HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 July 25, 2011 Special CommissionRECORDS
TIME/DATE:
LOCATION:
Imnille CeunIy Trunsporlulion (OIIIIIis!iun
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
9:30 a.m. I Monday. July 25. 2011
BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street. First Floor. Riverside
.. COMMISSIONERS -tit.
Chair -Greg Pettis
First Vice Chair -John J. Benoit
Second Vice Chair -Karen Spiegel
Bob Buster, County of Riverside
John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside
Jeff Stone, County of Riverside
John J. Benoit, County of Riverside
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside
Bob Botts I Don Robinson, City of Banning
Roger Berg I Jeff Fox. City of Beaumont
Joseph DeConinck I To Be Appointed, City of Blythe
Ella Zanowic I Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa
Mary Craton I Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake
Greg Pettis I Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City
Steven Hernandez I Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella
Karen Spiegel I Steve Nolan, City of Corona
Scott Matas I Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Adam Rush I Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale
Larry Smith I Robert Youssef, City of Hemet
Douglas Hanson I Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells
Glenn Miller I Michael Wilson, City of Indio
To Be Appointed, City of Jurupa Valley
Terry Henderson I Don Adolph, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee I Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore
Darcy Kuenzi I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee
Marcelo Co I Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley
Rick Gibbs I Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta
Berwin Hanna I Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco
Jan Harnik I William Kroonen, City of Palm Desert
Steve Pougnet I Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs
Daryl Busch I AI Landers, City of Perris
Scott Hines I Gordon Moiler, City of Rancho Mirage
Steve Adams I Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside
Scott Miller I Andrew Kotyuk, City of San Jacinto
Ron Roberts I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar
Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee
Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
Tara Byerly
From: Tara Byerly
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4: 15 PM
To: Tara Byerly
Subject: RCTC July Commission Special Meeting
Importance: High
Gooel Afternoon Commission Alternates:
Below is the link to the July 25, 2011 Commission Special Meeting Agenda. Please copy the link anel paste it into a web
page http://www,rctc.orgldownloadslcurrentJagenda 2011 07.pdf
Respectfully,
Tara S. Byerly
Sernor AdIninistrative Assistant
4080 Lemon Street. 3rd Floor
Riverside. CA 92501
(951) 787-7141
1
Tara Byerly
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tara Byerly
Wednesday. July 20.2011 1:54 PM
Tara Byerly
Jennifer Harmon
RCTC July Special Commission Agenda IPad Users
Importance: High
Good Afternoon Commissioners
The July Special Commission Agenda for the meeting being held on Monday, July 25 at 9:30 a.m. for
the IPad Users is available. Please copy the link below
ht!p:/Iwww.rctc,org/downloads/current/agenda ipad.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Tara S. Byerly
Senior AdrninL"trative Assistant
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 787·7141
1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
wWW.rctc.org
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA *
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30a.m.
Monday, July 25,2011
BOARDROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials
distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session
agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at
the Commission office, 4080 Leman Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the
Commission's website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section
54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please
contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to
meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to
provide accessibility at the meeting.
1 . CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3)
continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair
or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation.
Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the
Chair may, at hislher discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous
minutes. In addition, the ma)(imum time for public comment for any individual item or
topic is thirty (3D) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if
such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others
without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or
presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy
applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters
raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda.
Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be
placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
July 25, 2011
Page 2
S. CLOSED SESSION
SA. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government code Section 54956.9(bl
Potential Number of Case(sl: One or more
6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PERRIS VALLEY LINE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING THE PERRIS VALLEY
LINE PROJECT
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
11 Adopt Resolution No. 11-013, "'A Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Adopting Environmental Findings and a
Statement of Project Benefits Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Sch #2009011046), Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and Approving the Perris Valley Line ProjectN
;
21 Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MaUl No. 11-33-005-00 with
the Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) to address its concerns
regarding the Perris Valley Line WVl) project; and
31 Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday. September 14. 2011. Board Chambers, First Floor, County
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET
JULY 25, 2011
NAME AGENCY EMAil ADDRESS
~~&\J'I J.I 1f,J tJ ,v,,, AID I~ ~
,---,Ii",' EiV /.3c.-,rorf-hl'Lt:/fYIt';{
/' ~c A G I LJ 6s 11 f/ jl-fl-/~5~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL
JULY 25, 2011
Pres ent
Cou nt y of Rivers id e, District I jI
County of Riverside, District II o
County of Rivers ide , District III $
County of Riverside, District IV .ef
County o f Riverside, District V
City of Banning ~
City of Beaumont o
City of Blythe o
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake ~
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Corona
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Ea stvale
City of Hemet
City of In d ian W ells
City of Indio
Ci ty of J urupa Valley
City of La Quinta
C ity o f Lake Elsinore
City of Menifee
Ci t y of M oreno V alle y
City of Murrieta
City of Norco
City of Palm Desert
City o f Palm S p rings
City of Perris
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
City of San Jacinto
City of Temecula
City of Wildomar
Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 o
Absent
o
)Y
o
o
a
o
;;Y
P"
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
;;r'
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
;:tf
o
o
o
o
o
o ;;r
DATE; l-~S-;;61/
CHECK IF SUBJ ECT OF
PUBLIC COMMENTS:Ji. PUBLIC COMMENTS:'-J-I.n1C";:.......:Jc' u....,./JJ.U .L'.I."=-_____________
AGENDA ITEM NO.:
(ASUSTEDONllIEAGEN OAI ~ __ !~~~~I~M : .l1et (O Ii 0 k St<&--/ic:>n
NA.ME: /tfda ol e. 2.;ro. m e ( en c.n n PHONE NO.: ffi-683--0298
I
ADDRESS: 'i11/1rc.h'5 0rl AIIk jJJsrol& 2ZS'Q l
STRtliT .J ~ cnY ZIP co E
REPRESENTING : J-./~ rove j\1 At: PHONE NO.: ?(f @ -0718
OF A GENCY I ORGANIZATION I GR.OUP
BUSINESS ADDRES s: ---
STREET CITY ZIP CODE
DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD
DATE: ~5 -~O l\
CHECK IF SUBJECT OF ..-0 .
i V \ \
PUBLIC COMMENTS: }( P U BLIC COMMENTS:__ a: y Y \ S C\ J<>' L \ ,'\ 1L,
AGE N DA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF
(AS USTED ON TlI£ AG£NDA , • AGENDA ITEM: Co W\. wt ..eX S?'" \ \ ~ '-'-""'--''---___
NAME: .::r:2RY\~S ~~-c\ PHONE NO.: r OY ~33 -3r 't.z...-
ADDRESS : q 7 D C R ",t he .st: fh If Mv "" Ovg" j ~.5 0 7
STII EET • J J ZIP CODE
REPRESENTING: 11 , 0 ~ t. V-(J V JL 1'1\A C PHONE NO.:________
., ~G£NCV I ORGANIZATlON I GROin'
BUSINESS ADDRESS: 70 C fZv\"t .f<oC St, [\',lS,9vrIV'JL 1 2-5 0 7
STREET / C r ZIP COOE
11td--uI4A ~focal#" f vL
AGENDA ITEM NO.: J.I-SUBJECT OF ~ flO ~
lAS USTED ON THE AGENOAl /_ AGENDA ITEM: J-t.J:t'UC-~
NAME: PHONE NO.: R. Ii r ~ PlttWe:y" f3 flS,N£ rc 95/ 6fl.:rJflr"f
A .DDRESS: tf=7't fRa-sP£c...r gV2, /drs..i/GRriVC: 1'lc!WI
STREET ~CITY ZIP CODE
REPRESENTING: ft~-m It (!.. 'f ¥, ~NO.: 1£/ klH7 ,4
o AO£NCY I O ROAHIZAnON 0 7PV
BUSINESS ADDRESS: i7t: p~ H,~~Ut. 1~.5?O
STREET ZIP CODE
I I
DATE: ~
CHECK IF SUBJECT OF [") . ~t
PUBUC COMMENTS: CI PUBUC COMMENTS: r~f',S V~ el) ~
AGENDA ITEM NO.: ~ SUBJECT OF ""'. • / \ \ ~
l AS UsnD ON llIE AGENDA' k:: ~A ITEL \'<.r-J\~ ~~
NAME: llc.k 'C'"y ;\d(! oc+-PHONE NO.$I-~-?I(1D
ADDRESS: 31'SS' tb;JlS5l~ ~~\~ _ 9d-So,
STR £?, . W" ZIP CDDE
REPRESENTING: bf-t*-~\f<'/S~ ~o(f__ PHONE NO.: ~
NA .....E DF A GENCY I CIR OANIZAnDN I GR041 C • ....-.:....I'>
BUSINESS ADDRESS: ~-----------",=c---------
STREET CITY ZIP CODe
DATE: 71~I /I
CHECK IF SUBJECT OF -:J
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1"'\I.U. D m 0 "L ~~~~~~~-------------------
AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF R.
(AS USTED ON 'OfE AGENOA I to I ~~ AGENDA ITEM : 4..~C ""V' "
NAME: (VII "h"t { (-~ PHONE NO.: -,~-" "a-'n.:!'f
1 -~ ADDRESS: s.sr.o [ ~r" .t. '\"
STREET CITY lIP CODE
'"" ~ ~ IREPRESENTlNG: 1-<.. · \. 0..-: D1 u~1" ..... J ..:::..... -~ "".,. PHONE NO.:,________
NAME OF AG .ENCV I ORGAN:1:·-_u 1 ___.._
BUSINESS ADDRESS:_-===-_______
STREET CITY liP CODE
ETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CL£RK OF
DATE: /I ,-,,{,7 I I I r '
CHECK IF SUBJECT OF
PUBUC COMMENTS: 0 PUBUC COMMENTS:______ _____________
AGENDA ITEM NO.:
(AS USla) ON TliE AGENDA)
I -SUBJECT OF rJ)lj L r: I~
_ .....Lt"'---AGENDA ITEM: -----f_~ C _&
NAME: --'. .S-JUn e. PHONE NO.:
ADDRESS:_-==_____________=,---_____-,;;;;-;=,..--_
STREET CITY
JL» 1) f J] lW~. 9(41 No~~ ~O.: I If '0 Lit (~
ME'OF AGENCY , OflG.ll>NIZAnON , GROUP ,
13555 Mlfuev ~DJ/L£ + Ktvw:)lde eli-9;L.5/~
STREET T CITY I ZIP CODE
RE .PRESENTING :
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
! /
DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD
ADDRESS: __==~____T-_________~~ _______~~~'-___
DATE: 7.J.~'1, ,
CHECK IF SUBJECT OF
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS:.
AGENDA ITEM NO.:
(A$ UGTED ON THE AGEHOAI
...j ''''-.NAME:
/ SUBJECT OF V' I L ~ AGENDA ITEM : \ '\l
J UN....-£
'4J lJ,J f::t ~Y
I:>
\ 2.0. 1 f <' ~
PHONE NO.: ________
S'TlIEET ,/ CITY ZIP CODE
REPRESENTING: ~>rl 7"E-A..~l PHONE NO.: 310 ....4~ 43'-2
NAME OF AGEN Y I O RGAN IZA ON I GROIIP
oBUSINESS ADDRESS: 14Qoo IN.N,oV4.:n j..l 'B L 'R I """lZ:..'Z..~ L 0
STREOT CITY ZIP CODE
AGE.NDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: July 25, 2011
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Resolution Certifying Perris Valley Line Final
Environmental Impact Report and Approving the Perris Valley Line
Project
STAFF RECOMMENDA TION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 11-013, MA Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Adopting Environmental Findings and a
Statement of Project Benefits Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Sch #2009011046), Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and Approving the Perris Valley Line Project";
2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 11-33-005-00 with the
Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) to address its concerns regarding
the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The PVL project has long been a goal of the Commission. Planning for the
proposed commuter rail extension began in 1988, when the Commission initiated a
study of potential commuter rail sites along the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBLl
that extends from Riverside to Perris, then to San Jacinto. In 1993, the
Commission acquired the SJBL from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway,
now Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). The acquisition of the SJBL
provided the Commission with the opportunity to extend existing Metrolink
commuter rail service deeper into Riverside County, thereby providing commuters
with another transportation alternative to the congested Interstate 21 5 corridor
while supporting regional air quality goals.
Agenda Item 6
The San Jacinto Branchlinell-215 Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (Alternative
Analysis) considered several alternatives to alleviate existing and future
transportation deficiencies through use of existing transportation resources within
the 1-215 corridor: No project alternative, express bus alternative, and commuter
rail alternative with three different options to connect the SJBL to the Downtown
Riverside station. The Alternatives Analysis concluded the no project and express
bus alternatives did not meet the identified project goals and objectives.
In 2007, the Commission awarded a contract to STV, Incorporated (STV) to design
and prepare the environmental documentation for the PVL. Work began on a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) initial study/mitigated negative
declaration (lS/MND). On April 9, 2008, the Commission identified the commuter
rail alternative with a new connection to BNSF at Citrus Street as the locally
preferred alternative (LPA). This LPA became the focus of environmental analysis.
The IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment between January 20,
and February 20, 2009. A public information meeting was held on February 4,
followed by a public hearing on February 11, 2009. Comments received raised
concerns over noise, traffic and visual impacts, station locations, as well as other
mitigation concerns. After weighing public input, the Commission withdrew the
IS/MND from further consideration and prepared an EIR, a more robust document
under CEQA.
Environmental Process
Draft EIR
The EIR process was initiated on July 14, 2009, when the notice of preparation
was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and made publicly available as required
by CEQA. A public scoping meeting was conducted on July 28, 2009, to provide
the public and affected agencies an opportunity to identify areas of concern
associated with the PVL project.
Over the next several months, technical studies were conducted and reports
prepared to support the draft EIR. The draft EIR was circulated for public review
and comment between April 5 and May 24, 2010. Initially two public hearings
were scheduled to occur during the review and comment period. These public
hearings occurred April 14 and April 22, 2010; however, in response to public
comments, an additional public hearing was added. This additional public hearing
occurred May 17, 2010, bringing the total to three. Written (cards, letters, and
email) and verbal (public hearing testimony) comments on the draft EIR were
received. The comments were reviewed and evaluated by staff and the consultant
team.
Agenda Item 6
Major concerns expressed included noise and vibration, as well as neighborhood
safety-related issues such as risk of derailment, cargo spill, pipeline rupture, and
potential for stopped trains to block access. The RUSD expressed concern over
potential impacts to Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools, both located adjacent
to the existing SJBL.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for project-related potentially significant impacts include noise
barriers; interior noise attenuation at eight properties; use of ballast mats and
railroad tie assemblies to reduce noise and vibration; preparation of a transportation
management plan; payment into the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat; and compliance with the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Supplemental Measures
In addition to mitigation measures for project-related impacts, a number of
supplemental measures that are not required for CEOA mitigation purposes have
also been added to the PVL project to allay concerns raised by the public. These
measures include provision of walls at three elementary schools; imposition of a
reduced speed limit for commuter trains at Highland Elementary School (operational
speeds in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary will be limited by the grade and curve in
that alignment); provision of additional cover and non-permeable material over the
existing fuel pipeline within the PVL project right of way near Highland Elementary
School; and physical improvements to four at-grade crossings to complement the
city of Riverside's intent to implement quiet zones.
Final EIR
Following the end of the public review and comment period, detailed responses to
comments were prepared for inclusion in the final EIR. Additionally, while not a
CEOA requirement, notification that the Commission intended to consider and
certify the final EIR and approve the proposed PVL project at this Commission
meeting was sent via post card and email on June 29, 2011, to those that
commented on the draft EIR.
Public agency comments were responded to via written letter on June 29, 2011.
This is in accordance with CEOA guidelines § 15088 that requires written
responses be provided to public agencies commenting during the official comment
period at least 10 days prior to certification of the final EIR.
Agenda Item 6
Next Steps
According to CEQA guidelines §15090, the Commission, as the CEQA lead agency,
shall certify that: 11 the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA,
the state CEQA guidelines, and the Commission's CEQA guidelines; 21 the final EIR
was presented to the Commission and that the Commission reviewed and
considered the information contained in the final EIR before approving the PVL
project; and 3) the final EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and
analysis. The Commission is required to adopt a resolution adopting the
environmental findings and a statement of project benefits pursuant to the CEQA,
certifying the final environmental impact report, adopting a mitigation monitoring
and reporting program, and approving the Perris Valley Line project.
Should the Commission certify the PVL final EIR and approve the proposed project
in accordance with the CEQA guidelines § 15090 by adopting Resolution
No. 11-013, a notice of determination (NOD) witl be filed with the Riverside County
Clerk and State Clearinghouse. The Clerk will post the NOD for public notification,
thereby initiating the 30-day CEQA legal challenge period. If no challenges are
made by the end of the 30 days, the PVL project may proceed without prejudice.
In the event a legal challenge is made, legal counsel for the Commission would
respond accordingly and advise the Commission of available options.
The proposed PVl project must also comply with requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As such, approval of a separate NEPA
supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) is proceeding in parallel under
auspices of the Federal Transit Administration (FTAJ. It is anticipated FTA will
approve the SEA and issue a finding of no significant impact after the 30-day
CEQA legal challenge period for the final EIR has elapsed.
Upon compliance with both CEQA and NEPA, the Commission may proceed to
complete final design, apply for a project construction grant agreement, and
obligate federal funds.
MOU with the Riverside Unified School District
Commission staff is working closely with RUSO to finalize an MOU to address
RUSO's concerns regarding the PVL project. A copy of the MOU will be provided
to the Commission by the July 25 meeting.
Agenda Item 6
Attachments:
1) PVl Final EIR Volume 1
2) PVl Draft EIR Volume 2
3) Appendix A ~ Draft IS/MND Comment Matrix
4) Appendix B -Notice of Preparation
5) Appendix C -Grade Crossing Modifications Table
6) Appendix D ~ LESA Model Calculations
71 Appendix E Agency Communication log
8) Technical Report A -Alternatives Analysis
91 Technical Report B -Air Quality
10) Technical Report C -Noise and Vibration
11) Technical Report D -Traffic
12) Technical Report E -Habitat Assessment
13) Technical Report F Jurisdictional Determination
14) Technical Report G -Hazardous Materials
15) Technical Report H -Zeta
16) Resolution No. 11-01 3
Agenda Item 6
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 6
MEMORANDUM OF UNDRRST ANDING
No. 11-33-005-00
(PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT)
This Memorandwn of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into as of this _ day of
-:c----;-..,.--' 20 II ("Effective Date"), by and among the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, a municipal organization duly organized and existing under the Jaws of the State of
California ("RCTC"), and the Riverside Unified School District, a public school district duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("RUSD"). Hereatier, RUSD and
RCTC sometimes referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties".
RECITALS
This MOU is made with respect to the following facts:
A. RCTC proposes to extend 24 miles of commuter rail service along an existing rail
corridor from the City of Perris in western Riverside County to the existing Riverside Downtown
Station, referred to as the Perris Valley Line Project ("PVL Project").
B. RUSD operates two elementary schools (Highland and Hyatt Elementary
Schools) which are located immediately adjacent to the existing rail corridor.
C. RUSD has concerns related to potential safety impacts to students and staff at
Highland Elementary and Hyatt Elementary Schools from the PVL Project and resulting
commuter rail traffie, including the risk of train derailment and potential impacts to an existing
jet fuel pipeline that is adjacent to Highland Elementary School.
D. RCTC believes that RUSD's concerns primarily revolve around existing rail and
jet fuel pipeline conditions that are not the result of the PVL Project and, based upon RCTC's
analysis, will not be worsened or affected by the Project. Thus, RCTC disagrees with RUSD and
has concluded that no potentially significant safety impacts will result from the Project.
E. RUSD has expressed its concerns to RCTC in the fonn of a May 21, 20 I 0 written
comment letter to the Perris Valley Line Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by RCTC
as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQ A"), which stated RUSD's
concerns regarding the PVL Project and both Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools. RUSD
submitted a further letter to RCTC on July 12, 2011, requesting that approval of the PVL be
postponed until RUSD's safety cOncerns were adequately addressed, or alternatively, that the
PVL Project be denied.
F. RCTC evaluated and fully responded in writing to the May 21, 2010 comment
letter as part ofRCTC's California Enviornmental Quality Act process. Based upon its analysis,
RCTC concluded that no potentially significant enviornmental impacts would result from the
PVL Project. RCTC also fully evaluated the July 12,2011 comment letter, and concluded that it
presented no evidence of any potentially significant environmental impact. Nonetheless, RCTe
continued the July 13, 2011 proposed approval of the Projeet per RUSD's request.
1
!tCTe MOU fl5 10, <14M
!< ·".,.I~"" _ "IX',")" ,
G. The Parties wish to resolve all outstanding concerns and to reach a mutually
acceptable solution thaI will allow RCTC to proceed with the PVL Project should it so choose
after considering the applicable CEQA document. while addressing RUSD's concerns regarding
the safety ofRUSD students throughout construction and operation oCthe PVL Project.
H. The Parties now desire to enter into this MOU to document RCTC and RUSD's
obligations in connection with the PVL Project.
TEIL\iS
NOW THEREFORE, the ['arties resolve and agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth in this MOU are material and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
2. Good Faith Negotiations. The Parties agree to aCI and negotiate in good faith
with respect to fulfillment of the Parties' obligations, and will establish regular meetings to
discuss design and construction coordination issues.
3. ReTC Ohligations. RCTC agrees to take the following actions and incorporate
the following items into the PVL Project:
o Prior to start of project construction activities, RCTC will provide all project
contractors with a copy of the document entitled "Kinder Morgan
Guidelines for Design and COllstroction near Kinder Morgan Hazardous
Liquid Operated Facilities" (November, 2007), a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A". All ReTC contractors shall be contractually
obi igated to comply with the Kinder Morgan Guidelines during project
construction, which will be specified within RCTC bid and contract
documents for the project. To the extent that the Kinder Morgan Guidelines
are amended prior to the completion of project construction, RCTC shall
notify the Riverside Unified School District of any such amendments.
