC having to redo the Perris Valley Line EIR.

Just days before the meeting, RCTC Chairwoman Karen Spiegel, Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley, and City of Perris Mayor Daryl Busch met with members of the state legislature to lobby for an exemption of the rail line's trivial and construction-related environmental issues from the current legal loopholes in CEQA law. It is without question that the landmark law needs to be amended and made retroactive to counter abusive lawsuits; however, to be fair, fast-tracking projects by granting outright CEQA exemptions is very questionable. During settlement negotiations, RCTC must also ensure that the NIMBY party is not receiving any unnecessary "home improvements" paid for by county taxpayers.

Judicial appeals processes normally take several months from start to finish, but RCTC still predicts breaking ground later this July. It is still early to predict what will happen. This trivial lawsuit in general has one big message for the state: Close up the CEQA loopholes.

Metrolink Perris Valley Line Lawsuit: Protecting the $75 million in federal funds

$75 million in awarded federal funds for the Metrolink Perris Valley Line are now at risk according to John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The FTA granted RCTC the money through the Small Starts program, but since the entire project is stalled over trivial environmental litigation, the federal funds could be deobligated.

As mentioned, the state legislature is working on amending CEQA law to prevent environmentally-friendly projects from being stopped in the courts in the name of the environment. The California State Senate unanimously backed changes to the landmark legislation on May 29. Now, the feds are getting in on the debate. Congressman Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside) sent this letter to FTA administrator Peter Rogoff, asking him to keep the Perris Valley Line federal funds in tact:

Dear Administrator Rogoff:

The Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension represents a significant step towards sustainable living in California’s 41st Congressional District and I welcome the $75 million federal investment that has been appropriated by Congress for this project.

As you may know, a California Superior Court Judge recently ordered decertification of the Perris Valley Line’s environmental impact report (EIR) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project’s sponsor, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), has assured me that they are pursuing all options available to ensure that the Perris Valley Line ultimately moves forward to construction.

I urge the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to take all actions necessary to preserve the $75 million that has been appropriated under the Small Starts program for Perris Valley Line during ongoing litigation. The Small Starts grant is an imperative piece of the total funding for the Perris Valley Line project and I encourage the FTA to ensure that the Perris Valley Line project remain eligible to receive the grant once CEQA litigation has concluded.

Perris Valley Line provides critical regional connectivity to my constituents, particularly in the underserved cities of Perris and Moreno Valley, while connecting major job centers in Riverside and March Air Reserve Base.

Thank you for FTA’s continued support of Perris Valley Line and for working with RCTC to advance livability and mobility in California’s 41st Congressional District.

Sincerely, Mark Takano

RCTC Commissioners will be discussing what will happen next at their Commissioners board meeting later today. In the mean time, the FTA should grant Rep. Takano's request to prevent anything else from delaying the Perris Valley Line extension which is long past due.

CEQA abuse: Not In My State Anymore

Not In My Backyard obstructionists who exploit loopholes in CEQA law to stop environmentally-friendly development projects over very trivial environmental concerns through the courts may soon face this:
Not In My State Anymore.

Consider what is unfolding in Riverside County, where Friends of Riverside Hills, a small group of NIMBY's, successfully stopped the Metrolink Perris Valley Extension through a CEQA lawsuit, at least for the moment. The group used little more than throw-to-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks trivialities as genuine concerns in alleging that the project's environmental documents violated CEQA requirements. Here's a question for fair-minded individuals: Is the Perris Valley Line lawsuit really a case of a community fighting to protect its quality of life and the long term welfare of the environment, or just another frivolous CEQA lawsuit that unreasonably hampers progress?

As mentioned, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is turning to state lawmakers for help in moving the project forward. Fortunately, Senate Bill 731 provides more clarity on what constitutes a genuine CEQA violation, gives preference to projects that logically improve the environment and eliminates some of the more archaic and counter-intuitive elements. The State Senate unanimously approved the bill on May 30 and SB 731 now awaits review by the State Assembly. Environmental law and unanimous legislative agreement are certainly not normal in the state legislature, but since 100% of the State Senate agrees that CEQA abuse is a problem, it may soon be Not in My State Anymore for NIMBY's abusing the law.

