Examining the Metrolink Perris Valley Line lawsuit settlement

Case closed. Friends of Riverside Hills, a local Riverside group responsible for stalling the Metrolink Perris Valley line extension project has agreed to withdraw its case in a $3 million settlement, RCTC officials reported July 10th. With that, the project can move forward with groundbreaking to take place by this fall or winter. The extension is set to open by 2015.

The Perris Valley Line is long past due. The rail line promises to ferry commuters living in or around the Perris and Moreno Valley areas to jobs in downtown Los Angeles and points in between via the Metrolink 91 Line, eliminating the need to drive or take a connecting express bus to downtown Riverside. Now that this trivial CEQA lawsuit is out of the way, public officials can finally move on with this environmentally friendly transit alternative.

That's the good news.

Now let's take a look at the $3 million settlement and where that taxpayer money is headed. According to the Press Enterprise, RCTC agreed to pour more than half of the cash toward protecting the environment, by establishing a $900,000 land conservation fund which would be used to develop trails and/or acquiring open space. An additional $650,000 will be used to provide for multi-modal pathways and trails in the area. If RCTC can work together with other public entities in the region and designate these new open spaces and trailways as a countywide regional park, this portion of the settlement would benefit the community as whole and would be certainly considered a fair deal for the public. Otherwise this will be a $1.5 million handout to the opposing party.

$132,000 of the pot will be spent to minimize train noise and vibration. Of course, something like this should be addressed and regulated through reformed CEQA law in lieu of the courts, but keeping noise levels down by placing noise reduction materials under the tracks through the UC-Riverside area is somewhat of a fair trade. Overall, this portion isn't bad.

The rest of the settlement handouts is not so pretty. Over one third of the pot--$1,005,000 to be exact--will be set up for homeowners to tap into for various home improvements in the name of countering noise pollution. Residents can apply for up to a whopping $15,000 per dwelling--for window treatments and another $500 for trees. Google "Noise Minimizing Window Treatments" and you may find that products offered in the marketplace do not add up to $15,000 for an entire house. RCTC must examine each applicant clearly to minimize the waste. Any unspent funds will be allocated to the land conservation fund.

The last portion is perhaps the icing on the cake. It is the $250,000 in public money that went to the attorney who represented Friends of Riverside Hills during this lawsuit...

It's now safe to say that exploiting CEQA loopholes is all about the money and demonstrates how current environmental law can be abused. Public entities must therefore do what ever they can do in their power to close up these loopholes at the state level and stop the wasteful madness in the courtroom.

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.

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?

Addressing the Perris Valley Lawsuit ruling

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.

The organization responsible for this lawsuit is a group called Friends of Riverside Hills. The organization argues:

The Perris Valley line will be comfortable. But cost and convenience are simply not there. That makes it poor public policy.  The environmental impacts are being challenged in the Friend’s lawsuit.

It is quite clear that Friends of Riverside Hills opposes the Perris Valley Line, but using the courts to overturn a project they claim is "poor public policy" in the name of the environment encroaches the separation of powers. This has allowed a judge to decide the fate of the rail line from the bench. The ruling 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 through its power to change the law.

As reported, the state legislature has been working on and should follow through on its promise to close up California Environmental Quality Act loopholes so judges cannot veto large projects from the bench which actually benefit the environment and reduce traffic congestion like the Perris Valley Line. Such rulings delay important projects which get 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. In addition, RCTC owns the already-developed rail right-of-way.

To be fair, issues such as construction-related pollution should be dealt with by fining construction firms that excessively pollute. Same holds true for pedestrians who illegally trespass into an active rail right-of-way. However, these issues combined with CEQA loopholes should not be excuses for a judge to veto or delay the rail project from the bench.

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.

Villages of Lakeview and Smart Growth

(3/6/13) – IE Transit Talking Points Short

Last May, a massive development project dubbed The Villages of Lakeview was struck down in court due to potential pollution and increased traffic congestion. The development was proposed along the Mid County Parkway corridor in the heart of Lakeview, a small agricultural town located between Perris and Hemet. The project called for the development of 11,000 residential units and 500,000 square feet of commercial space.