However, the parties to this MOU agree that RCTC's contractors shall be
required to comply with and implement the Kinder Morgan Guidelines,
inclUding any luture amendments that are applicable during the time that the
project is under construction. RCTC will provide project management and
inspection on a continuous basis to ensure and enforce the Kinder Morgan
Guidelines.
o The landscape walls to be constructed next to Hyatt Elementary School shall
he designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the California
Department of Transportation "Soundwall Design Criteria with Vehicular
Collision Load". During the construction of the landscape walls, RCTe
shall provide for inspection of the walls by an appropriately qualified
inspector to verify compliance with these standards, and shall provide for
periodic inspeclions, maintenance and repairs of the landscape walls as
2
FlCTC MOl) il51c 04<1)
1(7'/',-')11': J{'~'l<n,1
necessary following construction. RCTC shall consult with RUSD
regarding the design of the landscape walls.
o The landscape walls to be constructed next to Highland Elcmcolary School
shall be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the Cal iforn!a
Department of Transportation "Soundwall Design Criteria with Vehicular
Cotlision Load." During the construction of the landscape walls, RCTC
shall provide for inspection of the walls by an appropriately qualified
inspector to verify compliance with these standards, and shall provide for
periodic inspections, maintenance and repairs of the landscape walls as
necessary following construction.
o RCTC will coordinate the staging of wall constructton adjacent to both
Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools to minimize impact on students and
the campuses while school is in session, and will coordinate the staging and
construction activities with RUSD through its regularly scheduled or
focused topic meetings as necessary.
o RCTC shall coordinate with the appropriate jurisdictional agency to limit all
train speeds in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School and Hyatt
Elementary School to a maximum of 30 miles per hour.
(1 RCTC shall continue to work closely with RUSD and the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority to implement "Operation Lifesaver"
outreach efforts for students and school district personnel.
4. RUSD Obligations. RUSD agrees to undertake the following obligations:
o RUSD will not object, oppose, appeal, disrupt or otherwise interfere either
administratively or judicially with RCTC's or any other agency's or third
party's efforts to consider andlor approve the PVL Project. Such agreement
shall encompass each and every administrative process and approval
whether pending before RCTC, Caltrans, or any other agency and whether
pending under the California Environmental Quality Act, the National
Environmental Poliey Act, andlor any other laws. Provided, however, that
RUSD reserves the right to comment upon or oppose any significant change
in the design to the PVL Project subsequent to the execution of this MOU.
o RUSD \\~U not sponsor, finance, or otherwise encourage -directly or
indirectly, including but not limited to, through the provision of information
to third parties -any such objection, opposition, appeal, disruption, or other
administrative or judicial interference by any third parties into any Project
related process or approval specified above.
3
ItCTC MOLl (l~ l() (lol{Ji
n:,u_(I1:_ ",'-"'1'11'" I
5. Binding Effect. This MOU is intended to be a contractual, binding agreement
between the Parties.
6. Notices. All notices or other commWlications required or permitted hereunder
shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered (including use of personal cOlmers, such as
FcdEx), or sent by facsimile (with confirmation of receipt being required) to the Parties named
below and shall be deemed received upon the date of confirmed receipt.
If to RUSD: Ifto ReTe:
Riverside Unified School District Riverside County Transportation
3380 14th Street Commission
Riverside, CA 92S) 6 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
With Copy to: Attn: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden
550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300
San Bernardino, CA
Attn: Bradley Neufeld, Esq.
7. Modification. No supplement, amendment, Or modification of any provision of
this MOU shall be effective Wlless it is signed and executed by all the Parties.
8. No Partnership or Joint Venture. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to
create a partnership or joint venture of any kind among the Parties.
9. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in mUltiple cOWlterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
10. Captions; Inlemretation. Any captions to, or headings of, the paragraphs of this
MOU are solely for the convenience of the Parties hereto, are not a part of this MOU, and shall
not be used for the interpretation or detennination of the validity of this MOU or any provision
hereof. This MOU shall be construed without regard to any presumption or other rule requiring
construction against the Party or Parties causing this MOU to be drafted.
11. :No Obligation to Third Parties. This MOU is made solely for the benefit of the
Parties and their respective successors and assigns and, except as otherwise expressly provided
herein; the execution and delivery of this MOU shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon
any person or entity other than the Parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding as of the day and year first above written.
4
lI.C'fC MOUOl l.)<:i4{s)
1!"'l>!F!, hl>':'I1"
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIOJ\'
COMMISSIOJ\'
By:_____________
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
J\'ame:_______________
Its:Dat-e-:---------------
5
Iterc )'lOU OJ 10 1)1(~1
:"U,·,H'· '''~'!12',:
Exhibit "A"
Kinder Morgan Guidelines for Design and Construction near Kinder Morgan
Hazardous Liquid Operated Facilities (November 2007)
6
RL,C MOU os IU Q<I(~)
,"".""" :m;'>',,,'
KINDE-1MORGAN
Guidelines for Design and Construction near
Kinder Morgan Hazardous LIquid Operated Facilities
Name of Company: __
The list of design. construct;on and contractor rnqulrsmonts, Including but not Imlted to the following. fot ~he design and
installation of foreign utihUes Of Improvements on KM rlght-ofMway (ROW) am not intended nor do they waive Of modify any
rights KM may !\ave urder EtXlsting oas&monts 0( ROW agroemen15, Aafar9(tC9 exisllng Basemenls and amendments for
addillonal raqulroment3, Thi8 'Ist of requirements Is applicable fot KM facl~tj.e:j on ~m9nts ooly. Encroachment! on fee
property should be referred to the ROW DepartmClnl.
1><>.lg"
KM shall be provided sufficJent poor notice 01 planned activities Involving excavation, bJastlt1g, or any type QJ construction
on KM'a ROW to delermine and resolva Bny locauon. grade or en.eroaehmenl problems and providE) pfGtsction or our
laci:IUes Bnd the publk: before the actual work Is 10 lake place.
Encroaching entlly shall provide KM with a set of dtawings for review and a .set of "naJ conetrucllon drawings showing all
sepeds or tha proposed facnltiea In the \lieinlty of KM's ROW. Th9 encroachIng' enUly shall also provide a set of BB-D-ulU
drawings showing Ihe proposed facilities In the vk:lnlty of KM's-ROW,
Only faciiiUcs. e:hown on dr6wlng& revlawed by (Company) will be approved for: loslaltatton on KM's ROW. AU
drawing revisions that affect facHltles proposed 10 00 placed: en KM's ROW m:Jat bo approved by KM in wrillng,
KM shalf approve Ihe design 01 all permanent road crossings.
Any repair 10 5UriS(;5 facilities 'oflowing future pipeline maintenance or repair work by KM wla be et the e;o;pense of the
deveiopef or landowner.
Trw dopth oj COVQ( over tha KU pipelines shaij not be roduood nor drainage altered without KMa wrttien approval
Construction or any permanent sltUCturo, bulfdlng(B)'or obs1ructlons within KM pipeline hSement is not permitted,
Plentlng of stU\lbs and trees is not permitted on KM plpo!lrte easement
IrrigaUon eqUipment I.e. backflow prevent devlooe. melers. valvas. valva boxes, etc. shall not be located on KM easement
Foreign Ilna, gas, water, electrio and sewer lInes, atc., may -cross pa-lpfJndlculsr to KM's pipeline wllhln the ROW, provided
thot a. minimum of 1\iIO (2) feel of vorlical clearanco is maintained belween KM pipelina(s} and tho lorelgn pipeline.
Constant llna olevatlons must Lto maintained acfOSS KM's ontire ROW width, gravity drain Unas are the only exception.
Foreign Ilne cr08$lnga below the KM pipeline must be evalualed DY KM to ensure thet a signIficant length of the KM HnG 13
not exposed and unsupported during conslrLIctJon. Whon inslaJIlng undorgtound uUliUes, the last lina should be placed
beneath ail existing lines unless It is impractical or unreasonable to· do so. ForeIgn 11M crosalngs above !he KM pipeline
wlln lesa than 2 foet of cle6ranoe muGC be evaiuated by KM 10 enB:Jre that addillonal support Ii not neooS8ary (0 prewnt
$6itling on top of the KM hazardous Uqulds pipeijne.
A ~orelgn pipe~ne shall CroSS KM facIlities at as near a ninety-degree angle as poaalble, A rore!9fi pipeline shall no1 run
parallollo. KM pipeline with~1l KM easemenl Without wriHen permission of KM.
The foreign umity should he advised that KM maintains cathodic protecUon or. their pipelines. The fOfelgn utUlty must
coordinate ttlcir cathodic prolOCtiotl system with KM'$. At {he request of KM. (amign utllltles shall Install (Of allow to be
installed} cathodic protecllon lost loads al ali crosqings for the purpcaaa of monitoring cathodic protoclion. The KM
Calhodlc Prot&eu<m {CP) technician and ths foreIgn utility CP tochlitclan shall perform post construction CP in!erference
testing, Int&rf~ranC6 issues shall bQ (esoivoo' by mtJtuaf 89{eemeol betwuen tOnNgn ull1ity and KM. All costs asooclatad
wllh the correcJ;on or cathodic protection problems on KM pipeline as & ($S~t of the foreign utility crosslOtJ sool be borne
by the foreign Uii1l1y for a period of one yea! !rom date the torelgn utUity fs put :n service.
The malalhc toreign lina shall bo coated with a sujtB'Jle pipe coating lor fl distance of at least 10 fee; 00 eitl1er side of the
crossing unla.9s o1hafWtSB tequElstoo by the KM CP Technician.
RlljOlmnce: l.·O&M PtOcooure 204 Page 1 ot3 L·OM200-29
Distribution: Local Fi(16
Enginaerlng
11107
KINDE~ORGAN
Guidelines for Design and Construction near
Kinder Morgan Hazardous Liquid Operated Facilities
AC Eloctrlcal ifn0G must be Installed In conduIt and propot1y insulated.
DOT approved pipeline marksr.$ shall be Instalfed 60 as to Indicate 1ho (outo of 1ho 'oralgn pipeline across the KM ROW.
No POwel poles. fl9ht stendafds, elc. shall b& IMtarled on I<M easement
No pipoUne may be located wflhln 50 feet (15 meters.) of a.ny private dwelJlng, 01 any Industrial bu~ding or place of public
assembly in which persona. work. congregate, or 8SS6mbl{),
Construction
Contractors shall be advisrJd of KM's fOQuiromonts Qrtd be contractually obligated to compty.
The continued Integrity ot KM's pipeJlnas and the 60fely of all indi'Viduats in the area of proposed work near KM's ,facliit!&a
arB of tho utmos1 Jmportanoo, Therefore, conlrnctor must meet Wllh KM faprasentatlves priQr 10 CQn&lrl.Ki:tlon 10 provlde and
receive ~tflc:alfon listings ror appropriate area operalions and emergency personnel. KM's: On-lite repr8.lenlatlve will
requlro dr.contlnuatlon of any work Uutt. in nil opInion! endangers thlil operaitons or safety of peraonnel, pipelines
or facUlties:,
Tho Conlmctot musj exposo ell KM plpeHnas prior 10 crossing 10 determine the: exact aUgnmenr and depth 0" the ~nas. A
KM reprosenlatlv8 mus! be present In the evanl 01 paraUelline-s. only ons pipeline can be exposed at f;t tima,
KM will no' allow pipelines to remain exposed QvernIgh1 without oonsenl of KM designated r&preaenlallve. ConI:ladCl may
be required to backfili pipelines at the end of each day.
A KM represanta11ve shalJ do alllinEl locating. A KM topresenta11ve ehaH M presenl10r hydraulic excavsUon. Tho uso of
problng wd$ fer plpolino locating Shall be performed by XM rap/e.s.enlatlws Qnly. lo prtlWl'nt unnacenary damage to Uw
plpGfine ooating,
NoHflcatlon shall be given to KM at leasl 72 houro before start of construcllon.. A $Chedule of activities for lha dumllon or
the project must b& mads aVallabie at thaI time to faclf!tato tho schedul1ng of KInder MOlVan, lOO.!s wont $llo
representatIve. Any Contmctor schodufa cnel'lges shall be provldad to KII'.der Morgan, Inc. Immediately.
Hea,,-",' equipment wtll not be aUowed to opefate directly over KM pipl)lInas or In J<M ROW unless wri1ten approval Is
obtaIned trom (Company), Heavy equipment aha!! only be allowed to cross KM plpelioos at localJons designated by
Kindel Morgan, Inc. Contractor shall comply With all precautionary moasures: required by KM to prolect lis pipelines,
When Inclement weather exists. provisions must be made to compensate for aon dls.placement dtw 10 $ubefdenc:e of 11ras,
Equipment excavating wJthln l43:n (10) feet of KM Pip$llnes will have a plate guard tnstalled over the te&th to protect Ihe
pIpeline.
Excavating or grading which mlghl !'estJti In erosion or 'lJhlch could rendat the KM ROW lnaeoosslble shall no! be: permltted
unless the contraClor/developer/owner .agrl9es to restc-ro the area to !ts angInal condition and provide pfotaction to KM's
facility.
A KM reprosontative ahall b& on·sfle to observe any oons1ruction actMlies within tan (10,) feet of it KM plpef2ne or
al:KNaground appurtenance. The conlractor shall not won.: within thIs d1sla:nce wllhovt Ii! KM representaUve b&l'ng Qn sil:9.
Only hand excavation shall bo permitted within lwo (2) fOOl of KM pipelines. valV$ and rlt1lngs unle3S Stele r&qulrements
are more stringent. Howover, proceed with eldrerne Cl'iIJUon when within Ihma' (3) feel 01 the pipe.
A KM reprosentatiYD will monitor construction activity within 25 teet 01 KM faclhtles dunng and allor the nctlvHles to verify
tho inteorily of the pipeline and 10 ensure the scope and condltfons agreed to have not Changed. Monitoring moan.s to
conduct slle Inspections on a pro·dotarmiood frequency based on Items suCh os: soope of work, dUration 01 expected
excavator work, type of equipmtmtl potentiallmpacl on plpelrne, cotnploxUyof wort andlor number 01 excavators invoWed.
nipping Is only .allowed when the position of the pipe Is known Elnd not wllhln len (10) feel of KM facility unless company
repmsentative Is present.
Temporary support of any exposed KM pipeline by Contractor may be necessary if rGqulrod by KM'a 0","&1[9 fUpl'OsOOlalive.
Backfill below the &:<posed lines and 12" above the JInes $hal! be replaced with sand or other setected malenal as
approved by KM's oowslle representative and thoroughly compacted In 12" lifts 10 95% of standard proctor dry density
minimum or as approved by KM's on-sUe representaUve, :-hla 1& to adequately protect against stI'QS3eS that may be
caused by the settling 01 the plp.allna.
Rmeronoe: ("-o&M Procedufe 204 PagO":2 of:l l-DM200-zg
Dh:Hr1bu1Iof\; Local Free; l1Ki1
El1{Jinearlng
\ KINDE-1MORGAN
Guidelines for DesIgn and ConstructIon near
Kinder Morgan HlIZardous Liquid Operated Facilities
No blas.1tng shill! be allowed within 1000 tOOl 01 KM's faeiltliea unl&$IJ blasting notifioallon Is given to KM InclucUng oomplelo
61aaUng Plan DalB. A pre·blast rnaeUno shall be oonduCled by tha organlz.all9n (eaponslble tOl btoeUng.
KM shall: be Indoolnllled and held harmless from any loss, oost or nabUlty tor personal injuries I't'lcaived, dosth caused or
property damage suffered or BustaJned by any person raaolllng Irom any blrurtl.ng operBtlons undertaken wllhtn 500 feet 01
its 1acili1les, The organization responsible for blasting :shalt be liable lor any and all damages cauHd to KM's facililles 8S a
nJ3uH of thel, aclNllles wt'Le1her"or nol KM mpr€lsertlaUves are present, KM shall have a signed and executed BlasUng
lnd6mnificadol1 Agreomen! befom 8ulhorfzed peO'f'll$Jsion 10 bJaSt can be given,
No blasting sholl b. allowed wllhln 300 f ••t of KIA'. fecilltle. unl ... blasting notification la glvon 10 KM a minimum of one
woek before blasting. (note: ooverod ./wve) KM shall review and analyze the blasting "",thoda. A wrlUen blasting plan
shall be provided by the organlzalloo re.ponslble "" blasting and 09'''''; to In w'~lng by KM In eddlllon It) meeting
requirements for 500' aoo 1000' being mel above. A writlsn amerg.:1fley plan shall be provkk:d by the organlzatJon
rOspM$lblo for blasting. (oots: ooverod above)
Any oonlact wllh any KM facUlty, plpetlna, valv. s.~ ate. shalt ba 'OIJOrtod Immedlatety 10 KM, II repairs 10 the pipe a'.
necessary. they Wfll be made end in&peoied bgfore the sacljon Is re-coated and the fine Is back~tItJed.
KM PQl'SOnnel shailinstail all tesll%ds Of) KM foclHties.
Bumlng 01 trash, brush, ."'.Ia not pstrrt;Usd Vll!hln \h<> KM ROW.
Insurance Requirements-
All contractors, and their subcontractors. worldng on Compooy 6S$ements shall maIntain the fof1ov;(ng types 01 Insurance
pofd9S and minimum lImIts of oo'ierage, AI Insurance certificates t;W'Med by Contractor and Grantee shail Include the
following statement -Kinder Morgan and Its artllfaiad or su~idillry companies are named 8S additional Insured on aU
abolle policlGs (except Worker's CompansaUon) and wef~ar of subrogation in favor of Kinder Morgan and Its affiliated or
subsidiary companies, Ihoir rospootive dlrec1ors. offlGOfS t agents and employees appnos as required by written conirncL"
Contrector shan furnish Certfftcetas of JnclIrance eVidencIng Jnsuranca coverege prIor to commen~ment ot work
and shell provide thirty (30) dey&: notice prior to the termJnallon or cancellation or any poUQY.
1.' Statutory Coverage Workers' CompenMtion insurance 111 accordance wllh the laws of the states where the work Is to be
perlormed. If Contractor perSonna Work on the adjacent on navigable WfUfJll'W'Oy& Contractor shalf jumlsh a. oortlflcate or
JnsuraroOo st!ow1.ng compllanco with the provi,slona of the Foderal Longshoroman's and Harbor Wor1c.ers' Compenselion
Law.
2, Employer's liability Insurance, \l'dlh flmlls of not ress than $1,000AOO pG( occurrol1ce ana $1 1000,000 dis0890 oach
employeo,
3. Commercial General liability Insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $2,000,000 pCi' occurrenca and In the
aggregate. Ad policies shall Illclude coverage for blankat contractual lIabl/lty MSumed.
4. Comprahenslve Automobile UabllHy InsuranC6 With a combined slnglellmll of not loss then $1,000)000. II ~$sary, the
policy shall be endorsed to provIde conlroclualliabdlty covarage.
S. If nac~s:sary Comprehensive AIrcraft Liability Insurance wilh combined bodily Injury, in-cludJng passengers, and property
damago liability single limits or not less than $5,000,000 each oocurfence.
6. Contractor's PolluUon UablJUy Insurance this coverage shall ba maintained In forco for tho full period 0' this agrooment with
available Omits o( not less then $2,000,000 per occurrence,
7, Pollution Logal Liability Insurance Ihis coverage mUst be malntalnad in a minimum amounl of $5,000,000 per oocurrence,
RQ/eH90ce: L..Q&M PIOoOOur& 204 POQ030fJ
Oi$-lrIOlJ!!cn; ,"-ocal F!les
Enginoonrl\i
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
State Clearinghouse No. 2009011046
VOLUME 1 OF 2
PREPARED FOR:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PREPARED BY:
and
Kleinfelder
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 320-2000
STV Incorporated
9130 Anaheim Place, Suite 210
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
(909) 484-0660
July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The proposed Perris Valley Line project is located in western Riverside County, extending about
24 miles, between the city of Riverside and south of the city of Perris. The proposed project
would extend commuter rail service into the Interstate 215 corridor.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse No. 2009011046
Submitted Pursuant with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and
the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 14.
Section 15000 et seq.)
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Section
92666/SD
0.1 IN
0
0.2 R
0
0
0
0
0.3 R
0
0
0
0
0
0.4 M
0
0
DI10R112/PVL
NTRODUCT
.1.1 FORM
REVISIONS,
.2.1 SELE
.2.2 RELA
.2.3 CORR
.2.4 CHAN
RESPONSE
.3.1 MAST
.3.2 AGEN
.3.3 OTHE
0.3.3.
0.3.3.
0.3.3.
.3.4 PUBL
0.3.4.
0.3.4.
0.3.4.
.3.5 REFE
MITIGATION
.4.1 INTRO
.4.2 MITIG
FINA
L FEIR
TION AND S
MAT OF THE
UPDATES,
ECTION OF
ATIONSHIP
RECTIONS,
NGES TO TE
TO COMME
TER RESPO
NCY LETTE
ER INTERES
1 Other In
2 Other In
3 Other In
LIC HEARIN
1 Public H
2 Public H
3 Public H
ERENCES ...
N MONITORI
ODUCTION
GATION MO
AL ENVIRONM
TABLE
SUMMARY ..
E FINAL EIR
AND CORR
HUNTER PA
TO SUNNYV
REVISIONS
ECHNICAL
ENTS
ONSES ........
RS ..............
STED PART
terested Par
terested Par
terested Par
NGS
Hearing #1 - A
Hearing #2 - A
Hearing #3 -
...................
ING AND RE
AND SUMM
ONITORING
MENTAL IMPA
OF CONTE
i of i
...................
R ................
RECTIONS
ARK STATI
VALE DECI
S, AND ADD
REPORTS
...................
...................
TIES
rties Letters
rties Emails
rties Comme
April 14, 201
April 22, 201
May 17, 201
...................
EPORTING
MARY .........
AND REPO
ACT REPORT
NTS
...................
...................
...................
ON LOCAT
ISION .........
DITIONS .....
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
ent Cards ...
10 ...............
10 ...............
10 ...............
...................
PLAN ........
...................
ORTING PLA
T
....................
....................
....................
TION ............
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
....................
....................
....................
AN TABLE ..