Pressure building on Metrolink Perris Valley Line NIMBY's

As previously reported, local NIMBY opposition has placed an indefinite delay on the Metrolink Perris Valley line extension when a judge tossed out the project's EIR over trivial concerns on May 16, 2013.

The Riverside County Transportation Commission had planned on discussing what the public agency was going to do at its 6/12/13 Commissioners board meeting. However, elected officials are not waiting around.

RCTC Chairwoman Karen Spiegel, Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley, and City of Perris Mayor Daryl Busch met with members of the state legislature to lobby for an exemption of the rail line's trivial and construction-related environmental issues from the current legal loopholes in CEQA law. Local officials hope that the amendments would be made retroactive to the Perris Valley Line which would affect the judgement in favor of RCTC. As mentioned, US Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA 42nd District) also plans to work with his federal colleagues and the state legislature.

The public officials' actions has built up pressure on the Friends of Riverside Hills, the organization behind the lawsuit, and its representatives are not happy about it. The group claimed that "it is a source of serious concern when public agencies view themselves as being above the law, which is what this effort suggests." With all due respect, that statement is not true. The Founding Fathers of our nation established the separation of powers which gives concerned citizens--local elected leaders included--the right to communicate with their elected state representatives whose duty it is to write the law. What part of lobbying to the state legislature to close up CEQA loopholes in order to stop abuse goes above the law? Surely, such pressure groups know that force-advancing NIMBY agendas by exploiting loopholes in the law in the courts--a potential example of going above the law through judicial activism--would be a cause of concern by those who write the law.

To be fair, California needs to maintain its strong environmental laws which would control large developments, urban sprawl and pollution, but such law also needs to protect environmentally sound projects from trivial CEQA litigation. State lawmakers are well aware of this. These are not good times for NIMBY pressure groups.

Don't drive out logistics jobs in Moreno Valley with the pollution and sprawl

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater

Could the City of Moreno Valley, let alone the Inland Empire as a whole, use thousands of additional blue-collar marketplace jobs in the logistics sector? With far more workers than jobs residing in Riverside County, the news of private investors proposing to build logistics hubs in Moreno Valley seems highly welcoming on the surface. Two major projects for example--the World Logistics Center and March Business Center--promise to provide Moreno Valley with billions in construction investments, thousands of permanent logistics and truck jobs, and millions in commerce for supporting Moreno Valley businesses. The Inland Empire could use this kind of private investment.

However, environmentalists are questioning Moreno Valley's proposed logistics centers and filing CEQA lawsuits on a project-by-project basis. Several of the CEQA claims are legit and must be addressed if Moreno Valley is to have robust and clean distribution center sites. For example, the World Logistics Center master plan covers a sprawling 3,918 acres in eastern Moreno Valley over undeveloped property at the base of the Badlands hills; there is no freight rail line for miles. Diesel trucks meanwhile remain a major contributor toward pollution. Unlike the Perris Valley Line lawsuit where it was NIMBY-led, these cases are being led by the Sierra Club, and whenever this giant environmental organization gets involved, there's bound to be legit environmental concerns that need to be fixed.

The Transit Coalition will continue to examine these projects. The region would certainly benefit with a robust, environmentally friendly logistics job center to cut down on long distance commuting and truck trips to/from other major hubs in Ontario, San Diego and Long Beach. As the two sides continue their debates, they must avoid driving out logistics jobs from the Inland Empire while trying to control bad diesel pollution, traffic congestion and runaway urban sprawl. The parties must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Amending CEQA law to counter trivial lawsuits while protecting the environment

California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has introduced a bill, SB 731, which proposes to address some of the more infamous loopholes in state environmental law. CEQA law currently mandates that major developments have a respective environmental impact report which addresses potential harm to the environment. This law is very noble and has allowed for cleaner development projects throughout the state. It's roots must be maintained. However, it is a clear fact that this landmark legislation has been misused by various opposing parties of many projects; such NIMBY groups exploit loopholes to delay or stop projects through the judicial system while their notions have nothing to do with protecting the long term welfare of the environment.