It’s quite clear that this project would initiate a conversion of the small town of Lakeview into a robust city, and to be fair to the developers, efforts were made to include a privately developed bus transit center, a park & ride, and open space areas along the hillsides and wildlife corridors. However, 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. Superior Court Judge Sharon Waters rightly agreed that this traffic impact presented in court had enough merit to warrant the invalidation of the project’s EIR.

So how can The Villages of Lakeview be developed right? It’s quite evident that both the Lakeview and Nuevo economies rely on the agricultural and farming sectors. A better growth plan would be this:

• Develop business-friendly zoning policies for the existing ranches south of the Ramona Expressway so that their owners have more options to generate income on their properties which would stimulate economic growth with minimal traffic impacts.
• Designate the existing agricultural areas north of the Ramona Expressway as agricultural. Permit dwelling areas for property owners, but no tract housing, golf courses or shopping centers.
• Designate a central area of Lakeview as a specific plan which would incline developers to invest in a small downtown district with mixed-use development to support the existing economy. Lofts and apartments would be developed over pedestrian-friendly small business retail.
• Designate portions of the central downtown area for a park, school, bus transit station and park & ride, and essential government services.

This type of smart growth would certainly be more environmentally friendly and would strengthen--not disrupt--the agricultural and farming economies. That's how Lakeview can smartly evolve into a robust city.

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.

Metrolink Perris Valley Line Lawsuit: Frivolous or not?

Both the state and the feds need to close the legislative loopholes for transportation environmental impact reports.

Several Riverside County transit riders and commuters have been long wondering: When exactly will the Metrolink Perris Valley Line extension project finally break ground on construction? Transit officials estimate spring or summer of 2013 as the Riverside County Transportation Commission was awarded state funds for the project. It is currently awaiting federal funding, and a lawsuit filed against the project will be finally over by then. $53 million has been obligated to RCTC from the California Transportation Commission. $75 million from the federal government is awaited, after which the $247 million Perris Valley Line project will be fully funded. RCTC must be prepared and be ready to confront any possible delays from the federal level to prevent anything else from delaying groundbreaking. We've been patiently waiting...

As many of you are aware, the proposed Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension is being challenged in court with its trial scheduled to start in January. An opposing organization called Friends of Riverside Hills filed a lawsuit in August 2011 challenging the Environmental Impact Report for the rail project, claiming RCTC failed to adequately detail the noise and pollution impacts of excavating dirt around the tracks and other aspects of construction. The case was merited to go to trial last April. The group represents residents living in the residential areas near UC Riverside.

To be fair to all parties involved, we live in the United States of America and we citizens have a right to peacefully organize, freely participate in robust debates, and challenge each other on issues. That's a welcomed reality of living in a free democracy; otherwise The Transit Coalition wouldn't exist. Friends of Riverside Hills is challenging RCTC fair and square as its lawsuit has legal merit; that's why the case has been allowed to go to trial. However, the issue at stake is a classic example of how a small issue can become a big judicial problem; a loophole which should be addressed by lawmakers.

It's a clear fact that moving dirt around and grading sites are basic steps for just about any major construction or development project, even those that don't require an EIR. Both the state and the federal government must consider revisiting transportation legislation to prevent minor claims like those addressed by Friends of Riverside Hills from having legal merit in the future. This will prevent future transit and highway projects from being mired in unnecessary expensive litigation which ends up being paid for by local and county taxpayers. Obviously, there should be written rules, mandates, and limits to keep dust pollution and noise caused by grading and construction to a minimum. The law should state: If the construction contractor violates these terms, pollutes the air or becomes too noisy, the firm, not the taxpayer, gets fined.

Under the current system, RCTC is mandated to conduct a detailed analysis on dust and noise pollution caused by transportation construction. Friends of Riverside Hills found there wasn't enough data reported in the project's EIR and now the case is headed to trial. This current system allows for a pure waste of local transportation resources. Protection against construction-related dust pollution and noise is absolutely vital and it can be regulated under better written state and/or federal law, not litigation. If such provisions were in place, the Perris Valley Line construction contractor would have been held more accountable for any construction-related pollution and noise, RCTC would know which areas of the corridor would need to be quiet-zone designated, Friends of Riverside Hills would have ended up with a frivolous case and the lawsuit against the long-overdue Perris Valley Line would have been thrown out by any impartial judge. This legal loophole must be closed by the state and feds, and it needs to be done soon.