July
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
................. 0
................. 0
................ 0.
................ 0.
............. 0.3.
............. 0.3.
............. 0.3.
............. 0.3.
............. 0.3.
............. 0.3.
................ 0.
...................
...................
...................
Page
y 2011
0.1-1
0.1-1
0.2-1
0.2-1
0.2-3
0.2-17
0.2-28
.3.1-1
.3.2-1
3.1-1
3.2-1
3.3-1
4.1-1
4.2-1
4.3-1
.3.5-1
0.4-1
0.4-1
0.4-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.1-1 July 2011
0.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §21000 et
seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code §15000 et seq.).
According to the CEQA Guidelines §15132, the Final EIR shall consist of the following:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in
summary;
A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process;
In accordance with these requirements, the PVL Final EIR is comprised of the following:
0.1.1 Format of the Final EIR
Draft EIR, PVL (April, 2010) (SCH No. 2009011046)
This Final EIR document, July 2011, which incorporates the information required by
§ 15132.
This document is organized as follows:
Section 0.1 Introduction
This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this Final EIR.
Section 0.2 Revisions, Updates, and Corrections
This section lists revisions, updates, and corrections made to the Draft EIR and
its supporting Technical Reports subsequent to its release for public review.
Section 0.3 Response to Comments Received on the Draft EIR
This section presents comment letters received and individual responses to
written comments. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21092.5, copies
of the written proposed responses to public agencies will be forwarded to the
agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR. The responses will conform
to the legal standards established for response to comments on the Draft EIR.
Section 0.4 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.1-2 July 2011
The Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) is presented as a table
that lists each of the mitigation measures required to reduce or eliminate the
project’s significant adverse impacts. Two columns list the timing for each
measure and the party(ies) responsible to ensure each measure is implemented.
The next two columns will be used to document the actions taken to implement
each measure and the verification date for each. In addition, these columns will
be used as a reference for verifying each mitigation measure is implemented and
that ongoing measures are monitored and regularly checked.
92666/SD
This sect
based up
commen
typograp
new info
Draft EIR
0.2.1 S
Three sta
The Palm
between
proposed
Marlboro
subseque
to be the
The envi
described
warehou
the existi
facilities
three sid
site, and
The Mar
approval
Riverside
engineer
most suit
DI10R112/PVL
tion of the F
pon: (1) add
t; (2) upda
hical errors.
ormation tha
R, recirculatio
Selection of
ation sites w
myrita option
Palmyrita
d for the w
ough Avenue
ently, RCTC
e Hunter Par
ironmental s
d herein. Th
se building.
ing SJBL to
and a citrus
des by comm
any off-site
lborough sit
of a deve
e. After a t
ring and cos
table site for
FINA
L FEIR
0.2 REV
Final EIR list
ditional or re
ated informa
. Given the m
at clarifies, a
on is not req
Hunter Par
were analyze
n was propo
and Colum
west side o
es, respectiv
C during the
k Station.
setting and e
he Palmyrita
A second tr
accommoda
s orchard. T
mercial build
soil disposa
e is located
elopment pla
thorough re
t considerat
r location of
AL ENVIRONM
VISIONS, UP
ts revisions
evised inform
ation requir
minor chang
amplifies, an
quired pursu
rk Station L
ed and cons
osed for the
bia Avenue
of the SJBL
vely. Each o
developmen
existing site
a site is curr
rack for the
ate freight a
The citrus o
dings. Low le
al may need
on cleared,
an for multi
eview of the
ions for all s
the PVL sta
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-1
PDATES, AN
to informati
mation requi
red due to
ges associat
nd/or makes
ant to §1508
ocation
sidered for t
e east side o
es. The Col
L track, wit
of the three o
nt of the Fina
e conditions
rently under
Palmyrita si
ctivities. The
rchard at th
evels of pes
to be manag
disturbed v
iple office b
e potential
sites, the Ma
tion location
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
ND CORREC
on included
ired to prepa
of the pa
ted with the
s insignifica
88.5(b) of th
the Hunter P
of the SJBL
lumbia and
th entry an
options were
al EIR has s
for each of
developme
ite would ne
e Columbia
he Columbia
sticides were
ged as haza
vacant land.
buildings fo
sites, while
arlborough s
n.
T
UPDATES, A
CTIONS
d in the Draf
are a respo
assage of t
document, w
ant changes
e State CEQ
Park station
L track east
Marlboroug
nd exit from
e evaluated
selected the
the three p
ent with the
eed to be co
site currentl
a station site
e detected
ardous waste
The curren
r the site f
e weighing
ite has been
ND CORRECT
July
ft EIR April,
onse to a sp
time; and/o
which repres
to an adeq
QA Guideline
in the Draft
of Iowa Av
gh options
m Columbia
in the Draft
Marlboroug
proximate sit
construction
onstructed ea
y hosts indu
e is bordere
in the soil a
e.
t owner obta
from the Ci
the site ac
n identified a
TIONS
y 2011
2010
pecific
or (3)
sents
quate
es.
t EIR.
venue
were
and
t EIR,
h site
tes is
n of a
ast of
ustrial
ed on
at this
ained
ity of
ccess,
as the
92666/SD
0.2.2 R
State CE
environm
preparati
condition
It has lon
existing
substant
Peninsul
Valley Pa
Moreove
where th
potential
Homeow
the lead
attention
In Decem
opinion i
Council
environm
a 2020
condition
and Petit
baseline.
recomme
the fact t
The Cou
normally
Recogniz
appropria
the time
record be
of the 20
give a na
what ass
baseline
City’s use
Operatio
manifest
Cal.App.
the cons
a transpo
sense, a
DI10R112/PVL
Relationship
EQA Guidelin
mental condit
ion is publis
ns against w
ng been hel
physical co
ial evidence
la Comm. v.
ass Acres an
r, a lead ag
he lead age
future de
wners Ass’n
agency mu
to the comp
mber 2010,
n the case
(2010) 190
mental impac
baseline for
ns at the time
tioner assert
. (Id.) In its
endations fro
hat the proje
urt of Appea
the existing
zing establis
ate for a lea
the notice o
efore it, the C
020 future ba
arrow range
sumptions it
amounted t
e of the alte
nal traffic im
until such
4th at 1378
truction of a
ortation proj
a project wil
FINA
L FEIR
p to Sunnyv
nes section
tions in the v
shed. Norma
hich a lead a
ld by CEQA
onditions at
e in the reco
Monterey C
nd Neighbor
gency may
ncy compar
evelopment
v. City of F
ust actually
parison of th
the Sixth Ap
of Sunnyva
0 Cal.App.4t
ct report for
r purposes
e that the no
ted that the
defense, th
om the local
ect would no
l disagreed
g conditions
shed prece
ad agency to
of preparatio
Court found
aseline. (Id.
within whic
used to pro
o little more
rnative 2020
mpacts that r
time that th
[quoting Sa
a residential,
ject can ofte
l not create
AL ENVIRONM
vale Decisio
15125 requi
vicinity of th
ally, these e
agency dete
A courts that
the time t
ord to supp
County Bd.
rs v. City of B
evaluate pr
res the proj
condition
Fresno (2007
carry out
e project ag
ppellate Div
ale West Ne
th 1351 (“S
a four lane s
of evaluatin
otice of prepa
City underr
he City argu
l transportat
ot become o
with the Cit
at the time
dent, the C
o deviate fro
n is publishe
that there w
at 1384.) In
h its project
oject the 20
than a hypo
0 baseline w
result from tr
he project is
ave Our Pen
commercia
en take a n
any operat
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-3
on
ires that an
e project, as
existing con
ermines whe
t a lead age
the notice o
port the use
of Sups. (20
Beaumont (2
oject impac
ect to both
under the
7) 150 Cal.A
a compariso
ainst the ex
ision of the
eighborhood
Sunnyvale”).
street extens
ng traffic im
aration was
reported the
ued that suc
tion authority
perational u
ty. The Cou
the notice o
Court explai
m the gene
ed. (Id. at 13
was no subst
ndeed, the C
would beco
020 conditio
othetical bas
was improper
ransportatio
s constructe
ninsula, supr
l, or industri
umber of ye
tional impac
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
EIR include
s they exist
nditions cons
ether an impa
ency may us
of preparati
of the alte
001) 87 Cal
2010) 190 C
cts by utilizin
the existing
proposed
App.4th 683
on of both
isting condit
California C
d Ass’n et a
. In Sunnyv
sion project
mpacts inste
published. (
project imp
ch a baselin
y’s traffic im
ntil 2020. (Id
urt explained
of preparatio
ined that in
ral rule rega
377-79). How
tantial evide
Court noted
ome operatio
ns. Therefo
seline. There
r based upon
n improvem
ed and open
ra, 87 Cal.A
ial developm
ears. (Id.) A
cts until and
T
UPDATES, A
a descriptio
at the time
stitute the b
act is signific
se a baselin
ion is publi
ernative base
l.App.4th 99
Cal.App.4th 3
ng a two ba
g physical c
project. (W
, 707). In th
scenarios
tion. (Id.)
Court of App
al. v. City of
vale, the C
. (Id. at 1358
ead of the
(Id.) The EIR
pacts by utiliz
ne was war
mpact analys
d. at 1359-60
d that the p
on is publish
n some circ
arding settin
wever, base
ence to supp
that the Cit
onal, nor did
re, the City’
efore, the Co
n the facts o
ent projects
ned. (Sunny
App.4th at p.
ment projects
And, as a m
d unless it a
ND CORRECT
July
on of the phy
that the noti
baseline phy
cant. (Id.)
ne other tha
shed if the
eline. (Save
9, 125-26; C
316).
aseline appr
conditions a
Woodward
his circumsta
paying part
peal rendere
f Sunnyvale
City prepare
8). The EIR
existing phy
R was challe
zing an imp
ranted base
is guidelines
0).
roper baseli
ed. (Id. at 1
cumstances
g the baseli
ed on the sp
port the City’s
ty could not
d the City ex
’s use of a
ourt held tha
of that case.
s generally d
yvale, supra
125-26].) U
s, constructi
atter of com
actually beco
TIONS
y 2011
ysical
ice of
ysical
n the
ere is
e Our
Cherry
roach
and a
Park
ance,
icular
ed an
e City
ed an
used
ysical
enged
roper
ed on
s and
ine is
377).
it is
ine at
pecific
s use
even
xplain
2020
at the
(Id.)
do not
, 190
Unlike
ion of
mmon
omes
92666/SD
operation
assumpt
operation
project’s
The Perr
The Notic
requirem
anticipate
environm
Technica
become
potential
Use of th
on the e
(2012) c
condition
be. The 2
would be
project p
developm
develope
means o
or action
condition
and effe
evidence
feasible
impleme
Nonethe
RCTC ha
Again, a
purposes
intersect
the ultim
Accordin
might oth
it merely
(Ibid.)
Analytic
As descr
those co
published
Project. T
DI10R112/PVL
nal. (See Sta
ions predica
nal impacts t
operational
ris Valley Li
ce of Prepar
ments of Stat
ed to beco
mental condi
al Report D,
operational
traffic impac
he opening y
nvironment
onditions he
ns are next y
2012 year w
e open and
planning and
ment of en
ed as the st
f identifying
n, rather tha
ns at the tim
ective mitiga
e and the us
mitigation –
ntation (Draf
less, and a
as herein pr
s it is curre
s. Nonethel
ions affected
mate perform
gly, this ana
herwise requ
clarifies an
cal Structure
ribed above
onditions tha
d. The first t
The Baselin
FINA
L FEIR
ate CEQA G
ated upon fa
that would re
impacts aga
ine Project
ration (NOP
te CEQA Gu
me operatio
tions in the
, Table 2).
until sever
cts against t
year (2012)
was proper
ere do not r
year and cap
was selected
operational
d constructi
nvironmental
tandard indu
and disclos
an identifyin
e of Project
ation for ide
se of a 2012
– no potent
ft EIR, Secti
although the
rovided supp
ently 2011 a
ess, it con
d by the PVL
mance of th
alysis does
uire recircula
d amplifies t
e
, the “Basel
at existed i
traffic scena
e Condition
AL ENVIRONM
Guidelines, §
acts.”]). As
esult from a
ainst the ope
) for the PVL
uidelines sec
onal until 2
vicinity of t
However, re
ral years lat
those openin
conditions f
r in this cas
represent a
pture the tru
d because it
. The openi
on; this is s
impact as
ustry practic
sing actual im
ng potential
t operations.
entified env
2 baseline, th
tially signific
on 4.11.4).
existing an
plemental an
and no long
nfirms that
L project usi
hose roadwa
not provide
ation. (See S
the analysis
ine” Conditi
in the Proje
ario evaluate
s (2008) + P
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-4
§ 15384 [Su
a result, to
transportati
ening year c
L Project wa
ction 15125
012 – the
the project,
ecognizing t
ter, in 2012
ng year (201
for purposes
e. Unlike in
hypothetica
e essence o
was identifi
ing year (or
standard ind
ssessments.
e because
mpacts that
past impac
. It further al
vironmental
he Draft EIR
cant impact
nalysis is fu
nalysis whic
er 2008, thi
the ultimat
ing 2008 con
ays and int
any new inf
State CEQA
s and conclu
ons for purp
ect study a
ed in this EI
Project scen
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
ubstantial ev
capture and
on project, i
conditions.
as circulated
– and even
Draft EIR f
as they exis
that the PV
, the Draft
2) condition
s of evaluatin
n the Sunny
al date in th
of what impa
ied as the y
r “build year
dustry pract
. This ana
it provides a
may be attr
cts that are
llows for the
impacts. B
R confirmed
s would res
ully supporte
ch utilizes a
is analysis
te performa
nditions wou
tersections
formation of
Guidelines,
usions alread
poses of thi
area as of
IR is the “Ba
nario assum
T
UPDATES, A
vidence inclu
d evaluate
t is importan
d in 2008. Co
n though the
fully describ
sted at that
L project wo
EIR evalua
ns.
ng the PVL
yvale case, t
he future. T
acts of the P
ear in which
r”) is develo
tice for the
lytical appr
a rational a
ributed to a
en’t represe
e identificatio
Based upon
that – with
sult from th
ed by subs
baseline of
is primarily
ance of all
uld be equal
using the 2
f substantia
§ 15088.5.)
dy provided
s suppleme
2008, when
aseline” Con
es that the
ND CORRECT
July
udes “reason
the full exte
nt to compar
onsistent wit
e Project wa
bed the phy
time (Draft
ould not ac
ated the pro
project’s im
the opening
he opening
PVL project w
h the PVL pr
oped based
preparation
roach has
nd demonst
proposed pr
ntative of a
on of approp
this substa
the impositi
he PVL pro
stantial evide
2008 condit
for informat
l roadways
l to or better
2012 condit
l importance
) To the con
in the Draft
ental analysi
n the NOP
nditions (200
Project wou
TIONS
y 2011
nable
ent of
re the
th the
as not
ysical
EIR,
ctually
oject’s
pacts
year
year
would
roject
upon
n and
been
trable
roject
actual
priate
antial
on of
oject’s
ence,
tions.
tional
and
r than
tions.
e that
ntrary,
t EIR.
s are
was
08) +
uld be
92666/SD
built inst
evaluated
(2012) sc
that wou
the EIR e
+ Project
project.
Because
Line, traf
Valley/M
evaluated
streets/in
following
associate
be realiz
below.
Traffic
For each
Build+Pr
evaluatio
presente
Hunter P
Baseline
Moveme
analysis
Avenue t
Baseline
No signif
project fo
No Build
No impa
Station fo
Project.
Comparis
The PVL
the No B
Moreno
DI10R112/PVL
tantaneously
d in this EI
cenario assu
ld have bee
evaluates th
t scenario a
e the Projec
ffic impacts a
arch Field, D
d at all prop
ntersections
analyses p
ed with each
ed with eac
h proposed
oject analy
on of the m
ed.
Park Station
Scenario
nts at the st
hours, with
through mov
+ Project S
ficant impac
or any of the
+ Project Sc
acts would b
or any of the
son of Base
L project wou
uild Conditio
Valley/Marc
FINA
L FEIR
y and that
R is the No
umes the Pr
en constructe
e Build Con
adds predicte
ct introduces
are limited t
Downtown P
posed statio
are based
present each
h. This is a q
h scenario (
PVL station
sis scenario
mitigation an
n
tudy interse
the exceptio
vement oper
cenario
cts would be
e three altern
cenario
be expected
e three altern
line + Projec
uld not resul
ons+Project
ch Field Sta
AL ENVIRONM
operations
o Build Con
roject is con
ed between
ditions (201
ed project im
s commuter
o the four n
Perris, and S
ons, and the
on the ch
h scenario
qualitative a
(“Baseline +
, traffic imp
os are des
nd the sign
ctions opera
on of Iowa A
rates at LOS
e expected a
native station
d at the stu
native statio
ct Scenario t
lt in any sign
scenarios.
ation
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-5
would beg
nditions (201
structed and
the “Baselin
2) + Project
mpacts to th
rail service
ew stations
South Perris)
e resultant a
hanges in t
and summa
analysis focu
Project” an
acts under
scribed belo
nificance of
ate at LOS
Avenue at Ce
S E during th
at the study
n locations.
dy intersect
n locations c
to the No Bu
nificant impa
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
gin in 2008
12) + Projec
d is operatin
ne” Conditio
t conditions.
he predicted
e onto the e
to be constr
). The chang
air quality im
traffic impac
arize the tra
using on the
d “No Build
the Baseline
ow. The pr
f the impac
D or better
enter Street
e PM analys
intersection
tions in the
compared to
uild + Projec
acts under e
T
UPDATES, A
8. The next
ct. The No
ng without an
ns (2008) a
The Build C
2012 condi
existing San
ructed (Hun
ges to traffic
mplications
cts for eac
affic and air
e various cha
+ Project”)
e, Baseline+
roposed mi
cts with mit
during both
, where the
sis hour.
s with imple
vicinity of
o 2012 cond
ct Scenario
either the Ba
ND CORRECT
July
t traffic sce
Build Cond
ny improvem
nd 2012. Th
Conditions (2
itions withou
n Jacinto Br
ter Park, Mo
c conditions
at affected
h scenario.
quality cha
anges that w
and is prese
+Project, an
itigation an
tigation are
the AM and
northbound
ementation o
the Hunter
itions withou
seline+Proje
TIONS
y 2011
enario
itions
ments
hirdly,
2012)
ut the
ranch
oreno
were
local
The
anges
would
ented
nd No
d an
also
d PM
Iowa
of the
Park
ut the
ect or
92666/SD
Baseline
The inter
exception
At Al
and s
PM a
West
PM a
Baseline
One sign
Project:
Cactu
from
This imp
realized
impleme
since 20
from one
southbou
increased
fully mitig
No Build
A signific
Project:
The
signif
secon
TT-1
north
hour.
Cactus A
LOS C d
purposes
Comparis
The Bas
Avenue a
DI10R112/PVL
Scenario
rsection ope
ns:
lessandro B
southbound
analysis hour
tbound Cact
analysis hour
+ Project S
nificant impa
us Avenue’s
Baseline LO
act would no
as a result o
nted by the
08. These im
e to two thr
und through
d intersectio
gate the imp
+ Project Sc
cant impact
westbound
ficant impac
nds of delay
in the Draft
/southbound
Avenue’s ea
during the P
s only.
son of Base
seline Cond
and I-215 R
FINA
L FEIR
erations are a
Boulevard an
Mission Gro
r.
tus Avenue’s
r.
cenario
act would be
s eastbound
OS D conditio
ot actually o
of the PVL p
Cactus Ave
mprovement
rough lanes
and left-tur
on capacity a
pacts that wo
cenario
would be e
Cactus Av
ct over 201
y within LOS
t EIR would
d Old 215’s
astbound thr
M analysis
line + Projec
dition+Projec
Ramps) comp
AL ENVIRONM
at LOS D or
nd Mission
ove Parkwa
s through m
e expected a
through mo
ons to Base
occur and de
project becau
enue Extensi
ts include th
s, addition o
rn movemen
and improve
ould have oth
expected at
venue throu
2 conditions
S F during t
mitigate thi
maximum
rough move
hour. This i
ct Scenario t
ct suggests
pared to No
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-6
r better durin
Grove Park
y left-turn m
movement at
at one study
ovement at
line+Project
eterioration i
use of the s
ion/Railroad
he widening
of eastboun
nts, which w
ed levels of s
herwise resu
one study
ugh movem
s without th
he PM anal
is impact to
green time
ment at sou
s not an im
to the No Bu
an impact
Build Cond
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
ng both ana
kway, westb
movements o
t Old 215 op
y intersectio
southbound
t LOS E duri
n levels of s
ubstantial im
Bridge Wid
of east and
d right-turn
would result
service resu
ulted from th
intersection
ment at Old
he Project b
ysis hour. H
less than s
to 15 seco
uthbound I-2
pact, and is
uild + Projec
at a differ
ditions+Proje
T
UPDATES, A
lysis hours w
bound Aless
operate at L
perates at L
n with imple
d I-215 ramp
ing the PM a
service woul
mprovement
dening projec
d westbound
storage, a
t in increase
ulting from th
he 2008+Pro
n with imple
d 215 woul
by incurring
However, Mi
significant le
nds during
215 ramps w
s cited here
ct Scenario
rent intersec
ect (at Cactu
ND CORRECT
July
with the follo
andro Boule
LOS E durin
LOS E durin
ementation o
ps would wo
analysis hou
ld not actua
ts that have
ct at this loc
d Cactus Av
nd prohibitio
ed capacity.
he improvem
oject scenari
mentation o
ld experien
g just above
tigation Mea
evels by red
the PM ana
would opera
for informat
ction (at Ca
us Avenue a
TIONS
y 2011
owing
evard
g the
g the
of the
orsen
ur.
lly be
been
cation
venue
on of
. The
ments
io.