As reported earlier, NIMBY opposition has placed an indefinite delay on the Metrolink Perris Valley line extension when a judge tossed out the project's EIR over trivial concerns on May 16, 2013. According to a May 20, 2013 Los Angeles Times editorial and information from CEQA Working Group, there are several other cases of CEQA abuse:

• A local gas station owner in San Jose wanted to install three additional gas pumps at his gas station and received city approval to do so. A competing gas station owner filed a CEQA lawsuit, demanding an EIR over frivolous traffic concerns. The gas pumps were then delayed for years and ended up costing the owner approximately $500,000 in added costs to fight the lawsuit and complete the EIR.
• Sacramento Senior Homes, infill senior housing development in Berkeley - NIMBY opposition foolishly claims the development was not  “visually compatible with its surroundings”. The property was previously an abandoned storefront; so the development was actually a significant “visual” improvement. The NIMBY's lost in court, but the suit placed $3 million in extra costs for the project and an extra $2 million in taxpayer expenses, enough money to build a second development.
• A school renovation project in the San Francisco Bay area - delayed for 4 years by frivolous CEQA litigation. The NIMBY's lost, but the taxpayer bill was at least $10 million.
• LA Metro Purple Line subway toward the sea extension - CEQA abuse is evident where NIMBY opposition aims to prevent the subway extension from crossing under Beverly Hills High School.

To be fair, there are cases where certain elements of CEQA needs to be maintained to control runaway urban sprawl. The Villages at Lakeview and Travertine Point are two prime examples. The former rightly got it's EIR struck down in court; the latter, currently opposed by The Transit Coalition, is facing a legit CEQA suit.

We will keep a close watch on Steinberg's bill which we hope will give the state a strong policy to protect the environment while closing up loopholes to stop NIMBY abuse.

An abuse of environmetal law to further delay the Perris Valley Line

Is the State of California really becoming a puritanical state?



As The Transit Coalition has been covering for the past several months, the combination of NIMBY opposition and loopholes in state environmental law is actually harming environmentally-friendly transportation projects. The latest project to take such a hit is the Metrolink Perris Valley Line extension, a long overdue public transit alternative for the Perris Valley region. Here's what the Sierra Club, the oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the country, has to say about public transportation:

Smart, green transportation is the key to moving beyond oil. Only half of all Americans have access to public transportation. Americans win when they have a choice for every trip -- whether it's high-mileage, advanced technology, or electric cars; convenient rail and transit; or safe walking and biking.

As many of the public are aware, the Perris Valley Line project basically involved upgrading an existing active rail right-of-way to support passenger service and develop a series of train stations along the way. The first of trains would simply be an extension of the existing 91 Line to Fullerton and Los Angeles. That's it. On May 16, 2013, Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters ordered that RCTC decertify the project's EIR within 90 days because of puritanical environmental issues which could be easily resolved. The ruling places yet another indefinite delay on the project which was, at one point, slated for operations back in 2008. It demonstrates how CEQA law can be misused and why the state legislature needs to close the landmark legislation's loopholes and make it retroactive.

The CEQA lawsuit boiled down to this: NIMBY opposition was centered in a residential neighborhood near UC Riverside, where a group of residents claimed the added noise of passing Metrolink trains would impact their homes, despite the fact that louder freight trains already pass through the area. The group demanded that the area be designated as quiet zones. To address their concerns, RCTC officials delayed the project for two years and postponed the planning and development of the UC Riverside station from the project.