of the
ce a
e two
asure
ucing
alysis
ate at
tional
actus
at Old
92666/SD
215). Ho
actually
Extensio
and the
from the
Condition
Therefore
Downtow
Baseline
Moveme
analysis
moveme
shared th
and PM a
Baseline
Significa
Project:
At SR
appro
Mitiga
signif
turn p
At Sa
from
A traf
at Pe
requi
Impro
mitiga
that t
const
At SR
LOS
throu
LOS
This
proje
cond
DI10R112/PVL
owever, this
occur, as
n/Railroad B
addition of t
e PVL proj
ns+Project s
e, the PVL p
wn Perris S
Scenario
nts at the st
hours, wit
nts at SR-7
hrough/left-t
analysis hou
+ Project S
nt impacts w
R-74 and D
oximately fo
ation Measu
ficant levels
phase to 14
an Jacinto a
Baseline LO
ffic signal is
erris project
red by the
ovement pro
ate the impa
those improv
truction, the
R-74 and C
B to Base
gh/ left-turn
F during the
impact wou
ct would not
itions that e
FINA
L FEIR
impact at th
improvemen
Bridge Wide
turn lanes) w
ect and th
scenario wo
project would
tation
tudy interse
h the exce
4, which op
turn movem
ur.
cenario
would be ex
Street, the
ur seconds
ure TT-2 ide
by reducing
seconds du
and Redlan
OS D to Base
planned to
(a project t
City of Per
oject in ear
acts that wou
vements are
PVL project
Street, the
line+Project
movement
e AM and PM
ld not actua
t actually be
xisted in 20
AL ENVIRONM
he intersect
nts by othe
ening projec
would mitiga
e impact a
uld be mitig
d result in le
ctions opera
eption of th
perates at LO
ents at SR-
xpected at th
northbound
of additiona
entified in th
g the maxim
ring the PM
ds Avenues
eline+Projec
be installed
hat is unrela
rris upon the
rly 2012, pr
uld otherwis
e not implem
t will install t
northbound
t LOS F du
would incur
M analysis h
ally occur an
e realized be
08 no longe
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-7
tion of Cactu
r project in
ct, which inc
ate the impa
at Cactus A
gated by Mit
ss than sign
ate at LOS
he D Stree
OS E during
-74, which o
hree study i
d D Street t
al delay with
e Draft EIR
mum green t
analysis ho
s, northboun
ct LOS E dur
at this locat
ated to the
e completio
ior to the o
se result from
mented by th
those improv
C Street ap
uring the PM
r approximat
ours, respec
nd deteriora
ecause this i
er exist today
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
us Avenue a
nitiatives (su
cluded the w
acts that wo
Avenue at
tigation Mea
nificant impa
D or better
et northbou
g the PM, a
operates at
intersections
hrough/ left-
hin LOS E d
would mitig
time for the
ur.
nd Redlands
ring the PM
tion by a priv
PVL project
on of the SR
opening of t
m the PVL p
he time that
vements.
pproach wou
M, and sou
tely 13 and
ctively.
tion in level
intersection
y at this inte
T
UPDATES, A
and I-215 R
uch as the
widening of
ould have ot
Old 215 i
asure TT-1
cts.
during both
nd shared
and the sout
LOS F, dur
s with imple
-turn movem
during the P
gate this imp
east/westb
s Avenue w
analysis ho
vate develop
t) as a cond
R-74 and I-
the PVL. T
project; howe
the PVL pro
uld deteriora
uthbound C
200 second
ls of service
has been si
ersection. Th
ND CORRECT
July
Ramps woul
Cactus Av
Cactus Ave
therwise res
n the No
in the Draft
the AM and
through/lef
thbound C S
ring both the
ementation o
ment would
PM analysis
pact to less
ound SR-74
would deteri
ur.
per for the V
dition of app
-215 Interch
his signal w
ever, in the e
oject comme
ate from Bas
Street’s sh
ds of delay w
e due to the
ignalized an
he existing t
TIONS
y 2011
d not
venue
enue,
sulted
Build
EIR.
d PM
ft-turn
Street
e AM
of the
incur
hour.
than
4 left-
iorate
Venue
proval
hange
would
event
ences
seline
hared
within
e PVL
nd the
traffic
92666/SD
signa
inters
No Build
Significa
without th
At SR
would
respe
less t
74 lef
At Sa
move
addit
A traf
at Pe
upon
open
the P
PVL
At SR-74
LOS D
approach
Comparis
The Bas
compare
Baseline
mitigates
PVL proj
South Pe
Baseline
Moveme
hours wit
The
LOS
DI10R112/PVL
al operation
section to ac
+ Project Sc
nt impacts w
he Project d
R-74 and D
d incur ap
ectively. Miti
than significa
ft-turn phase
an Jacinto a
ements and
ional delay w
ffic signal is
erris project
the comple
ing of the P
PVL project.
project comm
4 and C Str
during the
hes operate
son of Base
seline Cond
d to No Buil
conditions
s the impact
ect would re
erris Statio
Scenario
nts at the t
th the follow
Bonnie Driv
F during the
FINA
L FEIR
alleviates
ccommodate
cenario
would be ex
uring the PM
Street, bot
proximately
gation Meas
ant levels by
e to 14 seco
and Redland
d northboun
within LOS F
planned to
(not part of
etion of the S
VL. This sig
However, if
mences con
reet, the nor
AM and PM
within an ac
line + Projec
ditions+Proje
ld Condition
have chang
ts that would
esult in less t
n
hree study
ing exceptio
ve eastbound
e PM analys
AL ENVIRONM
delays on
e the traffic v
xpected at tw
M analysis h
h north and
ten and
sure TT-2 ide
y reducing th
onds during t
ds Avenues,
d Redlands
F.
be installed
the PVL pro
SR-74 and
gnal would m
f those impro
nstruction, th
rth and sout
M analysis
cceptable LO
ct Scenario t
ect suggests
s+Project. H
ged since 20
d have othe
than signific
intersections
ons:
d right-turn
is hour.
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-8
the southbo
volume incre
wo study inte
our:
d southboun
20 seconds
entified in th
he maximum
the PM analy
, westbound
s Avenue w
at this locat
oject) as a co
I-215 Interch
mitigate the i
ovements a
en the PVL
thbound C S
hours. This
OS, and is ci
to the No Bu
s an additio
However, thi
008 with the
rwise result
ant impacts.
s operate a
movement
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
ound C Str
ement added
ersections c
d D Street
s of additi
he Draft EIR
m green time
ysis hour.
d San Jacint
would incur
tion by a priv
ondition of a
hange Impro
impacts that
re not imple
project will i
Street appro
s is not an
ited here for
uild + Projec
onal impact
s impact wo
e signalizatio
ed from the
.
at LOS C or
at southbou
T
UPDATES, A
reet approa
d by the PVL
compared to
through/left-
onal delay
would mitig
e for the eas
to Avenue’s
r four to e
vate develop
approval by
ovement pro
t would othe
emented by
install those
oaches wou
impact, as
r information
ct Scenario
t (at SR-74
ould not actu
on of this in
e PVL projec
r better duri
und I-215 ra
ND CORRECT
July
ch, allowing
L project.
o 2012 cond
-turn movem
within LO
ate this impa
st/westbound
s through/lef
eight second
per for the V
the City of P
oject, prior t
erwise result
the time tha
improveme
ld operate w
the interse
nal purposes
4 and C S
ually occur,
tersection, w
ct. Therefore
ng both ana
amps operat
TIONS
y 2011
g the
itions
ments
S F,
act to
d SR-
ft-turn
ds of
Venue
Perris
to the
t from
at the
nts.
within
ection
s.
treet)
since
which
e, the
alysis
tes at
92666/SD
The S
the A
durin
Baseline
Significa
Project:
Eastb
from
the ri
of ad
Draft
instal
The N
35 a
analy
secon
A tra
proje
impa
impro
const
No Build
Significa
condition
The
deter
move
delay
mitiga
signa
North
and
analy
AM, a
analy
A traf
at thi
would
DI10R112/PVL
Sherman Ro
AM and PM a
g the PM an
+ Project S
nt impacts w
bound Bonn
Baseline LO
ght-turn mov
dditional dela
EIR would
llation of a n
Northbound
nd 75 seco
ysis hours. S
nds of additi
affic signal i
ct at this lo
cts that wou
ovements a
truction, the
+ Project Sc
nt impacts
ns without th
Eastbound
riorate from
ement would
y during the
ate this impa
al at this inte
hbound Sher
290 second
ysis hours. S
and worsen
ysis hours.
ffic signal pl
s location p
d otherwise
FINA
L FEIR
oad northbou
analysis hou
nalysis hour.
cenario
would be ex
ie Drive’s le
OS C to Bas
vement wou
ay during th
d mitigate t
new traffic sig
Sherman R
nds of addi
Southbound
ional delay d
is planned
ocation prio
uld otherwise
are not imp
PVL project
cenario
would be e
e Project:
Bonnie Dr
LOS D to
d worsen wit
PM analysis
act to less th
rsection.
rman Road’s
ds of additio
Southbound
within LOS
lanned to be
prior to the o
result from t
AL ENVIRONM
und left-turn
urs, and sou
xpected at t
eft-turn move
eline+Projec
uld worsen w
he PM analy
this impact
gnal at this i
Road left-turn
itional delay
Sherman R
during the PM
to be instal
r to the op
e result from
plemented
t will install t
expected at
rive left-turn
F during th
hin LOS F b
s hour. Mitig
han significa
s left-turn m
onal delay
Sherman R
S F by incurr
e installed b
opening of th
the PVL proj
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-9
movement
thbound left
two study in
ement at sou
ct LOS F du
within LOS F
ysis hour. M
to less th
ntersection.
n movement
y within LOS
Road would
M analysis h
lled by the
ening of th
m the PVL p
by the tim
those improv
t all three
n movemen
he AM and
by incurring a
ation Measu
ant levels by
ovement on
within LOS
Road would
ring 160 sec
y the SR-74
he PVL. Thi
ject. Howeve
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
at SR-74 op
t/right-turn m
ntersections
uthbound I-2
ring the AM
by incurring
Mitigation Me
han significa
t onto SR-7
S F during
worsen with
hour.
SR-74/I-21
e PVL. Thi
project. How
me that the
vements.
study inters
nt at south
PM analys
approximate
ure TT-3 ide
y requiring th
nto SR-74 wo
F during t
deteriorate
conds of ad
4/I-215 Interc
s signal wou
er, in the ev
T
UPDATES, A
perates at LO
movement op
s with imple
215 ramps w
and PM an
g approxima
easure TT-3
ant levels b
74 would inc
the respect
hin LOS F b
5 Interchan
s signal wo
wever, in the
e PVL proj
sections com
hbound I-21
sis hours, a
ely 240 seco
ntified in the
he installatio
ould incur ap
the respecti
from LOS E
ditional dela
change Imp
uld mitigate
vent that thos
ND CORRECT
July
OS F during
perates at L
mentation o
would deteri
alysis hours
tely 164 sec
3 identified i
by requiring
cur approxim
tive AM and
by incurring
ge Improve
ould mitigate
event that t
ect comme
mpared to
5 ramps w
nd the righ
onds of addit
e Draft EIR w
on of a new t
pproximately
ive AM and
E to F durin
ay during the
rovement pr
the impacts
se improvem
TIONS
y 2011
g both
OS F
of the
iorate
s, and
conds
n the
g the
mately
d PM
eight
ement
e the
those
ences
2012
would
t-turn
tional
would
traffic
y 110
d PM
g the
e PM
roject
s that
ments
92666/SD
are n
proje
SR-7
PM a
Impro
imple
impa
impro
const
Comparis
The No
northbou
another
the PVL
impacts.
Air Qual
Air qualit
the propo
Under S
“Baseline
pollutant
utilized h
intersect
pollutant
screening
mobile s
procedur
As a resu
comparis
For the N
quality a
2% or mo
Build + P
SCAQMD
1 “Baselin
undertake
2 Conditio
No Build p
3 Unsigna
not charac
DI10R112/PVL
not impleme
ct will install
74 at northbo
analysis hour
ovements by
emented prio
cts that wou
ovements a
truction, the
son of Base
Build Con
und I-215) c
project initia
project this
ity
ty impacts u
osed station
SCAQMD pr
e”1 condition
concentrati
here to desc
ion congest
concentrati
g procedure
source air
res, intersec
ult, those int
son.
No Build +
nalysis for s
ore in volum
Project cond
D criteria we
ne” represen
en.
ons in 2012 o
projects, and
alized intersec
cterized by le
FINA
L FEIR
ented by the
l those impro
ound I-215 o
rs.
y the SR-74
or to the o
uld otherwise
are not imp
PVL project
line + Projec
nditions+Proj
compared to
atives would
s impact. Th
nder all ana
locations an
rocedures, n
n. Thus, for t
ons) availab
cribe “Basel
tion. Traffic
ons at the
es were used
quality ana
ctions with a
tersections w
Project scen
signalized3 i
me to capaci
ition. For the
ere selected
nts traffic inte
opening year
changes to th
ctions are gen
engthy queuin
AL ENVIRONM
e time that t
ovements.
off-ramp wou
4/I-215 Interc
pening of t
e result from
plemented
t will install t
ct Scenario t
ject would
o the Baselin
mitigate th
herefore, the
alysis scenar
nd nearby se
no air qualit
these condit
ble to descr
ine” conditio
congestion
microscale
d, as the too
alysis could
LOS of C or
which would
nario2, SCA
ntersections
ty ratio (v/c)
e PVL enviro
for a detaile
ersection co
of the PVL p
he roadway n
nerally not an
ng.
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-10
the PVL pro
uld deteriora
change Imp
the PVL. Th
m the PVL p
by the tim
those improv
to the No Bu
result in o
ne Condition
e impacts th
e PVL proje
rios are des
ensitive rece
ty assessme
tions, there
ibe traffic-re
ons is the tr
has a maj
(sidewalk) le
ol to select t
be approp
r better are n
d be conside
QMD scree
s exhibiting
) ratio when
onmental do
ed air qualit
nditions in 2
project; theref
network since
nalyzed for air
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
oject comme
ate from LO
rovement P
hese improv
project. How
me that the
vements.
uild + Projec
one additio
ns+Project.
hat would h
ect would re
cribed below
eptors.
ent of inter
are no air q
elated air qu
raffic LOS, w
ajor influenc
evel. Conse
those inters
priate. Base
not of conce
ered a LOS D
ning criteria
an LOS D o
measured f
ocuments, fo
ty analysis. T
2008 when t
fore, this cond
2008.
r quality impa
T
UPDATES, A
ences const
OS D to E du
Project at this
vements wo
wever, in the
e PVL proj
ct Scenario
nal impact
However, i
have otherwi
esult in less
w based on
rsections is
quality metric
uality. As a r
which meas
ce on poten
equently, the
ections whe
ed on SCA
ern with resp
D or worse w
a recommen
or worse an
from the “No
our intersect
These selec
the data col
dition include
acts because
ND CORRECT
July
truction, the
uring the AM
s location w
ould mitigate
event that t
ect comme
(at SR-74
mprovemen
ise resulted
s than signif
their proxim
required fo
cs (i.e. maxi
result, the m
sures the lev
ntial increase
e SCAQMD
ere more det
AQMD scree
pect to air qu
were selecte
ds a detaile
nd an increa
o Build” to th
tions meetin
cted intersec
llection effort
es the PVL pr
such location
TIONS
y 2011
PVL
M and
will be
e the
those
ences
and
ts by
from
ficant
mity to
or the
imum
metric
vel of
es in
LOS
tailed
ening
uality.
ed for
ed air
ase of
he No
ng the
ctions
t was
roject,
ns are
92666/SD
would ha
of expect
For the
determin
SCAQMD
No Build
Baseline
assessm
Because
intersect
intersect
Hunter P
Baseline
For the H
Columbia
these fo
represen
decrease
concentr
Iowa
Baseline
Under a
display a
more, me
Iowa
None of
detailed a
No Build
Under SC
operating
least two
criteria fo
location.
Iowa
4 Assume
excludes
DI10R112/PVL
ave the grea
ted parking,
Baseline +
e the num
D mobile so
d and No B
and Base
ment betwee
e the compa
ions, no de
ions under t
Park Station
Scenario
Hunter Park
a, and Marlb
ur intersect
nts the poin
e in operatio
rations nearb
Avenue at C
+ Project S
ll of the an
a LOS D or
eeting the S
Avenue at C
the other s
analysis.
+ Project Sc
CAQMD crite
g at LOS D
o percent. U
or detailed
Avenue at C
es that only t
No Build proj
FINA
L FEIR
test potentia
project-gen
+ Project s
ber of inte
urce analys
uild + Proje
line + Proj
n the No B
arative asse
etailed air qu
his analysis
n
k Station, the
borough) res
ions operat
nt at which
onal efficienc
by. The Base
Center Stree
cenario
alyzed stati
worse and a
CAQMD crit
Center Stree
studied traff
cenario
eria, a quan
or worse w
nder the “No
mobile sou
Center Stree
he PVL proje
ects and futu
AL ENVIRONM
al to have an
erated trips
cenario4, S
rsections th
is criteria ar
ect scenario
ect scenari
Build + Proje
essment only
uality analys
scenario.
e PVL traffic
sulted in the
ed at LOS
a traffic in
cy. These in
eline traffic i
et - LOS D
on location
an increase
teria for a mo
et - LOS E
fic intersecti
titative asse
while having
o Build + Pr
rce air qual
et - LOS E
ect is overlaid
re changes to
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-11
n adverse ai
and projecte
SCAQMD sc
hat would p
re designed
s. However
o in order
ect scenario
y requires t
sis was per
c analysis fo
analysis of f
D or worse
ntersection
nefficiencies
ntersection w
options, on
in volume t
obile source
ons would
essment is re
an increas
oject” scena
lity analysis
d on 2008 B
o the roadway
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
ir quality imp
ed traffic gro
creening cri
potentially r
to measure
r, the criterio
to facilitate
o and the B
the use of
rformed as
or the three
four signaliz
e during th
starts to e
s could resu
with an over
nly one of t
to capacity
e air quality a
meet the S
ecommende
se in volume
ario, two inte
s for the pro
aseline Cond
y network.
T
UPDATES, A
pact due to t
owth.
iteria were
require a d
the differen
on was also
e a qualitat
Baseline + P
the LOS fo
a result of
e location op
zed intersect
e PM peak
experience s
lt in an incr
rall LOS D C
the four inte
(V/C) ratio o
analysis:.
SCAQMD cr
ed for signali
e-to-capacity
ersections m
oposed Hun
ditions; theref
ND CORRECT
July
the large am
also utilize
etailed ana
nces betwee
o applied fo
tive compar
Project scen
or selected t
the selectio
ptions (Palm
tions. Only o
k period. LO
some notice
rease in poll
Condition is
ersections w
of two perce
iteria requir
zed intersec
y ratio (v/c)
met the SCA
nter Park St
fore, this con
TIONS
y 2011
mount
ed to
alysis.
en the
or the
rative
nario.
traffic
on of
myrita,
one of
OS D
eable
lutant
would
ent or
ing a
ctions
of at
AQMD
tation
ndition
92666/SD
Iowa
None of
detailed a
Comparis
The Bas
mobile so
intersect
Moreno
Baseline
Four sig
Valley/M
operated
LOS D C
Cactu
Baseline
Only one
and an in
quality an
Cactu
None of
detailed a
No Build
Following
signalize
capacity
four stud
Cactu
None of
detailed a
Comparis
The Bas
mobile s
intersect
DI10R112/PVL
Avenue at C
the other s
analysis.
son of Base
eline + Proj
ource air qu
ions would m
Valley/Marc
Scenario
gnalized inte
arch Field s
d at LOS D o
Condition is s
us Avenue a
+ Project S
e of the four
ncrease in V
nalysis, as re
us Avenue a
the other s
analysis.
+ Project Sc
g SCAQMD
ed intersectio
ratio (v/c) o
ied intersect
us Avenue a
the other s
analysis.
son of Base
eline + Proj
source air
ion that wou
FINA
L FEIR
Columbia Av
studied traff
line + Projec
ject scenari
ality analysi
meet the SC
ch Field Sta
ersections w
tation locatio
or worse dur
shown below
at Valley Spr
cenario
r intersection
V/C ratio of t
ecommende
at I-215 SB R
studied traff
cenario
D screening
ons operatin
of at least tw
tions would
at I-215 SB R
studied traff
line + Projec
ject scenari
quality ana
uld meet the
AL ENVIRONM
venue - LOS
fic intersecti
ct Scenario t
o indicates
s as compar
CAQMD crite
ation
were analyz
on. Only one
ring the PM
w:
ring Pkwy/O
ns analyzed
two percent
ed by SCAQ
Ramp – LOS
fic intersecti
g criteria, a
ng at LOS D
wo percent.
meet the cri
Ramp – LOS
fic intersecti
ct Scenario t
o indicates
lysis. The
SCAQMD c
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-12
S D
ons would
to the No Bu
that one int
red to the N
ria for mobil
zed for the
e of these fo
peak period
ld SR-215 –
in the traffi
or more, me
MD.
S D
ons would
a quantitati
D or worse
Under the “N
teria for a m
S F
ons would
to the No Bu
that one int
No Build +
criteria for mo
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
meet the S
uild + Projec
tersection w
o Build + Pr
le source an
traffic stud
our studied i
d. The Base
– LOS D
ic study disp
eeting the cr
meet the S
ive assessm
while havin
No Build + P
mobile source
meet the S
uild + Projec
tersection w
+ Project s
obile source
T
UPDATES, A
SCAQMD cr
ct Scenario
would meet
roject scena
nalysis.
dy at the p
ntersections
line traffic in
played a LO
riteria for a m
SCAQMD cr
ment is re
g an increa
Project” sce
e air quality
SCAQMD cr
ct Scenario
would meet
cenario als
e analysis.
ND CORRECT
July
iteria requir
the criteria
rio, for whic
roposed Mo
s near this st
ntersection w
OS of D or w
mobile sourc
iteria requir
ecommended
ase in volum
enario, one o
analysis.
iteria requir
the criteria
so indicates
TIONS
y 2011
ing a
for a
h two
oreno
tation
with a
worse
ce air
ing a
d for
me-to-
of the
ing a
for a
one
92666/SD
Downtow
Baseline
Six signa
station lo
during th
below:
San J
Baseline
Two of th
v/c ratio
analysis.
SR-7
San J
None of
detailed a
No Build
Following
signalize
capacity
six studie
SR-7
SR-7
San J
San J
None of
detailed a
Comparis
For the B
mobile s
Condition
intersect
because
DI10R112/PVL
wn Perris S
Scenario
alized interse
ocation. One
he PM peak
Jacinto Aven
+ Project S
he six analy
of two perc
74/W. 4th Stre
Jacinto Aven
the other s
analysis.
+ Project Sc
g SCAQMD
ed intersectio
ratio (v/c) o
ed intersectio
74/W. 4th Stre
74/W. 4th Stre
Jacinto Aven
Jacinto Aven
the other s
analysis.
son of Base
Baseline Co
source air q
ns + Proje
ion was inc
conditions
FINA
L FEIR
tation
ections were
e of the stud
period. The
nue at Perris
cenario
yzed traffic in
cent or more
eet at Navaj
nue at Perris
studied traff
cenario
D screening
ons operatin
of at least tw
ons would m
eet at Navaj
eet at D Stre
nue at Perris
nue at D Stre
studied traff
line + Projec
onditions + P
quality anal
ect scenario
luded with t
for this inte
AL ENVIRONM
e analyzed fo
died intersec
e Baseline tr
s Blvd – LOS
ntersections
e, meeting th
o Road – LO
s Blvd – LOS
fic intersecti
g criteria, a
ng at LOS D
wo percent. U
meet the crite
o Road – LO
eet – LOS F
s Blvd – LOS
eet – LOS D
fic intersecti
ct Scenario t
Project scen
ysis as com
o. Since th
those select
ersection ha
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-13
or the traffic
ctions near t
raffic interse
S D.
displayed a
he SCAQMD
OS D
S D.
ons would
a quantitati
D or worse
Under the “N
eria for a mo
OS D
S D
D
ons would
to the No Bu
ario, two int
mpared to
he initial ai
ted for the
ave since ch
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
c study at the
this station o
ection with a
a LOS of D
D criteria fo
meet the S
ive assessm
while havin
No Build + P
obile source
meet the S
uild + Projec
tersections w
four interse
ir quality a
No Build Co
hanged (a tr
T
UPDATES, A
e proposed
operated at
a LOS D Co
or worse an
r a mobile s
SCAQMD cr
ment is re
g an increa
Project” sce
air quality a
SCAQMD cr
ct Scenario
would meet
ections unde
assessment,
onditions +
raffic signal
ND CORRECT
July
Downtown P
LOS D or w
ondition is s
nd an increa
source air q
iteria requir
ecommended
ase in volum
nario, four o
analysis.
iteria requir
the criteria
er the No
one addit
Project sce
has since
TIONS
y 2011
Perris
worse
hown
ase in
uality
ing a
d for
me-to-
of the
ing a
for a
Build
tional
enario
been
92666/SD
installed
would no
South Pe
Baseline
At the p
SCAQMD
Access R
currently
Baseline
Intersect
not have
for a mo
newly cre
result, it
No Build
Intersect
comparis
analysis
Station A
of conce
Comparis
For the B
meet the
analysis.
operate a
Project T
Baseline
Under th
that only
point at w
efficiency
These in
Iowa
Cactu
San J
DI10R112/PVL
at this locat
ow meet the
erris Statio
Scenario
proposed So
D LOS D air
Road inters
exist and th
+ Project S
ions built or
an existing
bile source
eated Mapes
is not an inte
+ Project Sc
ions modifie
son of V/C r
is not applic
Access Road
rn with respe
son of Base
Baseline + P
e SCAQMD
In addition,
at a LOS C.
Total Summ
Scenario
e baseline c
y three signa
which a traff
y. These ine
tersections a
Avenue at C
us Avenue a
Jacinto Aven
FINA
L FEIR
tion). As a re
SCAQMD c
n
outh Perris
r quality scre
section, whic
herefore, wo
cenario
r modified as
condition fo
air quality a
s Road at St
ersection of
cenario
ed as a res
ratios. Cons
cable. Howe
d intersection
ect to air qua
line + Projec
Project scena
criteria suc
, the newly c
As a result,
mary
condition for
alized interse
ic intersectio
efficiencies
are:
Center Stree
at Valley Spr
nue at Perris
AL ENVIRONM
esult, the int
criteria for a
Station loca
eening analy
ch would be
uld be analy
s a result of
or compariso
analysis is n
tation Acces
concern wit
sult of the p
sequently, th
ever, in the
n would ope
ality.
ct Scenario t
ario and the
ch that they
created Map
it is not an i
r all of the st
ections ope
on starts to e
could result
et - LOS D
ring Pkwy/O
s Blvd – LOS
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-14
tersection, S
mobile sourc
ation, no si
ysis criteria.
e improved
yzed based o
the project
on of V/C rat
not applicabl
ss Road inte
h respect to
project wou
he SCAQMD
future cond
erate at a LO
to the No Bu
No Build +
would requ
pes Road a
ntersection
tudied traffic
rated at LOS
experience s
t in an incre
ld SR-215 –
S D
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
SR-74/W. 4th
ce analysis.
ignalized in
The relocat
as part of
on future co
(such as the
tios. Conseq
le. However
ersection wou
air quality.
ld not have
D criteria for
ition, the ne
OS C. As a r
uild + Projec
Project sce
uire a detaile
Station Acc
of concern w
c intersection
S of D or w
some notice
ease in pollu
– LOS D
T
UPDATES, A
h Street at C
tersections
ted Mapes R
f the PVL p
nditions only
e relocated
quently, the S
r, in the futu
uld operate
e a “No Bu
r a mobile s
ewly created
result, it is no
ct Scenario
nario, no int
ed mobile s
cess Road in
with respect
ns, the traffi
worse. LOS
eable decrea
utant conce
ND CORRECT
July
C Street – LO
would mee
Road and St
project, does
y.
Mapes Roa
SCAQMD cr
ure condition
at a LOS C.
ild” conditio
source air q
d Mapes Ro
ot an interse
tersections w
source air q
ntersection w
to air quality
c study indic
D represent
ase in operat
ntrations ne
TIONS
y 2011
OS D
et the
tation
s not
d) do
riteria
n, the
As a
on for
uality
ad at
ection
would
uality
would
y.
cates
ts the
tional
earby.
92666/SD
Baseline
Under th
air qualit
more det
Iowa
Cactu
SR-7
San J
No Build
Under th
air qualit
which mo
Iowa
Iowa
Cactu
SR-7
SR-7
San J
San J
In additio
No Build
SR-7
Comparis
The Bas
criteria fo
for which
DI10R112/PVL
+ Project S
e “Baseline
ty screening
tailed air qua
Avenue at C
us Avenue a
74/W. 4th Str
Jacinto Aven
+ Project Sc
e “No Build
ty screening
ore detailed
Avenue at C
Avenue at C
us Avenue a
74/W. 4th Stre
74/W. 4th Stre
Jacinto Aven
Jacinto Aven
on, the follow
Condition a
74/W. 4th St a
son of Base
seline + Pro
or a mobile
h a total of ei
FINA
L FEIR
cenario
+ Project” c
g criteria res
ality analysis
Center Stree
at I-215 SB R
reet at Navaj
nue at Perris
cenario
+ Project” c
g criteria wo
air quality a
Center Stree
Columbia Av
at I-215 SB R
eet at Navaj
eet at D Stre
nue at Perris
nue at D Stre
wing interse
and meets th
at C St – LO
line + Projec
oject scenar
source air q
ight intersec
AL ENVIRONM
condition for
sults in the
s may be req
et - LOS E
Ramp – LOS
jo Road – L
s Blvd – LOS
condition for
ould result in
nalysis may
et - LOS E
venue - LOS
Ramp – LOS
o Road – LO
eet – LOS F
s Blvd – LOS
eet – LOS D
ction will be
he SCAQMD
OS D.
ct Scenario t
rio indicates
quality analy
ctions would
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-15
all of the st
selection o
quired. The L
S D
OS D,
S D.
all of the st
n the select
y be required
S D
S F
OS D
S D
D.
e changed fr
D criteria for d
to the No Bu
that a tota
ysis as comp
meet the cr
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
tudied traffic
of four signa
LOS at thes
tudied traffic
tion of seve
d. The LOS a
rom unsigna
detailed air q
uild + Projec
al of four in
pared to the
riteria for mo
T
UPDATES, A
c intersection
alized inters
e intersectio
c intersection
n signalized
at these inte
alized to sign
quality analy
ct Scenario
ntersections
No Build +
obile source
ND CORRECT
July
ns, the SCA
sections at w
ons are:
ns, the SCA
d intersectio
ersections ar
nalized unde
ysis.
would mee
Project sce
analysis.
TIONS
y 2011
AQMD
which
AQMD
ns at
re:
er the
et the
enario
92666/SD
For the
source a
at locatio
selected
station a
idling (du
intersect
scenario
SR-7
SR-7
SR-7
San J
A detail
environm
concentr
Quality S
“No Build
As indica
Project”
under th
Project”
compare
differenc
condition
traffic gro
the 2012
condition
intersect
“No Build
resulted
would res
to be low
DI10R112/PVL
No Build +
nalysis. The
ons that fea
four worst
and represen
ue to high in
ions selecte
are:
74/W. 4th Stre
74/4th Street
74/W. 4th Stre
Jacinto Aven
ed air qua
mental docum
rations for th
Standards (N
d + Project” s
ated above,
conditions w
he “Baseline
conditions,
d to the fou
es between
n exist prima
owth in the 2
2 “No Buil
ns. Therefor
ions in the
d + Project”
in a determi
sult in “Base
wer.
FINA
L FEIR
Project sce
e potential fo
ature high v
case inters
nt the highe
ntersection d
ed for a qu
eet at D Stre
at Perris Blv
eet at C Stre
nue at D Stre
ality assess
ment. The re
hese interse
NAAQS or C
scenario and
the four int
would not b
e + Project
in general,
ur intersecti
the 2008 B
arily due to
2008 Baseli
d + Projec
e, the asso
“Baseline +
” scenario.
ination of no
eline + Proje
AL ENVIRONM
enario, four
or adverse im
vehicular vo
sections wer
est combinat
delays and
antitative a
eet
vd
eet
eet
sment was
esults of the
ections wou
CAAQS) and
d no mitigati
tersections t
e the same
Scenario”.
would expe
ons selecte
Baseline + P
the absence
ne + Project
ct” condition
ociated pollu
Project” sc
Since detail
o impacts, it
ect” scenario
MENTAL IMPA
0.2
0.2-16
intersection
mpacts from
olumes and
re all locate
tions of veh
large, propo
ir quality an
conducted
e assessme
uld surpass
d therefore n
ion for air qu
that were a
e as those s
The interse
erience lowe
ed under the
Project cond
e of the inte
t condition.
n conseque
utant levels
enario than
led analyses
is therefore
o, where poll
ACT REPORT
REVISIONS,
ns were sel
m mobile sou
high numb
ed near the
icular volum
osed parking
nalysis unde
at these
nt conclude
the Nationa
no air quality
uality impact
nalyzed in d
selected for
ections sele
er volumes
e “No Build
dition and th
erim four ye
The interim
ently results
would be e
at the inter
s for the “N
reasonable
lutant conce
T
UPDATES, A
lected for a
urces of pollu
bers of idlin
proposed D
mes and pot
g areas). Th
er the “No
four inters
ed that none
al or Califo
y impacts w
ts was requir
detail under
detailed air
ected under
and less se
+ Project”
he 2012 “No
ars of proje
four year gr
s in worse
expected to
rsections se
No Build + P
e to conclude
entrations wo
ND CORRECT
July
a detailed m
utants is gre
ng vehicles.
Downtown P
tential for ve
hese worse
Build + Pro
sections for
e of the pred
rnia Ambien
ould result i
red.
r the “No Bu
r quality ana
r the Baseli
evere LOS w
scenario. T
o Build + Pro
cted backgr
rowth includ
ned interse
be lower a
elected unde
Project” sce
e that no im
ould be expe
TIONS
y 2011
mobile
eatest
The
Perris
ehicle
case
oject”
r the
dicted
nt Air
n the
uild +
alysis
ine +
when
These
oject”
round
ded in
ection
at the
er the
enario
pacts
ected
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-17 July 2011
0.2.3 Corrections, Revisions, and Additions
Table 0.2.3-1
Corrections, Revisions, and Additions
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
Table of Contents
Technical Reports
viii Added Zeta Tech Report reference
as Technical Report H.
Executive Summary,
Section ES.4.0 Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Pages ES-4
Table ES.4-1
Clarified Aesthetics Mitigation
Measure AS-1.
Executive Summary,
Section ES.4.0 - Summary of Impacts
and Mitigation Measures
Pages ES-4 to ES-8
Table ES.4-1
Clarified Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures BR-1 through
BR-17.
Executive Summary,
Section ES.4.0 Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Pages ES-8 to ES-10
Table ES.4-1
Clarified Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures CR-1 through
CR-5.
Executive Summary,
Section ES.4.0 Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Pages ES-10 to ES-12
Table ES.4-1
Clarified Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Mitigation Measures
HHM-1 through HHM-4.
Also, included addition of
coordination with local emergency
response agencies (HHM-3).
Mitigation measure HHM-4 was
deleted. Instead, revisions to
HHM-3 and TT-4 adequately
address HHM-4. As such, HHM-3
is referenced.
Executive Summary,
Section ES.4.0 Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Pages ES-13 to ES-15
Table ES.4-1
Clarified Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measures NV-1 through
NV-4.
Typographical error in the length of
NB 7 for Mitigation Measure NV-1.
Provided additional text to clarify
that implementation of either NV-3
or NV-4 between Sta. 263+00 and
275+00 will eliminate the 2 VdB
impact predicted in the UCR area
of Riverside.
Executive Summary,
Section ES.4.0 Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Pages ES-15 to ES-16
Table ES.4-1
Revised Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measures TT-1 in
response to comments on the
Draft EIR received from
representatives of Riverside
Unified School District.
Revised Transportation and Traffic
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-18 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
Mitigation Measure TT-2 in
response to comments on the
Draft EIR received from the City of
Perris Public Works Department.
Also, added text to clarify that SR-
74 is known as 4th Street in
downtown Perris.
Clarified Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-3.
Provided additional text to clarify
that in the event that planned
traffic signals are not installed by
other projects (unrelated to the
PVL) prior to the opening year of
the PVL, the installation of
additional traffic signals at three
locations where significant impacts
are expected will be incorporated
as PVL project features.
Clarified Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-4 by
providing additional information
regarding the Traffic Management
Plan.
Chapter 1.0 Introduction
Section 1.5 Draft EIR Review Process
Page 1-4 Updated text to reflect the
additional Public Hearing
conducted in response to a
request from the UCR
neighborhood. As such, RCTC
conducted three Public Hearings
for the project.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project Section
2.4 Project Description
Page 2-4 to 2-9 Updated text to reflect the
Highgrove option.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project Section
2.4 Project Description
Page 2-11 Clarified text regarding landscape
walls in response to comments
received on the Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4 Project Description
Page 2-14 Clarified locations where
landscape walls shall be provided.
Updated text regarding MP
locations for track improvement
work based on project refinement
subsequent to circulation of the
Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.3 Acquisitions and
Relocations
Page 2-34 Updated property acquisition
acreage and Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (APNs) resulting from
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-19 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
project refinement subsequent to
circulation of the Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.3 Acquisitions and
Relocations
Page 2-35 Updated project related street
improvements.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.3 Acquisitions and
Relocations
Pages 2-35 to 2-36
Table 2.4-1
Updated property acquisition
acreage, owners, and APNs as a
result of project refinement
subsequent to circulation of the
Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.3 Acquisitions and
Relocations
Figures 2.4-20 to 2.4-24 Updated property acquisition
acreage, owners, and Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers (APNs) as a result
of project refinement subsequent
to circulation of the Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.3 Acquisitions and
Relocations
Figure 2.4-25 Figure deleted because San
Jacinto Avenue Improvements
Parcel Acquisition is now shown
on revised Figure 2.4-24 along
with other street improvement
sites.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.6 Grade Crossings
Page 2-43 to 2-44 Added text regarding the proposed
closure of existing grade crossings
at Poarch Road and 6th Street due
to project refinement subsequent
to circulation of the Draft EIR.
Clarified text regarding 5th Street in
downtown Perris. Added text to
reflect the closure of Commercial
Street.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.8 Communication Systems
Page 2-48 Updated text to include
underground cables due to project
refinement subsequent to
circulation of the Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.9 Landscape W alls
Pages 2-48 to 2-49 Clarified text regarding landscape
walls in response to comments
received on the Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Project
Section 2.4.11 Operations
Pages 2-50 to 2-51
Table 2.4-2
Updated operating schedule
because of project refinement
subsequent to circulation of the
Draft EIR.
Chapter 3.0 Alternatives
Section 3.1.3 CEQA Guidelines
Page 3-3 Corrected a misspelling.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-20 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.1 Aesthetics
Pages 4.1-12 to 4.1-14 Clarified text regarding landscape
walls in response to comments
received on the Draft EIR.
Provided details on the length and
height of the landscape wall near
Highland Elementary School.
Added text to indicate landscape
wall would block view of railroad
right of way and I-215 from Nan
Sanders School.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.1 Aesthetics
Figure 4.1-4 Figure revised to show where the
landscape wall and noise barrier
walls are for Highland Elementary
School.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.1 Aesthetics
Page 4.1-21 Clarified Mitigation Measure AS-1.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-1 Revised reference to Air Quality
Technical Report B.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-9,
Table 4.3-4
Added abbreviations for sulfates
and hydrogen sulfide.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-11 Added reference to April 16, 2010
SCAG determination that the PVL
is not a Project of Air Quality
Concern (POAQC). Also, provided
a reference to the new Appendix F
in the Air Quality Technical Report,
which includes the TCWG review
form.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-14 Added explanatory text regarding
air quality impact determination.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-15 Revised reference to Traffic
Technical Report D.
T ypographical error corrected
regarding level-of-service.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-19 Added reference to April 16, 2010
SCAG determination that the PVL
is not a Project of Air Quality
Concern (POAQC). Also, provided
a reference to the new Appendix F
in the Air Quality Technical Report,
which includes the TCWG review
form.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-21 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Pages 4.3-20 to 4.3-21 Clarified text regarding the health
risk assessment.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-22 Deleted a redundant paragraph as
the same information is shown on
Page 4.3-13 in the Draft EIR.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Pages 4.3-22 to 4.3-23 Updated text regarding the
amendment to the State CEQA
Guidelines regarding analysis of
greenhouse gases (GHG) in
CEQA documents.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-22
Table 4.3-10
Clarified greenhouse gas
assessment table.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Pages 4.3-23 to 4.3-24 Updated discussion on
construction period air quality
evaluation based on soil export
information. Corrected a
misspelling.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-25 Deleted two bullets under “other
project control measures” as the
same information is on Page 4.3-
24 in the Draft EIR.
Revised reference to Air Quality
Technical Report B.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-26
Table 4.3-11
Updated quantities for construction
emissions table and text based on
soil export information.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Page 4.3-29 to 4.3-30 Typographical errors (numerical)
corrected in distances described
between certain sensitive
receptors and PVL alignment.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.4 Biological Resources
Pages 4.4-26 to 4.4-28 Clarified Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures BR-1 through
BR-17 and made the measures
more enforceable.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.5 Cultural Resources
Pages 4.5-15 to 4.5-16 Clarified Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures CR-1 through
CR-5 and made the measures
more enforceable.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Pages 4.7-15 to 4.7-17 Text added to identify Riverside
County Airport Land Use
Commissions conditions for the
Moreno Valley/March Field and
South Perris Stations.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-22 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Pages 4.7-18 to 4.7-19 Clarified Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Mitigation Measures
HHM-1 through HHM-4. Also,
included addition of coordination
with local emergency response
agencies (HHM-3).
Mitigation Measure HHM-4 was
deleted as a separate measure.
Instead, revisions to HHM-3
adequately address HHM-4. As
such, HHM-3 is referenced.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-1 Revised reference to Noise and
Vibration Technical Report C.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-20 Clarified the reduction in noise with
the use of wayside applicators.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-23 Clarified project construction
activities.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-27 Revised reference to Noise and
Vibration Technical Report C.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-31
Table 4.10-11
Typographical error in table
corrected regarding the tabulated
train speeds near Highland
Elementary School.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-32 Revised reference to Noise and
Vibration Technical Report C.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-35
Table 4.10-14
Typographical error in table
corrected regarding the tabulated
train speeds near St. James
School.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-37 Added text regarding soil export
information.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Pages 4.10-37 to
4.10-39
Added text regarding project
construction activities and
examples of noise control
measures.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-38 Revised reference to Noise and
Vibration Technical Report C.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-39 to
4.10-40
Clarified Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measures NV-1 and NV-
2. Typographical error in the length
of NB 7 for Mitigation Measure NV-
1.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-23 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-41,
Table 4.10-16
Typographical error in the length of
NB 7 for Mitigation Measure NV-1.
Added information to the table
regarding noise barrier placement
and height.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Figure 4.10-6 Updated the locations of the noise
barriers due to project refinement
subsequent to circulation of the
Draft EIR.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration
Page 4.10-43 Clarified Mitigation Measures NV-3
and NV-4. Added text to clarify
where project-related vibration
impacts are predicted to occur.
Provided additional text to clarify
that implementation of either NV-3
or NV-4 between Sta. 263+00 and
275+00 will eliminate the 2 VdB
impact predicted in the UCR area
of Riverside.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-1 Revised reference to Traffic
Technical Report D.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-7 Updated text to reflect that SR-74
is known as 4th Street in downtown
Perris.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Pages 4.11-13 to
4.11-14
Added a description of the 3rd
Street grade separation project
(already included in Section 5.3,
Cumulative Impacts) and updated
the completion dates.
Added additional detail regarding
the development and proposed
uses comprising the March
LifeCare Campus project in
response to comments on the
Draft EIR received from
representatives of the Riverside
Unified School District.
Added name of the roadway
improvement project to widen
Cactus Avenue (project already
included and described in the Draft
EIR and Traffic Technical Report).