Not satisfied, the Friends of Riverside Hills group filed the CEQA lawsuit in August, 2011, citing several concerns not addressed in the project's EIR. On May 16, 2013, the group won its case when judge Waters threw out the rail line's EIR over few of the concerns, a clear abuse of exploiting CEQA law loopholes. Here are the issues: Track lubricant usage, hiker's safety, train wheel noise pollution, and construction related noise.

As mentioned before, the safety of hikers is irrelevant to environmental protection; that's a fact. However, to be fair, the illegal trespassing into an active rail right-of-way needs to be policed better. The other issues the state legislature can address and make retroactive are: How much total noise in decibels are passing passenger trains allowed to make through quiet zones? What types of track lubricants can be used to comply with CEQA? Are contracted firms who disrupt the environment during the construction phase being held accountable?

Even with these minor issues, The Transit Coalition does not believe that the Perris Valley Line would have contributed to worsened pollution, increased traffic congestion, or disrupted a natural ecosystem. There is no question that this case is NIMBY obstruction and a puritanical abuse of CEQA law. This whole case is shameful.

Going forward, RCTC plans to discuss what's next at their 6/12 Commissioners board meeting. There's a number of ways this case can go:

• RCTC can appeal the judgement at a higher court.
• According to Len Nunney, the secretary for Friends of Riverside Hills, RCTC can engage in a settlement without having to recompile its EIR.
• The state legislature can reform CEQA in a way which could affect the judgement in favor of RCTC. US Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA 42nd District) plans to work with his federal colleagues and the state legislature. To be fair, CEQA needs to control pet projects like football stadiums from being fast-tracked through the system but also protect environmentally sound projects from being vetoed from the bench just because a group opposes it.

It's far too early to predict how RCTC and the state will handle this ruling, but widespread public support all but guarantees that the Perris Valley Line, or some form of environmentally friendly passenger rail service, will eventually service the corridor. The point boils down to this: The state cannot continue to be a place of CEQA puritanism. Major environmental groups like the Sierra club support public rail transit; the Perris Valley Line fits into this category. There comes a point where CEQA abuse in the name of NIMBY obstruction needs to be controlled.

Comparing the Perris Valley Line lawsuit with the Villages of Lakeview case

California Environmental Quality Act: 'Yes' to a clean environment, 'No' to abuse.

Last year, Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters ruled that a CEQA-mandated environmental report for a massive development in the town of Lakeview failed to address potential pollution and increased traffic congestion; the judge therefore invalidated the project's EIR.


The Villages of Lakeview project called for the development of 11,000 residential units and 500,000 square feet of commercial space. Inland Empire commuters well know that the I-215 and 91 Freeways certainly do not need 11,000 households worth of cars in these already congested corridors. The plan also had the potential of disrupting Lakeview's agricultural and farming sectors and balanced job-to-housing ratio. Since the Villages of Lakeview did in fact create potential negative impacts toward the environment and traffic congestion, the court rightly agreed that this traffic impact presented in court had enough merit to warrant the invalidation of the project's EIR.

The Metrolink Perris Valley Line extension faces a similar judgement through the same court, through the same judge. It's quite clear that four of the five environmental points ruled against RCTC will have very little impacts toward the environment in the long term; however loopholes in CEQA law have allowed for such a negative judgement against the transportation agency:
Track lubricant usage, pedestrian safety, train wheel noise pollution, and construction related noise.

As mentioned, the safety of hikers is irrelevant to environmental protection; however, to be fair, the illegal trespassing into an active rail right-of-way needs to be policed better. The environmental questions the state legislature can address and make retroactive are: How much total noise in decibels are passing trains allowed to make through quiet zones? Are contracted firms who disrupt the environment during the construction phase being held accountable?

This leaves in question the last point RCTC must address: Will the construction of the Perris Valley Line really disrupt a natural ecosystem of toads? If a small percentage of the affected toad population can be safely migrated away from the tracks without damaging the ecosystem, RCTC should be able to address this without having to redo its entire EIR at the cost of the taxpayer. The state government needs to continue its debate on amending CEQA law to protect the environment from unchecked urban sprawl while closing loopholes to prevent its abuse by NIMBY's just because they oppose it.