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-15 Correction made regarding when
the mitigation measures for the
Perris Marketplace project would
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-24 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
be in place (2009).
Revised title of a referenced report
for the Towne Center project.
Revised reference to Traffic
Technical Report D.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-16 Corrected error (direction).
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Pages 4.11-16,
4.11-28, 4.11-31, and
4.11-34 to 4.11-37
Table 4.11-7 and 4.11-9
Updated roadway system changes
to be implemented by 2012 in the
City of Perris in response to
comments on the Draft EIR and a
subsequent email (dated June 28,
2010) received from the City of
Perris Public W orks Department
that provided new information
related to the signalization of D
Street and San Jacinto Avenue
and the striping plans at the D
Street/SR-74 and C Street/San
Jacinto Avenue intersections. This
new information required updating
the level-of-service analyses
(including text and tables) for the
Downtown Perris Station area
2012 conditions without and with
the project. Also, incorporated PVL
project features to be implemented
for the improvement of the San
Jacinto Avenue crossing into the
2012 conditions with the project.
The analysis did not reveal any
new significant impacts and did not
show an increase in severity of an
environmental impact.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-17 Clarified text by providing a
definition of modal split.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-18 Added text for the hours that
represent the AM peak period and
PM peak period.
Added text to the title of Table
4.11-4.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-19 Revised reference to Traffic
Technical Report D.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page. 4.11-20 Revised reference to Traffic
Technical Report D.
Added text regarding the proposed
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-25 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
closure of existing grade crossings
at Poarch Road and 6th Street due
to project refinement subsequent
to circulation of the Draft EIR.
Clarified text regarding the status
of 5th Street in downtown Perris.
Added text to reflect the closure of
Commercial Street due to project
refinement and subsequent to
circulation of the Draft EIR.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-23 to 4.11-
25
Table 4.11-5
Revised table heading. Updated
the notes within the table to
provide definitions for the
abbreviations used within the
table.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Pages 4.11-27 to
4.11-28, 4.11-34 to
4.11-37, and 4.11-39
Tables 4.11-6 and
4.11-9
Updated analyses for the Moreno
Valley/March Field station area in
response to comments on the
Draft EIR received from
representatives of the Riverside
Unified School District that
provided new information related
to vehicle assignments included in
the March LifeCare Campus EIR.
This new information required
updating the level-of-service
analyses (including text and
tables) for the Moreno Valley/
March Field Station area 2012
conditions without and with the
project. As part of Transportation
and Traffic Mitigation Measure TT-
1, the seconds of delay at the
intersection of Cactus Avenue at
Old 215 were revised. However, as
shown in the revised Draft EIR, the
updated level-of-service analyses
did not reveal new significant
impacts and did not show an
increase in severity of already
identified impacts.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-28 Added text to clarify that SR-74 is
known as 4th Street in downtown
Perris.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-32
Table 4.11-8
Corrected reference to
Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-3.
Corrected the table heading in the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-26 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
first column.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-33 Clarified construction period
impacts. Added text to clarify and
expand on the discussion for
Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-4. Added a
new discussion regarding soil
export under Construction Period
Impacts.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-34 Updated text regarding the
proposed closure of existing grade
crossings at Poarch Road and 6th
Street due to project refinement
subsequent to circulation of the
Draft EIR. Added text to reflect the
closure of Commercial Street due
to project refinement subsequent
to circulation of the Draft EIR.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-36
Table 4.11-9
Updated Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-2 in
response to comments on the
Draft EIR received from the City of
Perris Public Works Department.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Page 4.11-40 Corrected reference to Table 4.11-
10.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
Pages 4.11-40 to
4.11-42
Revised Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-1 in the
response to comments on the
Draft EIR received from
representatives of Riverside
Unified School District.
Revised Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-2 in
response to comments on the
Draft EIR received from the City of
Perris Public Works Department.
Added text to clarify that SR-74 is
known as 4th Street in downtown
Perris.
Clarified Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-3.
Provided additional text to clarify
that in the event that planned
traffic signals are not installed by
other projects (unrelated to the
PVL) prior to the opening year of
the PVL, the installation of
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.2 REVISIONS, UPDATES, AND CORRECTIONS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.2-27 July 2011
Draft EIR Section Page Number(s) Action
additional traffic signals at three
locations where significant impacts
are expected will be incorporated
as PVL project features.
Clarified Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT-4 by
providing additional information
regarding the Traffic Management
Plan.
Clarified AM and PM analysis
hours for Mitigation Measures TT-
1, TT-2, and TT-3.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Section 4.12 Utilities and Service
Systems
Page 4.12-2 Updated number of existing grade
crossings along the SJBL
alignment along with the
description of each.
Mapes Road existing grade
crossing was deleted since it is
outside the boundary of the PVL
project.
Chapter 5.0 Other Environmental
Considerations
Section 5.3 Cumulative Impacts
Pages 5-3 to 5-4 Clarified text regarding the
cumulative projects and Riverside
Grade Separations projects.
Added No Build projects (already
described in Section 4.11,
Transportation and Traffic) to the
list of cumulative projects in
Section 5.3, Cumulative Impacts.
Chapter 6.0 Effects Found Not To Be
Significant
Section 6.3 Public Services
Page 6-2 Updated text regarding the
proposed closure of existing grade
crossings at Poarch Road and 6th
Street due to project refinement
subsequent to circulation of the
Draft EIR. Added text to reflect the
closure of Commercial Street due
to project refinement and
subsequent to circulation of the
Draft EIR.
Chapter 8.0 References Page 8-1 Added reference for March
LifeCare Campus.
Chapter 8.0 References Page 8-8 Revised publishing year of the
technical reports for air quality,
noise and vibration, and traffic.
92666/SD
0.2.4 C
Technica
publicatio
upon: (1
commen
typograp
added to
§15085.5
Technica
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
DI10R112/PVL
Changes to T
al Reports f
on of the Dr
) additiona
t; (2) upda
hical errors
o the Techn
5 of the State
al Report
y Technical R
y Technical R
y Technical R
y Technical R
y Technical R
y Technical R
y Technical R
ADMIN DRA
L FEIR
Technical R
for Air Qua
raft EIR on A
l or revised
ated informa
. Given the
ical Reports
e CEQA Gu
Correctio
Air Quali
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
AFT FINAL EN
Reports
lity, Noise a
April 5, 2010
d informatio
ation requir
minor chan
s does not m
idelines.
Tab
ons and Add
Page N
ty Technical
Cover p
Page i
Pages 3
Page 18
Pages 1
Page 23
Pages 2
NVIRONMENT
0.2
0.2-28
and Vibratio
0. The revisi
on required
red due to
nges associa
meet the re
ble 0.2.4-1
ditions to Te
umber(s)
l Report – Te
page
3, 22, and 31
8
19 to 20
3
23 to 24
TAL IMPACT R
REVISIONS,
on, and Tra
ions to the T
to prepare
of the pa
ated with the
quirements
echnical Re
Correctio
echnical Rep
Updated p
revisions m
on the Dra
Updated t
the additio
F – SCAG
Form For
Added ref
determina
Project of
Also, prov
Appendix
Report, wh
form.
Typograph
level of se
Typograph
corrected
between c
PVL alignm
Clarified te
assessme
Corrected
Updated d
period air
export info
REPORT
UPDATES, A
affic were re
Technical Re
e a respons
assage of t
e document
for recircula
eports
ons and Addi
port B
publishing dat
made in respo
aft EIR.
he list of App
on of a new a
G TCWG Inter
PVL Project)
ference to Ap
ation that the P
Air Quality C
vided a refere
F in the Air Q
hich includes
hical error co
ervice.
hical errors (n
in distances d
certain sensiti
ment.
ext regarding
ent.
a misspelling
discussion on
quality evalua
ormation.
ND CORRECT
July
evised since
eports are b
se to a sp
time; and/o
t, the inform
ation pursua
itions
te based on
onse to comm
pendices base
ppendix (App
ragency Revie
.
ril 16, 2010 S
PVL is not a
Concern (POA
nce to the ne
Quality Techn
the TCWG re
rrected regard
numerical)
described
ive receptors
the health ris
g.
construction
ation based o
TIONS
y 2011
e the
based
pecific
or (3)
mation
ant to
ments
ed on
pendix
ew
SCAG
AQC).
ew
ical
eview
ding
and
sk
on soil
92666/SD
Technica
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Appendix
Air Quality
Appendix
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
DI10R112/PVL
al Report
y Technical R
y Technical R
y Technical R
y Technical R
D
y Technical R
D
N
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
ADMIN DRA
L FEIR
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Noise and Vib
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
AFT FINAL EN
Page N
Page 25
Page 32
Table 12
Page 33
Table 13
Page 14
Page 28
bration Tech
ort Cover p
ort Pages 7
Table 2
ort Page 20
ort Pages 2
24
Table 4
ort Page 26
Table 5
NVIRONMENT
0.2
0.2-29
umber(s)
5
2
2
3
3
4
8
nical Report
page
7 and 12
0
21, 23, and
6
TAL IMPACT R
REVISIONS,
Correctio
Deleted tw
control me
informatio
Air Quality
Clarified g
table.
Updated c
and analys
informatio
Clarified te
Updated c
based on
Added the
Exhibit.
t – Technical
Updated p
revisions m
on the Dra
For clarific
vibration d
the docum
discussion
existing no
Deleted vi
measurem
Updated d
include the
Based on
assessme
Table 4 (S
Locations)
wheel squ
Page 24 o
Technical
Added a n
to Page 23
Technical
not reveal
did not sho
severity of
Clarified re
NV-2 in fo
REPORT
UPDATES, A
ons and Addi
wo bullets und
easures” as th
on is shown on
y Technical R
greenhouse g
construction e
sis based on
on.
ext regarding
construction e
soil export inf
e new 90% M
l Report C
publishing dat
made in respo
aft EIR.
cation purpos
discussions w
ment. Deleted
n from the des
oise environm
ibration notes
ments table.
discussion of
e new quantit
the new quan
ent of wheel s
Summary of P
) and the disc
ueal locations
of the Noise a
Report.
new discussio
3 of the Noise
Report. The
new significa
ow a substan
f already iden
eference to M
ootnote.
ND CORRECT
July
itions
der “other pro
he same
n Page 24 in
Report.
as assessme
emissions tab
soil export
soils.
emissions tab
formation.
ass Haul Diag
te based on
onse to comm
ses, the noise
were separate
vibration
scription of
ment condition
s from noise
wheel/rail no
tative assess
ntitative
squeal, moved
PVL Wheel Sq
cussion of the
from Page 2
and Vibration
on (Wheel Sq
e and Vibratio
assessment d
ant impacts a
ntial increase
ntified impacts
Mitigation Mea
TIONS
y 2011
oject
the
ent
ble
ble
gram
ments
and
ed in
ns.
ise to
ment.
d
queal
e
1 to
ueal)
on
did
nd
in
s.
asure
92666/SD
Technica
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
DI10R112/PVL
al Report
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
ADMIN DRA
L FEIR
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
AFT FINAL EN
Page N
ort Page 27
Table 6
ort Page 28
Table 7
ort Page 29
ort Page 35
ort Page 36
ort Pages 3
Table 13
ort Page 40
ort Pages 4
ort Page 41
ort Page 46
ort Page 47
ort Page 4
NVIRONMENT
0.2
0.2-30
umber(s)
7
8,
9
5
6
38 to 39,
3
0
41 to 44
1
6
7
8
TAL IMPACT R
REVISIONS,
Correctio
Deleted fif
to this tab
Typograph
regarding
nearby Hig
noise and
school we
of 60 mph
Technical
Clarified th
eliminate p
Clarified te
Guidance
equations
Typograph
wording re
reduction
wayside a
Updated c
and heigh
project ref
circulation
proposed
revised foo
Clarified th
would be p
Added tex
activities a
measures
Added a n
export und
Impacts.
Revised re
Added abb
welded ra
Added tex
noise asse
Revised re
Clarified th
project co
REPORT
UPDATES, A
ons and Addi
fth footnote a
le.
hical error in t
the tabulated
ghland Eleme
vibration calc
ere performed
h in the Noise
Report.
he mitigation
predicted nois
ext regarding
Manual noise
and tables.
hical error co
evised for cla
in noise with
applicators.
civil station loc
ts of noise ba
finement subs
n of the Draft
noise barrier
otnotes in tab
he number of
provided with
xt regarding p
and examples
s.
new discussio
der Construct
eference to T
breviation for
il (CWR).
xt regarding th
essment.
eference to T
he noise impa
nstruction pe
ND CORRECT
July
itions
s it does not a
table correcte
d train speeds
entary Schoo
culations for t
d using the sp
and Vibration
measures us
se impacts.
use of FTA
e prediction
rrected and
rity. Clarified
the use of
cations, lengt
arriers due to
sequent to
EIR. Updated
locations tab
ble.
f properties th
h sound insula
project constru
s of noise con
on regarding s
tion Noise
Table 15.
r continuous
he constructio
Table 14.
acts of the tot
riod.
TIONS
y 2011
apply
ed
s
l. All
this
peed
n
sed to
the
ths,
d
ble;
hat
ation.
uction
ntrol
soil
on
tal
92666/SD
Technica
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Noise and
Appendix
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
DI10R112/PVL
al Report
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
d Vibration Te
D
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
ADMIN DRA
L FEIR
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
echnical Repo
Traffic
ort
ort
ort
ort
AFT FINAL EN
Page N
ort Page 50
ort Page 56
Table 20
ort Page 59
Table 21
ort Page 61
ort Page 62
ort Noise B
Location
Technical R
Cover p
Pages 1
75
Page 30
Page 31
NVIRONMENT
0.2
0.2-31
umber(s)
0
6,
0
9,
1
1
2
arrier
ns figure
Report – Tech
page
10, 63, and
0
1
TAL IMPACT R
REVISIONS,
Correctio
Clarified te
conditions
Typograph
regarding
nearby St.
vibration c
performed
the Noise
Report.
Typograph
footnotes.
Clarified M
Provided a
implement
between S
eliminate t
the UCR a
Added tex
constructio
Updated t
barriers du
subseque
EIR.
hnical Repor
Updated p
revisions m
on the Dra
Added tex
as 4th Stre
Added a d
grade sep
Revised th
grade sep
Added add
developm
comprising
project in
Draft EIR
of the Rive
REPORT
UPDATES, A
ons and Addi
ext regarding
s.
hical error in t
the tabulated
. James Scho
calculations fo
d using the sp
and Vibration
hical error co
Mitigation Mea
additional tex
tation of eithe
Sta. 263+00 a
the 2 VdB imp
area of Rivers
xt regarding p
on vibration im
he locations o
ue to project
nt to circulatio
rt D
publishing dat
made in respo
aft EIR.
xt to clarify tha
eet in downtow
description of
paration projec
he completion
paration projec
ditional detail
ent and propo
g the March L
response to c
received from
erside Unified
ND CORRECT
July
itions
existing vibra
table correcte
d train speeds
ool. All noise a
or this school
peed of 46 mp
n Technical
rrected regard
asure NV-3.
xt to clarify tha
er NV-3 or NV
and 275+00 w
pact predicted
side.
potential
mpacts.
of the noise
refinement
on of the Draf
te based on
onse to comm
at SR-74 is kn
wn Perris.
the 3rd Street
ct.
n dates of the
cts.
regarding the
osed uses
LifeCare Cam
comments on
m representat
d School Distr
TIONS
y 2011
ation
ed
s
and
were
ph in
ding
at
V-4
will
d in
ft
ments
nown
t
e
e
mpus
n the
tives
rict.
92666/SD
Technica
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
DI10R112/PVL
al Report
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
ADMIN DRA
L FEIR
ort
ort
ort
AFT FINAL EN
Page N
Page 32
Pages 3
45, 64 to
82
Tables 3
Pages 3
54, 60, 6
77 to 82
Figures
26
Tables 3
NVIRONMENT
0.2
0.2-32
umber(s)
2
32, 38, 40 to
o 74, 77 to
3, 7, and 8
35, 40 to 45,
64 to 74, 75,
2
14, 20, and
3, 7, and 8
TAL IMPACT R
REVISIONS,
Correctio
Added nam
improvem
Avenue (p
described
Technical
Updated r
implement
in respons
EIR and a
June 28, 2
Perris Pub
provided n
signalizati
Avenue an
Street/SR-
Avenue in
informatio
of-service
tables) for
area 2012
the projec
project fea
the improv
Avenue cr
with the pr
Updated a
Valley/Ma
response
received f
Riverside
provided n
vehicle as
March Life
informatio
of-service
tables) for
Field Stati
without an
Transporta
Measure T
the interse
215 were
the revised
of-service
significant
increase in
impacts.
REPORT
UPDATES, A
ons and Addi
me of the roa
ent project to
project alread
in the Draft E
Report).
roadway syste
ted by 2012 i
se to commen
a subsequent
2010) receive
blic Works De
new informati
on of D Stree
nd the striping
-74 and C Str
ntersections. T
on required up
analyses (inc
r the Downtow
2 conditions w
ct. Also incorp
atures to be im
vement of the
rossing into th
roject.
analyses for th
rch Field stat
to comments
from represen
Unified Scho
new informati
ssignments in
eCare Campu
on required up
analyses (inc
r the Moreno V
ion area 2012
nd with the pro
ation and Tra
TT-1, the sec
ection of Cact
revised. How
d Draft EIR, t
analyses did
t impacts and
n severity of a
ND CORRECT
July
itions
adway
o widen Cactu
y included an
EIR and Traff
em changes t
n the City of P
nts on the Dra
email (dated
ed from the Ci
epartment tha
on related to
et and San Ja
g plans at the
reet/San Jaci
This new
pdating the lev
cluding text a
wn Perris Stat
without and wi
porated PVL
mplemented f
e San Jacinto
he 2012 cond
he Moreno
tion area in
s on the Draft
ntatives of the
ool District tha
on related to
cluded in the
us EIR. This n
pdating the lev
cluding text a
Valley /March
2 conditions
oject. As part
affic Mitigation
onds of delay
tus Avenue a
wever, as show
the updated le
d not reveal ne
did not show
already identi
TIONS
y 2011
us
nd
ic
to be
Perris
aft
ity of
at
the
acinto
e D
nto
vel-
and
tion
ith
for
ditions
EIR
e
at
new
vel-
and
h
t of
n
y at
t Old
wn in
evel-
ew
w an
ified
92666/SD
Technica
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
Traffic Te
DI10R112/PVL
al Report
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
chnical Repo
ADMIN DRA
L FEIR
ort
ort
ort
ort
ort
AFT FINAL EN
Page N
Page 38
Page 46
Page 49
Page 50
Pages 6
77 to 82
Table 8
NVIRONMENT
0.2
0.2-33
umber(s)
8
6
9
0
63, 75 to 76,
2
TAL IMPACT R
REVISIONS,
Correctio
Corrected
Clarified th
the 2012 P
Clarified te
grade cros
Updated t
closure of
crossings
due to pro
circulation
Corrected
Added tex
northern e
to project
circulation
Revised T
Mitigation
comments
from repre
Unified Sc
Revised T
Mitigation
comments
from the C
Departme
Eliminated
Mitigation
6 as these
be installe
to the PVL
conditions
no mitigat
implement
project at
Renumbe
Mitigation
the elimina
Provided a
the event
not installe
to the PVL
the PVL, t
traffic sign
significant
REPORT
UPDATES, A
ons and Addi
error (directi
he AM and P
PVL ridership
ext regarding
ssings.
ext regarding
f existing grad
at Poarch Ro
oject refineme
n of the Draft
reference to
xt to reflect the
end of Comme
refinement su
n of the Draft
Transportation
Measure TT-
s on the Draft
esentatives of
chool District.
Transportation
Measure TT-
s on the Draft
City of Perris P
ent.
d Transportat
Measures TT
e traffic signa
ed by other pr
L) as part of t
s without the p
ion measures
ted by the pro
these interse
red Transpor
Measure TT-
ation of TT-3.
additional tex
that planned
ed by other p
L) prior to the
the installation
nals at three lo
t impacts are
ND CORRECT
July
itions
on).
M peak perio
p projections.
improvemen
g the proposed
de railroad
oad and 6th St
ent subsequen
EIR.
Figure 23.
e closure of t
ercial Street d
ubsequent to
EIR.
n and Traffic
-1 in response
t EIR received
f the Riversid
n and Traffic
-2 in response
t EIR received
Public Works
tion and Traffi
T-3, TT-5, and
ls are planned
rojects (unrela
he future
project. There
s will need to
oposed PVL
ections.
rtation and Tra
-4 to TT-3 due
.
xt to clarify tha
traffic signals
rojects (unrel
opening yea
n of additiona
ocations whe
expected will
TIONS
y 2011
ds for
nts at
d
treet
nt to
he
due
e to
d
e
e to
d
ic
d TT-
d to
ated
efore,
be
affic
e to
at in
s are
lated
r of
al
ere
l be
92666/SD
Technica
Traffic Te
DI10R112/PVL
al Report
chnical Repo
ADMIN DRA
L FEIR
ort
AFT FINAL EN
Page N
Page 83
NVIRONMENT
0.2
0.2-34
umber(s)
3
TAL IMPACT R
REVISIONS,
Correctio
incorporat
Added Tra
Mitigation
Traffic Ma
Clarified th
for TT-1, T
Clarified c
corrected
Managem
discussion
Constructi
REPORT
UPDATES, A
ons and Addi
ted as PVL pr
ansportation a
Measure TT-
anagement Pl
he AM and P
TT-2, and TT-
construction p
reference to
ment Plan). Ad
n regarding so
ion Period Im
ND CORRECT
July
itions
roject features
and Traffic
-4 regarding t
an.
M analysis ho
-3.
period impacts
TT-4 (Traffic
dded a new
oil export und
mpacts.
TIONS
y 2011
s.
the
ours
s and
der
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-1 July 2011
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 Master Responses
These Master Responses address several of the recurring topics raised in comments on the
Draft EIR:
#1. Quiet Zones
#2. Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary School
#3. Derailment (General)
#4. Hazardous Materials Transport
#5. Freight Operations
#6. Noise
#7. Emergency Planning and Response
#8. Grade Crossings
#9. Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic)
#10. Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection
(Derailment)
#11. Recirculate EIR and the CEQA Process
#12. Grade Separations
It should be noted that these Master Responses provide additional information on key project
topics and do not propose any additional mitigation measures.
Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones
Many of the comment letters submitted in response to the Draft EIR raised concerns regarding
the noise impacts of the PVL project. Specifically, the commenters encouraged RCTC to
consider quiet zones at grade crossings within the City of Riverside. In addition, some
commenters have asked why RCTC donated money to the City of Riverside to study the
potential for establishing quiet zones rather than unilaterally establishing and implementing quiet
zones as part of the PVL project.
Implementation of quiet zones, defined as designated areas where train horns (the primary
source of train noise) would not be sounded at highway/rail grade crossings, is not part of the
PVL project. The noise analysis in the Draft EIR shows that all potentially significant project-
related noise impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels with implementation of the
noise mitigation measures outlined at the end of Section 4.10. Specifically, the Draft EIR
requires construction of noise barriers and noise insulation measures. Additionally, the train
tracks themselves will be improved through new rail/ballast, lubrication, and use of vibration
reducing ballast mats – all of which will reduce the project’s operational noise impacts. Because
the noise impacts of the PVL project can be mitigated to a less than significant level, it is
unnecessary for RCTC to seek or impose additional mitigation measures.
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq., hereinafter
“CEQA”) and the regulations for the implementation of CEQA (14 C.C.R. § 15000, et seq.,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-2 July 2011
hereinafter “State CEQA Guidelines”) require lead agencies to adopt all “feasible” mitigation
measures that would “substantially lessen the significant environmental effects” of a proposed
project (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; State CEQA Guidelines § 15021(a)(2)). This principle,
however, does not require that a lead agency “adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme
brought to its attention or proposed in the EIR” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City
and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). Instead, the scope of
mitigation measures is tempered by the “rule of reason” and the principle that the goal of CEQA
is to produce “informational documents” (Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v.
Los Angeles Unified School District (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 841). The goal of imposing
mitigation measures on a proposed action is to reduce potentially significant impacts, not
necessarily to eliminate all impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.4(a)(1)). Since the mitigation measures for the PVL project would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels, no further mitigation measures are required.
However, because RCTC is sensitive to the concerns of residents, RCTC voluntarily increased
the project scope to include design and construction of the physical improvements necessary for
supporting the implementation of quiet zones (which for the PVL project would be considered
“New Quiet Zones” according to 49 C.F.R. § 222.43) at the Marlborough Avenue, Spruce Street,
Blaine Street, and Mount Vernon Avenue grade crossings in the UCR neighborhood , should
quiet zones be implemented in the future. Section 4.10.2 of the Draft EIR introduces the federal
regulations governing noise emissions from transit sources and explains that RCTC has
previously donated $26,000 to the City of Riverside to study the potential for establishing quiet
zones at grade crossings in the City of Riverside.
Establishing a New Quiet Zone involves coordination between multiple entities regarding two
main types of requirements: administrative work and the construction of physical structures .
Administrative work includes: providing a written Notice of Intent (49 C.F.R § 222.43[a][1] and
§ 222.43[b]) to the railroads that operate over the proposed quiet zone, the state agency
responsible for highway and road safety and the state agency responsible for grade crossing
safety; inviting the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety and all affected railroads
to participate in a diagnostic review of pedestrian crossings; and, if using the Public Authority
Application to FRA method of obtaining a New Quiet Zone (the other option is to designate a
New Quiet Zone without FRA approval), compiling an application to FRA for approval of a quiet
zone (49 C.F.R. Appendix C to 49 C.F.R Part 222).
According to the Locomotive Horn Use Rules, the administrative work must be completed by a
Public Authority (Appendix C to 49 C.F.R Part 222), only a “Public Authority may establish quiet
zones,” and quiet zones may only be established at “public highway-rail grade crossings.” (71
Fed. Reg. 47640; 49 C.F.R. § 222.37.) A “Public Authority” is a public entity responsible for
traffic control or law enforcement at the public highway-rail grade or pedestrian crossing. (71
Fed. Reg. 47636; 49 C.F.R 222.9). The construction of physical structures can be completed by
any entity but can only be submitted for approval by the Public Authority. In the case of the PVL
project, the Public Authority is the City of Riverside.
RCTC is a special district that does not have broad police powers and is not responsible for
traffic control or law enforcement at public highway-rail grade or pedestrian crossings. Instead,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-3 July 2011
cities and counties have the general type of police powers referred to in the definition of “Public
Authority.” Consequently, cities and counties would most likely have authority under the federal
rules to establish quiet zones. Therefore, under a strict reading of the federal rule, RCTC is not
considered a Public Authority and therefore does not have authority to complete the
administrative work necessary to establish quiet zones. Accordingly, RCTC’s previous donation
of funding to the City of Riverside was appropriately intended to assist the City, as the “Public
Authority” under the Locomotive Horn Use Rules, to establish the quiet zones that RCTC lacks
the authority to establish itself.
Assuming, however, that the definition of “Public Authority” could be broadly interpreted to
include RCTC, as stated in the Draft EIR, RCTC does not have authority to unilaterally establish
quiet zones at highway-rail grade crossings (71 Fed. Reg. 47640; 49 C.F.R § 222.37.)
According to the Locomotive Horn Rules, if more than one Public Authority would have authority
and control over the highway-rail grade crossing where a quiet zone is proposed, then the
Public Authorities must agree to establishing the quiet zone and must jointly, or by delegating
their authority to one another, take actions required by the federal rules to implement the quiet
zone (71 Fed. Reg. 47640; 49 C.F.R. § 222.37). Hence, in order to establish and implement a
New Quiet Zone within the PVL project area, the City of Riverside, RCTC, and any other Public
Authority with responsibility for traffic control or law enforcement at the public highway-rail grade
or pedestrian crossing would have to jointly agree to the New Quiet Zone and jointly take action
to establish it.
As stated above, RCTC is able to, and has agreed to, include in the engineering design for the
PVL project the physical structures required for the establishment of a New Quiet Zone .
According to the plans, these designs include pedestrian swing gates, pedestrian warning
devices and gates, pedestrian barricades and metal hand railings, concrete raised medians,
double yellow medians and island noses, warning devices, safety lighting, and signs. Because
these improvements are considered part of the design for the PVL project, they were included in
the environmental analysis, which found that no significant, unmitigable impacts are anticipated
as a result of the PVL project. RCTC does not have control over the administrative work that
also must be completed in order to establish a New Quiet Zone. However, the City of Riverside
has agreed to undertake that administrative work pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding
with RCTC.
The PVL project would have no significant noise impacts with mitigation measures incorporated
and therefore no further mitigation is required under CEQA. RCTC would complete one of two
main requirements that are necessary for the establishment of quiet zones by actually
constructing the physical safety and crossing improvements that would be necessary to
implement the quiet zone. The second main requirement, the administrative component, is the
responsibility of the City of Riverside. Specifically, the City of Riverside has the obligation to file
a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) with the Federal Railroad Administration, which would allow for the
completion of this administrative component.
The Draft EIR was not changed as a result of this issue area.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-4 July 2011
Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary
School
Several of the comments submitted in response to the Draft EIR raised concerns regarding the
potential for hazard and safety impacts caused by adding commuter trains to the existing rail
line. A portion of the existing SJBL/RCTC ROW contains a six-inch jet fuel line owned and
operated by Kinder-Morgan. The pipeline operates within the SJBL/RCTC ROW under a lease
agreement and extends from the Colton Terminal to the March Air Reserve Base (Draft EIR,
Section 4.7-1). In one limited location, the jet fuel line is approximately 50-feet west of an
existing school, Highland Elementary School (e.g., RUSD Comment Letter [dated May 21, 2010]
at page 4; Draft EIR, Section 4.7-1). The railroad tracks are approximately 45 feet beyond the
pipeline, making them a total of approximately 95 feet from the school. Based upon a field
survey in which potholes were dug above the fuel pipeline in order to confirm the pipeline’s
depth, the pipeline is buried at depths ranging to 5’-2” in the area adjacent to Highland
Elementary School. The concerns expressed by the commenters regarding the pipeline center
around the potential for the PVL project (during construction and operation) to damage the
existing pipeline and to result in rupture and release of jet fuel.
In response to concerns raised about the proximity of the rail line to the existing Kinder Morgan
pipeline, RCTC commissioned a focused technical study to specifically evaluate potential safety
and/or hazard impacts associated with the pipeline. (Analysis of Safety Issues for the Proposed
Commuter Rail Service on the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s Perris Valley Line
in the Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Schools, dated March 22, 2011 (the “Zeta Tech Report”)
included as Technical Report H).
The Zeta Tech report evaluated two questions. For purposes of this Master Response, the
relevant question addressed in the Zeta Tech Report was whether the addition of commuter rail
to the existing line would significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of the Highland
Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech Report,
page 2).
Zeta Tech’s evaluation of the risks in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School were based on
a derailment risk analysis (Zeta Tech Report, page 5). The derailment risk analysis examined
general derailment risk related to Class 1 railroad (e.g., BNSF) operations, as well as derailment
risk associated with the introduction of passenger trains; Zeta Tech further considered
derailment risk in the context of a derailment energy analysis. The derailment energy analysis
compared the maximum available energy at the time of derailment of a freight train to that of a
passenger train on the Perris Valley Line (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). This analysis took into
account the mass of a given train as well as the speed of that train.
With regard to derailment risk associated with current BNSF operations, the Zeta Tech study
used derailment classes in the Federal Railroad Administration’s (“FRA”) accident database for
years 2007-2009. (Id.) Based upon this analysis, Zeta Tech determined that the average
derailment probability for these four Class 1 railroads, which include BNSF, is approximately
0.00084 total derailments per million gross ton miles per year (total derailments/MGTM/year).
Further, Zeta Tech considered the risk of Class 1 railroad derailment in the vicinity of each
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-5 July 2011
school. By applying these data to operations within one half mile of the school, in each direction,
Zeta Tech determined that the total risk of BNSF derailment under current operations is
approximately 0.000672 risk per train mile in the vicinity of each school, which, in other words,
would approximate 1 derailment every 1500 years (Zeta Tech Report, page 6).
With regard to passenger train derailment risk, the Zeta Tech analysis used all derailment
classes in the FRA accident database for the years 2007-2009. Based on this analysis, the
passenger train average derailment probability is approximately 0.00032 total
derailments/MGTM/year. This represents the incremental increase in risk associated with the
introduction of passenger service. By applying these data to operations within one half mile of
the school, in each direction, Zeta Tech determined that the risk of derailment associated with
passenger service is approximately 0.00032 total derailments/MGTM in the vicinity of each
school, which, in other words, would approximate 1 derailment every 3,000 years (Zeta Tech
Report, page 6). Zeta Tech concluded that the increased risk is “small” (Zeta Tech Report, page
6) and supports the Zeta Tech conclusion that “…the addition of commuter rail to the existing
railway line does not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of the Highland
Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school” (Zeta Tech Report,
page 5).
The conclusions regarding “safety” risk are based on consideration of both the risk for
derailment and the likelihood that the Kinder-Morgan pipeline compromised if a derailment were
to occur in its proximity. Thus, notwithstanding the foregoing assessment of derailment risk,
since both the school and the pipeline are adjacent to the railroad right of way, Zeta Tech also
performed a derailment energy analysis to assess the risk associated with the additional
passenger trains (Zeta Tech Report, page 6). The derailment energy analysis compared the
maximum available energy at the time of derailment of a freight train to that of a passenger train
on this line (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). As a result of this analysis, Zeta Tech concluded that if
a derailment were to occur adjacent to Highland Elementary School, the passenger train would
develop 63% of energy that would be developed by a freight train (i.e., approximately 37% less
energy). Thus, Zeta Tech concluded, “This more than compensates for the small increase in
derailment risk associated with the addition of the passenger trains, with a resulting combined
risk of the order of 90% of the current freight operations” (Zeta Tech Report, page 7).
Accordingly, the Zeta Tech Report concludes that the addition of commute r rail to the existing
railway line would not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Highland
Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech Report,
page 7).
The School Siting Requirements Under State Law And Department of Education Guidance Do
Not Apply To The Project
Numerous comments were received stating that RCTC had an obligation under state law to
prepare a particular type of safety study discussing the potential risks to the school from the
existing railroad and pipeline operations. The basis for these comments appears to be current
state law, which provides that newly proposed schools may be sited within 1,500 feet of a
railroad track or within 1,500 feet of a hazardous pipeline easement only upon the completion of
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-6 July 2011
certain safety studies (5 CCR § 14010). Contrary to many of the comments received, however,
the responsibility for preparing those safety studies falls – not on the railroad or pipeline
operator – but on the school district that is proposing the location of the new school (see ibid.;
Educ. Code, § 17213). Moreover, Highland Elementary School is not a newly proposed school,
but rather one that has been in this location for over 50 years. Accordingly, the plain language of
these regulations and code requirements make clear that they do not apply to the PVL project.
Additionally, comments were received stating that RCTC “must” prepare a railroad safety study
and pipeline risk assessment in the manner provided for in the California Department of
Education’s Guidance Protocol for School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis (see Enclosure to RUSD
Comment Letter [dated May 21, 2010]). However, the CDE Protocol is, by its own terms,
inapplicable to the PVL project. First, the Protocol states that it is only “recommended
guidance,” and is not mandatory (California Department of Education Guidance Protocol for
School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis (February 2007) at p . ii available at:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07.asp)1. It also states that “its sole purpose” is to assist in
analyzing the potential location of new schools (Ibid.) Further, the Protocol states that it “is not
directly required by any regulation or code.” (Ibid.) These limitations are confirmed by the
sample analysis provided by in the comment letters, in that the specific Risk Analysis provided
by RUSD states (1) it was prepared in order to analyze potential risks to future residents of a
new project, not to analyze existing conditions, (2) it was based on the CDE’s recommended
protocol, not on any statutory or regulatory requirement, and (3) it was based on CDE’s 2002
protocol, not on the 2007 protocol that CDE currently recommends . Finally, the Protocol makes
clear it is “for use by California local educational agencies,” and not for general use by all
agencies proposing projects nearby existing schools (Protocol at p. ii).
In summary then, neither the Education Code nor its implementing regulations require the
preparation of any particular type or format of study; the Protocol referenced by the commenters
is not binding and does not apply to the PVL project; and to the extent that either the law or the
Protocol can be read to impose a duty to study impacts in a particular way, that duty falls upon
the local educational agency – the Riverside Unified School District – and not RCTC. Ultimately,
and as discussed below, RCTC’s analysis of potential hazard and safety impacts was thorough,
complete, and fully complies with CEQA’s requirements.
The Pipeline Complies With Existing Safety Regulations
Comments were received claiming that the pipeline was buried at an insufficient depth to ensure
that it could continue to be operated safely during PVL project operations. These comments are
incorrect.
Federal law extensively regulates the maintenance and operation of fuel pipelines, including the
Kinder-Morgan fuel pipeline. Although these regulations do not appear applicable to existing
pipelines like the one at issue here, the Code of Federal Regulations does state that all new
1 Per a discussion with the California Department of Education’s Protocol Director, Michael O’Neill, the
February 2007 version of the Protocol is the most recent version of the Protocol. (Pers. Communication
12/13/10).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-7 July 2011
hazardous materials pipelines – including those carrying fuel – must be located at least three
feet below the surface of the ground in all residential, commercial, and industrial areas (49 CFR
§ 195.248). This standard was developed and imposed by the Department of Transportation’s
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in order to “prescribe safety standards
and reporting requirements for pipelines” (49 CFR § 195.0). Because there are exceptions to
this three-foot minimum depth under federal law in the event of certain engineering constraints,
such as where pipelines cross waterways, a pothole study was conducted by RCTC, in early
2010, to verify the actual depth to the top of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline in the area of the
Highland Elementary School. The results of that study show that for the most part the depth to
the top of the pipeline ranges to 5’-2” in the area adjacent to the school. If during construction it
should arise that the pipeline is found to be buried less than three (3) feet beneath the ground
surface, RCTC will add material in those areas to ensure that the pipeline is buried at least three
feet deep. This Project feature will not result in any new environmental impacts, given that the
area around the pipeline is already disturbed and compacted. This verifies that the pipeline is
being maintained in the manner required by federal safety regulations.
The Duffy Street Accident Has No Bearing On The Adequacy of the EIR’s Analysis
It should also be noted that several commenters referenced the “Duffy Street Accident” and
expressed concern that a similar pipeline accident could occur along the SJBL-RCTC owned
ROW. The Duffy Street occurrence, however, is readily distinguishable from the PVL project,
and has no bearing on the PVL project’s potential impacts for several reasons.
First, the Duffy Street pipeline carried a different fuel type, gasoline, rather than jet fuel.
Gasoline has a National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) Flammability rating of 3 and a
flashpoint (the lowest temperature of at which a volatile liquid can vaporize to form an ignitable
mixture in air) less than -49° F. In contrast, the jet fuel carried in the Kinder-Morgan pipeline
(JP5) has a NFPA Flammability rating of 2 (moderate) and a flashpoint of 100° F. This means
that, even in the speculative event that a pipeline breach occurred, the fuel in the Kinder-
Morgan pipeline has a much lower likelihood of causing a fire than would the gasoline in the
Duffy Street pipeline.
Second, the National Transportation Safety Board’s (“NTSB”) official report on the Duffy Street
incident confirms that among the major reasons that a derailment occurred were that the train
did not have functioning dynamic brakes and that, given the inadequacy of the brakes, the train
was too heavy for the incline down which it was traveling (NTSB’s Railroad Accident Report
[addressing derailment on May 12, 1989] at p. vi). Further, one of the major contributing causes
to the subsequent breaching of the pipeline was the failure to exercise sufficient care during
wreckage clearing operations, the repeated driving of excessively heavy machinery (e.g.,
cranes etc.) over the top of the pipeline, and the failure to verify the strength of the pipeline prior
to conducting cleanup operations (id. at pp. vii, 25, 36). It was the combination of all of these
factors that led to the pipeline explosion. The breach of the pipeline was not caused by the
derailment itself, but instead by the wreckage cleanup activities occurring after the derailment
(see id). It is speculative to assume that the PVL project Metrolink trains (which are much lighter
than the Duffy Street freight train) will derail from the track (particularly given that the Zeta Tech
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-8 July 2011
Report found derailment to be unlikely and that the PVL project includes track upgrades to
increase the track’s safety and that (as described in the Zeta Tech Report), passenger trains
have a much lower rate of derailment as compared to freight trains ), travel the approximately 45
feet to the pipeline, and dig five feet into the ground in.
Third, the Duffy Street incident occurred in 1989, over twenty years ago . Since that time,
additional regulations have been placed on train and pipeline operations to increase safety, as
identified below. As a result of the Duffy Street incident, Assembly Bill 385 was passed and
signed into law in 1989. This bill called for the State Fire Marshal to conduct and prepare a risk
assessment study addressing hazardous liquid pipelines within 500 feet of a railroad trac k. The
results of this study indicated that pipelines within 500 feet of a railroad do not pose a higher risk
of breach than those located further away from a railroad (Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Risk
Assessment, California State Fire Marshal, March 1993). Other factors, such as external
corrosion and age of the pipeline, caused the majority of leak incidents . In the years since,
additional federal and state regulations have been implemented to further monitor, protect, and
enforce pipeline safety. One example of this is the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement,
and Safety Act of 2006 (Pub. Law 109-468). This Act states that participating agencies have the
responsibility for ensuring that the elements of the program (research, development,
demonstration, and standardization to ensure the integrity of pipeline facilities – 49 CFR
Chapter 601 § 60101) are implemented in accordance with the law. These elements include
materials inspection, stress and fracture analysis, detection of cracks, abrasion, and o ther
abnormalities inside pipelines that lead to pipeline failure, and development of new equipment
or technologies that are inserted into pipelines to detect anomalies (49 CFR Chapter 601,
§ 60101).
Likewise, improved technology with regard to track construction and train safety features have
also increased overall operating safety. Examples of these features include: wayside detectors,
which identify defects on passing rail cars, including overheated bearings and wheels,
deteriorated bearings, and cracked wheels; improved metallurgy and fastening systems to
enhance track stability, which reduces the risk of track failure that may lead to derailments; and
trains with electronically-controlled pneumatic brakes, an electronic signal that applies the
brakes immediately and results in shorter stopping distance, reduced slack, and improved train
control (High-Tech Advances Improve Safety & Efficiency, Association of American Railroads,
May 2009).
For all these reasons, it is not reasonably foreseeable that a repeat of the Duffy Street incident
would occur in connection with the PVL project.
The Draft EIR’s Analysis of Potential Pipeline Risks Complies with CEQA
Ultimately, CEQA itself confirms that a lead agency’s obligation is not to analyze and correct
conditions in the existing environment (i.e., the baseline conditions) that the lead agency had no
role in creating. (See, e.g., State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, 15126.2 [confirming that the
impacts of the PVL project are to be analyzed]). Instead, the lead agency has an obligation to
consider the direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of their proposed projects (e.g.,
State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.2, 15130). The Draft EIR for the PVL project provides an
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-9 July 2011
analysis of potential derailment (direct impacts) and pipeline-associated risks (indirect impacts)
(e.g., Draft EIR, Sections 4.7-1 and 4.7-4). Based on that analysis, the Draft EIR concluded that
there would be “no impact” from the PVL project with regard to these issues.
In contrast to CEQA requirements, the commenters’ concerns do not seem to focus on potential
risks associated with the PVL project, but instead center on alleged risks resulting from existing
freight usage on the track – usage that has been ongoing for many years, and which will not be
affected or altered by the PVL project (see discussion in Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13).
Finally, the commenters’ recommended mitigation measures included relocating the pipeline
away from the school and neighborhood or outside of the SJBL; protecting the pipeline in place
by increasing the depth of cover over the pipeline (either by adding additional material on top or
by burying it deeper); encasing the pipeline; or by placing a protective concrete slab over the
pipeline. However, CEQA only requires the imposition of mitigation measures for potentially
significant impacts (Pub. Res. Code, § 21100(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4) and,
here, the analysis in the Draft EIR confirms that there are no potentially significant impacts.