Will the Perris Valley Line really cause a threat to a natural ecosystem or not?

The Metrolink Perris Valley Line continues to be stalled and mired in an environmental lawsuit. Ironically, the case has very little to do with long term impacts on the environment and the state can easily address much of the points that RCTC is mandated to correct by changing CEQA law.

Here are the issues that RCTC must address to the court within five days:

A negative impact to a sensitive toad population, the safety of pedestrians using a hiking trail that would cross the tracks, the peace of nearby homes due to wheel noise and the air quality due to the number of truck trips needed to transport soil.

While all of this taxpayer-funded litigation is taking place, the state government needs to continue its debate on amending CEQA law. The legislature could address the rail line's so-called environmental issues by amending the law and making it retroactive. The law needs to hold accountable contracted firms who disrupt the environment during construction, not the taxpaying public. CEQA loopholes need to be closed so that NIMBY groups cannot abuse CEQA law to delay or stop long term environmentally-friendly projects in court simply because they oppose it.

A strong pro-environment CEQA law can address and solve the rail line's issues:
Will a habitat displacement actually cause a threat to the natural ecosystem, or can such populations be safely migrated elsewhere in the wildlife corridor? What does the safety and development of a hiking trail grade crossing have to do with environmental protection? How much total noise in decibels are passing trains allowed to make through quiet zones? Are contracted firms who disrupt the environment during construction being held accountable?

Celebrate Earth Day today

April 22 is Earth Day which is a day dedicated to demonstrate support for the protection of the environment. Naturally, wildlife animals and plants are destined for the common good for us humans. This day reminds us that our power over our surroundings is never absolute and should not be taken for granted.

Joyful joyful we adore our Earth in all its wonderment
Simple gifts of nature that all join into a paradise
Now we must resolve to protect her
Show her our love throughout all time
With our gentle hand and touch
We make our home a newborn world
Now we must resolve to protect her
Show her our love throughout all time
With our gentle hand and touch
We make our home a newborn world

-Earth Day anthem

Reforming environmental law to get the Perris Valley Line moving

(4/2/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

The California State Legislature has some work to do to reform state environmental law. An April 1, 2013 court ruling on RCTC’s long-proposed Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension shows that Judge Sharon J. Waters ruled in favor of the opposing party on 5 of the 15 environmental concerns brought up in court: negations to the soil, track lubricant usage, pedestrian safety, train wheel noise pollution, and construction related noise. This leaves the Perris Valley Line case in a complicated position under the current law, but the legislature has the power to avert further delays caused by broad court rulings by changing the law:

• Are all environmentally sensitive soil areas and wildlife habitats throughout the state documented as protected nature reserves?
• Which types of rail lubricants harm the environment to the point that they should be outlawed?
• How much noise caused by train wheels is too much?
• How much construction noise is too much near residential areas? If a construction contractor generates too much noise, does local code enforcement have the power to fine the violating firm?

 As mentioned, the state legislature should follow through on its promise to close up California Environmental Quality Act loopholes so courts cannot delay, veto or overturn large projects which actually benefit the environment and reduce traffic congestion like the Perris Valley Line. Such lawsuits delay important projects which gets paid for by the taxpayer. It is a common fact that a rail transit alternative for the I-215 corridor would reduce congestion and pollution by providing a multi-modal transportation option to single-occupancy automobile travel, thus fulfilling the goals and intents of state environmental law which is to protect the environment.

Will the Perris Valley Line lawsuit ruling embarrass the state government?

The decision to build an environmentally friendly rail transit line appears to be coming from the bench due to loopholes in state environmental law. A 'no' ruling would encroach the Separation of Powers in the name of puritanism.

The primary function of the judicial branch of government is to interpret both the state and U.S. Constitution and apply law to the facts of cases at hand. Courts have no right to veto or overturn the laws or policies which do not violate constitutional law, even if a judge is against the law. Whenever courts unilaterally impose their own opinions and beliefs onto the law, many Americans dislike that; such activity is legislating from the bench and overreaches their authority of the Separation of Powers written in the U.S. Constitution. This Press Enterprise blog post suggests that the Metrolink Perris Valley Line's fate is in the hands of the courts; a project that should clearly be decided on by a local elected body, that is, the Riverside County Transportation Commission. RCTC has long supported and planned the project.

The Commission rightly followed the rules and prepared the project's mandated environmental impact report, but loopholes in the California Environmental Quality Act have allowed an opposing NIMBY party to exploit "missing" information in the EIR in a lawsuit to stop the entire project. The case was merited to go to trial and is now in the hands of a Superior Court judge. From an impartial judicial standpoint, there's nothing wrong, and to be fair, the EIR for any major project must accurately address potential traffic congestion and pollution impacts. However it is a common fact that a rail transit alternative for the I-215 corridor would reduce congestion and pollution by providing a multi-modal transportation option to single-occupancy automobile travel, thus fulfilling the goals and intents of CEQA which is to protect the environment.

The claims presented by Friends of Riverside's Hills are very puritanical and point primarily to the project's construction, not the finished product. The opposing group claims the EIR underestimates the number of truck trips needed to haul away dirt during construction and the time required to excavate the dirt. RCTC's proposal to remove an illegal trail crossing over the right-of-way is said to be bad for the environment according to the opposing party. Other frivolous claims such as the squealing noise train wheels make when taking sharp turns, engine noises, and construction-related matter were also brought up in court.

It is discouraging that this case was allowed to go to trial. This is an embarrassment to the state government. The legislative branch does have power to avert any negative court judgments against RCTC and the Perris Valley Line. The state should amend CEQA so that bidding construction firms are held accountable for all construction-related environmental and traffic impacts. We the people should not be held responsible if a construction contractor decides to generate too much dust pollution, noise or excessive truck traffic. The law should penalize contractors and their employees if they excessively pollute. The legislature should also close up CEQA loopholes so courts cannot veto or overturn large projects which actually benefit the environment and reduce traffic congestion. The reformed law should also be made retroactive to any transportation project stalled in court over such frivolous EIR claims. Let's get the Perris Valley Line moving.

Judges must not be allowed to veto the Perris Valley Line from the bench

(2/4/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

The Metrolink Perris Valley Line extension, now mired in an environmental lawsuit, is about to have its fate decided by Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters according to the Press Enterprise which is very embarrassing for the state government.

It is a scientific fact that mass transit options for the I-215 corridor will benefit the environment and highways, not negate them. The opposing party has a number of arguments against the Metrolink extension which appear frivolous and very puritanical on the surface, but has enough merit to warrant a trial due to loopholes in the California Environmental Quality Act.

Among the claims, the group Friends of Riverside’s Hills said the environmental impact report inadequately explains the number of truck trips needed to remove soil. Other issues brought up were the schedule for excavating the dirt, the removal of an illegal trail crossing over the right-of-way, the squealing noise train wheels make when taking sharp turns, engine noises, and other construction-related noise. Because of those claims, Judge Waters can unilaterally decide that the Perris Valley Line failed to follow the California Environmental Quality Act, even though the I-215 rail transit alternative will actually benefit the environment.

Truth be told: Mass transit is good for the environment and the Perris Valley Line’s fate must not be vetoed by a judge; that’s legislating from the bench. The state legislature needs to amend the California Environmental Quality Act, close up its loopholes, and make it retroactive to any environmentally- friendly transportation project stalled in court. Riverside County taxpayers should not be on the hook if a construction contractor carelessly generates too much dust pollution, noise or truck traffic. Penalize the contractor with a heavy fine if its employees break CEQA laws, but don’t hold overdue transportation projects hostage. Doing nothing is a recipe for increased traffic congestion and worsened smog pollution.