Accordingly, no mitigation is required to address perceived derailment or pipeline risks.
Moreover, the pipeline already complies with applicable safety requirements, as discussed
above, such that burying the pipeline deeper underground or providing additional casing is not
required. Additionally, relocating the pipeline is infeasible because it would inflict significant
environmental impacts on the surrounding community as a new pipeline would require trenching
through or under existing homes and businesses.
Master Response #3 – Derailment (General)
A number of concerns were raised regarding the possibility of project-induced derailments. The
presumption by the commenters is that implementation of the PVL project would contribute to
an increased possibility for derailments. A derailment generally may include one of the following;
a train leaving the tracks, just one set of wheels leaving the tracks, side swiping another train, or
general damage to a train while on the tracks.
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, in the Draft EIR discussed derailment statistics
that were calculated for the PVL project based on data up to fiscal year 2006/2007. This section
stated that, based on information obtained from the FRA Safety Database
([http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/]) and local resident information, there were 4.5
million freight train miles on SCRRA tracks since 1993, and that there have been three freight
train derailments in this time period. This equates to approximately one derailment per 1.5
million train miles or 0.000000667. The derailment risk for BNSF freight trains on the SJBL
alignment is 0.00801, which equates to a derailment approximately once every 124 years .
Since the Draft EIR was submitted to the public for review, additional statistics were calculated
for fiscal year 2007/2008. These updated data also are used to compute the derailment
exposure risk on SCRRA’s lines and to compare this risk to the estimated risk currently
experienced by the SJBL with freight only. Relevant findings include:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-10 July 2011
First, the SCRRA had 455,684 freight train miles operated over their lines in fiscal year
2007/2008, and this is assumed to be typical of operations since the start of SCRRA operations.
This yields a freight history of about 6.8 million freight train miles since 1993 (first full year of
operation). There have been three main track freight train derailments (not counting the collision
at Chatsworth because this was a collision and not a derailment).
Second, this calculates to an exposure ratio of about one derailment per 2.28 million train miles
or 0.00000044.
Third, the BNSF operated 11,440 freight train miles on the SJBL in fiscal year 2007/2008, and
this rate of train miles has been consistent over the years. From 1993 to 2008, this would total
171,600 train miles.
Fourth, the annual future (after completion of the project) freight train derailment risk is then the
product of 0.00000044 (risk per train mile) and 11,440 annual train miles, or 0.00502.
Fifth, assuming that there have been two freight train derailments on the main line of the PVL
since 1993, the risk is two divided by 171,600 (the total train miles BNSF has operated since
1993) or 0.0000116 per train mile.
These calculations show that the SCRRA derailment risk is 0.00000044, while the BNSF freight
train derailment risk is 0.0000116. The reason for this difference is that, because the SCRRA
tracks are used for commuter rail, the tracks are maintained to high standards of safety and ride
quality due to their role in public passenger transport.
The PVL project includes track improvements throughout its length because a commuter train
would be added to the track (see Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1). These track improvements would
upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger
infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced operational safety. Therefore, not
constructing the PVL project continues the much higher risk of freight train derailment exposure.
The commenters also brought up a third derailment in BNSF history, which occurred in 1990
near Hyatt Elementary School. As the derailment occurred outside of the 17-year window of
SCRRA experience, it was not included in the analyses. However, even if it were included in the
derailment calculations, it would increase the freight train risk factor, further strengthening the
argument that the PVL project benefits the community by improving infrastructure on which
existing freight would continue to travel.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts anticipated
and no mitigation is required. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No
additional analysis was required and no additional mitigation measures were added.
Derailment Risks Near Schools
Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in an abundance of caution, RCTC commissioned a focused
technical study to specifically evaluate the potential risk of derailment that would result from the
proposed project’s addition of commuter trains to the existing Perris Valley Line. (Analysis of
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-11 July 2011
Safety Issues for the Proposed Commuter Rail Service on the Riverside County Transportation
Commission’s Perris Valley Line in the Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Schools, dated March 22,
2011 [the “Zeta Tech Report”]).
The Zeta Tech report evaluated the following two questions (Zeta Tech Report, page 2):
1. Will the addition of commuter rail to the existing line significantly increase the safety risks
in the vicinity of the Highland Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near
that school?
2. Will the addition of commuter rail to the existing line significantly increase the safety risks
in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary School?
Highland Elementary School
Zeta Tech’s evaluation of the risks in the vicinity of Highland Elementary Scho ol were based on
a derailment risk analysis (Zeta Tech Report, p. 5). The derailment risk analysis examined
general derailment risk as well as derailment risk specific to passenger trains. The derailment
energy analysis compared the maximum available energy at the time of derailment of a freight
train to that of a passenger train on the Perris Valley Line (Zeta Tech Report, page 7).
With regard to derailment risk associated with current BNSF operations, the Zeta Tech study
used derailment classes in the Federal Railroad Administration’s (“FRA”) accident database for
years 2007-2009. (Id.) Based upon this analysis, Zeta Tech determined that the average
derailment probability for these four Class 1 railroads, which include BNSF, is approximately
0.00084 total derailments per million gross ton miles per year (total derailments/MGTM/year).
Further, Zeta Tech considered the risk of Class 1 railroad derailment in the vicinity of each
school. By applying these data to operations within one half mile of the school, i n each direction,
Zeta Tech determined that the total risk of BNSF derailment under current operations is
approximately 0.000672 risk per train mile in the vicinity of each school, which, in other words,
would approximate 1 derailment every 1500 years (Zeta Tech Report, page 6).
With regard to passenger train derailment risk, the Zeta Tech analysis used all derailment
classes in the FRA accident database for the years 2007-2009. Based on this analysis, the
passenger train average derailment probability is approximately 0.00032 total
derailments/MGTM/year. This represents the incremental increase in risk associated with the
introduction of passenger service. By applying these data to operations within one half mile of
the school, in each direction, Zeta Tech determined that the increased risk of derailment
associated with passenger service is approximately 0.00032 total derailments/MGTM in the
vicinity of each school, which, in other words, would approximate 1 derailment every 3,000
years (Zeta Tech Report, page 6). Zeta Tech concludes that this increased risk is “small” (Zeta
Tech Report, page 6) and supports the Zeta Tech conclusion that “…the addition of commuter
rail to the existing railway line does not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicini ty of the
Highland Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school” (Zeta Tech
Report, page 5).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-12 July 2011
The conclusions regarding “safety” risk are based on consideration of both the risk for
derailment and the likelihood that the Kinder-Morgan pipeline would be compromised if a
derailment were to occur in its proximity. Thus, notwithstanding the foregoing assessment of
derailment risk, since both the school and the pipeline are adjacent to the railroad right of way,
Zeta Tech also performed a derailment energy analysis to assess the risk associated with the
additional passenger trains (Zeta Tech Report, page 6). The derailment energy analysis
compared the maximum available energy at the time of derailment of a freight train to that of a
passenger train on this line (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). As a result of this analysis, Zeta Tech
concluded that if a derailment were to occur adjacent to Highland Elementary School, the
passenger train would develop 63% of energy that would be developed by a freight train (i.e.,
approximately 37% less energy). Thus, Zeta Tech concludes, “This more than compensates for
the small increase in derailment risk associated with the addition of the passenger trains, with a
resulting combined risk of the order of 90% of the current freight operations” (Zeta Tech Report,
page 7).
Accordingly, the Zeta Tech Report concludes that the addition of commuter rail to the existing
railway line would not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Highland
Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech Report,
page 7).
Hyatt Elementary School
The derailment risk analysis performed for Hyatt Elementary School used all derailment classes
in the FRA accident database for years 2007-2009 for Class 1 freight railroad operations and for
passenger rail operations. Given the severe nature of the track alignment, the severe grade,
and the severe curvature conditions in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary School, the derailment
risk analysis for Hyatt Elementary School focused on key potential high severity derailments
(Zeta Tech Report, pages 10-11).
According to the derailment risk analysis, focusing on high severity derailments, the derailment
risk for passenger train operation in all cases was less than the derailment risk for freight
operations. In most instances, the passenger train derailment risk was 5 -10 times lower than the
freight train risk (Zeta Tech Report, page 12). The Zeta Tech study focused on three major
types of derailments: Mechanical Caused Derailments, Human Factor Caused Accidents and
Derailments, and Track Caused Derailments (Zeta Tech Report, p ages 12-13). In all cases, the
passenger trains would have less derailment risk as compared to the freight trains.
Finally, with regard to Track Caused Derailments, the Zeta Tech report concluded that in the
vicinity of Hyatt School, the increase in derailment associated with the addition of passenger
trains on the existing route is 0.0001255 total derailments/MGTM per year or, in other words,
approximately one derailment every 8000 years (Zeta Tech Report, page 13).
Thus, the Zeta Tech report supports the conclusion that the addition of commuter rail to the
existing railway line does not significantly increase the derailment risk at or near Hyatt
Elementary School.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-13 July 2011
Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport
A number of comments were received regarding the movement of and potential release of
hazardous materials within the corridor. The concern is not with the PVL project commuter rail
service, but with the existing BNSF freight operations . This issue is addressed in the Draft EIR
in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger only. As such, there would
never be an occasion when hazardous materials would be transported on the commuter trains.”
The BNSF currently uses the SJBL for freight deliveries to its customers within the corridor and
would continue to do so, regardless of whether or not the PVL commuter rail project goes
forward. As such, the comments are not relevant to the PVL project because CEQA requires
lead agencies to analyze the impacts of their proposed projects and to mitigate for any potential
significant impacts. A lead agency is not required to analyze and mitigate for the existing
baseline conditions (e.g., BNSF freight operations). (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064). The
Draft EIR was not changed as a result of this issue because the PVL project would not involve
the transport of hazardous materials.
However, the PVL project is expected to contribute to the reduction of the existing, baseline risk
associated with occasional freight train transport of hazardous materials. This is because PVL
project implementation includes replacing existing track, welding the rail, replacement ties, and
improving the overall condition and safety of the rail (see Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1).
Additionally, see Master Response #5, Freight Operations for further information regarding
BNSF freight operations.
Master Response #5 – Freight Operations
Several comments on the Draft EIR claimed that PVL project improvements to the track would
encourage additional freight traffic or allow existing freight traffic to increase their speed . Both of
these issues were discussed in the Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13, Freight Usage.
The Draft EIR, in Section 2.4.13 describes the freight study that was conducted in 2008 to
“inventory the current freight usage along the SJBL and to determine whether track
improvements planned for commuter rail service would facilitate the expansion of freight service
along the SJBL.” The study found that track improvements and other upgrades proposed as part
of the PVL project are not needed to accommodate existing freight operations , “as the existing
SJBL track and sidings can already carry the heaviest car weight of 286,000 pounds. Because
no additional weight capacity would be added, or is even needed for existing users of the BNSF,
PVL-related track improvements would not create conditions that could either increase the
volume of freight shipped per carload or the number of weekly carloads” (Draft EIR,
Section 2.4.13).
Furthermore, freight operations are based on the economics of providing the service, the
controlling factor being customer demand, a direct function of economic conditions. The PVL
project does not influence the economic conditions that dictate increased or decreased freight
operations. Indeed, future economic conditions and demand for freight service are speculative
and would occur regardless of whether or not the PVL project is implemented. The PVL project
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-14 July 2011
would add and operate six trains twice a day, making a total of 12 trips per day (six trains in
each direction). Under terms of its joint use agreement with RCTC, BNSF is authorized to
operate freight trains on the existing SJBL and would continue to do so after project
implementation with the only limitation being that commuter rail would have priority over freight .
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and the Draft EIR was not changed.
The Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13 also discusses the PVL project’s potential impact on train speeds
as follows “…freight trains are limited to traveling at 20 miles per hour (mph) north of Perris .
Southbound freight trains would continue to operate at lower speeds to maneuver the climb
through Box Springs Canyon. The current freight inventory indicates that freight shipments often
travel thousands of miles, and therefore any upgrades to the existing 21-mile-long SJBL
segment to allow for even minor increases in train speed have little overall impact on the total
travel time of the shipment.” Since a maximum 20 mph speed limit is currently in place, the
terrain in certain areas of the track necessitate a slower speed, and there are no additional
economic incentives for freight trains to travel at faster speeds, the PVL project would have no
impact on the speeds of freight trains. The Draft EIR was not changed as a result of this issue.
Master Response #6 – Noise
Three environmental clearance efforts for the PVL project have been prepared between 2004
and 2010 for which noise monitoring data were collected and analyzed. These three evaluations
included a NEPA Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared in 2004 (including a technical
report with updated 2005 noise monitoring data), a CEQA Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) prepared in 2010, and a NEPA Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA)
prepared in 2010. Both the 2010 Draft EIR and the 2010 Draft SEA represent the most recent
updates to the 2004 Draft EA. The Draft EIR, prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines,
relies upon the same noise baseline information and analyses as those included within the Draft
SEA.
Each of the separate noise analysis efforts was based on the use of representative and up -to-
date environmental noise data. Existing noise conditions in the field were collected for a 24-hour
period at sensitive residential properties and for a 1-hour period at institutional land uses (such
as schools and churches). In addition, ongoing and developing engineering design elements
associated with the project were also incorporated into the analyses. As such, these noise
analyses have relied upon information that has evolved as the project has progressed. A history
of noise analyses and documentation is provided here.
The noise analysis for the 2004 Draft EA followed the FTA’s general assessment methodology
(see the 1995 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment Manual, now superseded
by FTA’s 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment, the “FTA Manual,” page 5-1)
and used a very conceptual level of engineering design for the analysis of potential impact, the
only available level of engineering design at the time. With use of the FTA general assessment
methodology, this represented a very broad and conceptual first approach at determining
potential noise impacts. The 2004 EA noise study was conducted utilizing monitoring data
collected in 2002. However, the 2002 noise-monitoring program only included short-term noise
measurements and did not include the collection of 24-hour monitoring data. The results of the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-15 July 2011
assessment indicated that 111 homes in the UCR area would be potentially affected by PVL
train noise. As no detailed calculations for precise mitigation were conducted for this
assessment, only a generalized list of recommended mitigation measures was included in the
draft report (i.e., no mitigation was developed for specific properties). Consequently, while this
was an acceptable procedure for determining potential noise impacts at this conceptual stage of
design, when noise impacts have been predicted, more accurate monitoring data is typically
required to refine the noise assessment and more accurately disclose potential impacts.
In 2005, additional noise monitoring was conducted for the project. This data was used in a
subsequent Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Perris Valley Line Noise and Vibration
Technical Report, March 2006). This technical report is based on the 2004 Draft EA, however, it
incorporates additional noise data and more detailed modeling. Specifically, for the subsequent
technical report, the principal changes over the 2004 Draft EA included: (1) utilizing the FTA
detailed assessment methodology (1995 FTA Manual, page 5-1) and (2) incorporating
additional noise measurements collected in 2005 (which included more accurate 24-hour
monitoring data at numerous locations along the entire corridor). The technical report’s detailed
noise assessment results indicated that 74 residences would be impacted by train operations
These impacts were predicted to occur at properties at various locations along the alignment.
Further, these impacts also included impacts along the BNSF to SJBL connection option
alternatives, which were under consideration at that time (though no longer considered in the
latest Draft EIR).
The decrease in the number of impacted properties predicted in the technical report,, compared
to the 2004 Draft EA, represents the increased refinement in the assessment which was based
on more accurate noise measurements and input data than had been utilized in the 200 4 Draft
EA. This allowed for a more accurate identification of potentially affected properties so that
specific mitigation measures could be developed. Mitigation measures for potential noise
impacts were recommended in the form of noise barriers, wayside applicators, and sound
insulation. However, sound insulation was only recommended for one property in Perris and,
although the use of wayside applicators is mentioned, no exact criteria pertaining to its use were
incorporated.
For the Draft EIR, the baseline noise monitoring data included several measurements of noise
sensitive locations previously monitored for the 2004 Draft EA and the subsequent 2006
technical report. However, the overwhelming majority of the noise monitoring data utilized for
the Draft EIR was monitored and collected in 2008 and 2009 and included data acquired at new
locations or re-measurements of locations monitored for the 2006 technical report. Specifically,
for the noise monitoring program in 2008 and 2009, schools (during the school session) and
homes along the SJBL alignment were re-monitored to ensure the most recent data was used.
In addition, noise monitoring data was collected at new residential and institutional locations to
ensure more complete coverage of sensitive neighborhoods. Consequently, all monitoring data
utilized for the Draft EIR were reasonable and consistent with the existing noise environment.
Changes in both the number of trains that would operate on the PVL alignment and the PVL
train schedule were also incorporated into the new noise assessment for the Draft EIR. While
the FTA detailed assessment methodology was used again for the Draft EIR, based on a
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-16 July 2011
specific request from the FTA, it was slightly altered to follow more conservative assessment
procedures than had been utilized for the 2006 technical report. Accounting for the updated
input data and PVL project information, including preliminary engineering drawings developed to
the 30 percent level, the refined noise assessment methodology of the Draft EIR pre dicted that
a total of 83 residential units would be impacted by noise from the proposed PVL project . At the
30% engineering level, no appreciable changes to the project layout will occur. Thus, the
analysis of noise impacts based on the 30% drawings provides a detailed and accurate
assessment of potential project impacts.
The noise mitigation analysis conducted for the Draft EIR in Section 4.10.4 indicated that the
use of noise barriers and sound insulation would be required at certain locations along the PVL
alignment to mitigate for operational noise impacts (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and
4.10-11). While not proposed as mitigation, a wayside applicators program to reduce wheel
squeal would also be implemented as part of the PVL project. Once the FTA noise criteria were
re-applied to the noise sensitive properties mitigated by the proposed noise barriers, it was
determined that these proposed noise barriers would result in a reduction of noise levels to less
than significant levels (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16). Sound insulation was also proposed for
seven homes and St. George’s Episcopal Church (eight properties in total) at locations where
noise barriers are not feasible and/or would not totally eliminate potential impacts, a condition
resulting from the topographic and engineering constraints on some of the noise sensitive
properties near rail crossings. Building sound insulation typically involves caulking and sealing
gaps in the building envelope, wall insulation and installation of acoustic al windows and solid-
core doors. Because sound insulation often requires a complete closed window condition to be
effective, the sound insulation process may also involve the installation of a central conditioning
system. Improving the sound insulation of these properties will reduce interior noise levels to
below the FTA impact criteria, and to less than significant levels.
Although the Draft EIR proposes sound insulation at only seven homes and one church, this
represents a notable increase in the number of properties recommended for sound insulation,
compared to the 2006 technical report (no specific properties were recommended for sound
insulation in the 2004 Draft EA). As part of the implementation of the project, wayside
applicators are required at all short radius curves to reduce noise from wheel squeal. These
short-radius curves are specifically defined in the Draft EIR as having a radius of curvature less
than 900 feet, in accordance with FTA determinative methodologies (see Draft EIR, Section
4.10.4 and Table 4.10-15).
As a result, based on the subsequent improvements and refinements in the analysis
procedures, data assumptions, and methodologies, the results of the 2004 Draft EA, 2006
technical report, and 2010 Draft EIR are not directly comparable. Rather, each subsequent
analytical effort represents a refinement over its predecessor. With respect to the prediction of
noise impacts and the identification of focused noise mitigation, the Draft EIR presents a
complete analysis and disclosure of potential impacts.
Section 4.10.4 of the Draft EIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts predicted as
a result of the PVL project. CEQA has defined threshold limits related to the exposure of
persons to noise and vibration. According to CEQA, a significant impact from noise or vibration
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-17 July 2011
would occur if the PVL project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state or local
policies and regulations. Although local noise ordinances and standards do exist for the various
municipalities along the PVL corridor, the FTA criteria was used in all PVL noise analyses as it
was deemed to be the most appropriate for assessing rail noise impacts. Unlike local noise
ordinances, which are based solely on absolute noise limits, the FTA criteria is based on bot h
absolute and relative noise annoyance levels for humans and is specifically tailored towards
noise impacts related to rail transportation projects such as the PVL (FTA Manual, Figures 2-9
and 10). The criteria are based on extensive human response noise study data conducted by
the EPA and other federal agencies. In addition, because the FTA Manual represents a uniform
noise assessment procedure meant to be utilized on a national level, it applies a factor of
conservatism to its criteria to encompass a variety of conditions which local jurisdictions would
not require. Finally, under CEQA, noise impact thresholds can be contained in local general
plans and noise ordinances or applicable standards of other agencies, such as the FTA (see
CEQA, Appendix G XII-a.). Accordingly, the use of the FTA impact criteria is acceptable under
CEQA and was deemed most appropriate for determining any potentially significant operational
and construction noise impacts from the PVL project (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1). The FTA
impact criterion is related to exterior community annoyance noise levels (FTA Manual, Figures
2-9 and 2-10). For residential properties where project noise levels fall below this noise criteria,
it is assumed that noise sensitive activities within the home would not be significantly impacted.
This less than significant impact designation would be valid whether the property had an open
window condition or not. However, as stated above, for those properties where impacts were
projected and noise barriers could not be provided as feasible mitigation, sound insulation was
proposed for mitigation. In these cases only, an absolute maximum interior noise level (FTA
Manual, page 6-44) was then used as the criteria for effective mitigation.
With respect to PVL construction noise, although the FTA Manual noise criteria were used for
the construction noise assessment, local noise ordinances were also consulted to determine the
allowable hours of day during which PVL construction activities would be permitted and the
maximum noise levels that construction activities should not exceed. Construction would be
limited to the hours permitted by local ordinance. Because these local codes allow construction
only during day-time hours, if any project-related night-time construction activity would be
required, RCTC shall obtain from the municipality written consent for an exemption, or variance,
from these local noise requirements. In addition, although no impacts from construction were
predicted with respect to the FTA criteria, individual construction activities around noise
sensitive areas such as residences and schools could result in temporary noise increases .
However, these increases would not be considered a significant noise impact. These increases
would be based on potential occurrences of atypical events, given the inconsistent and
transitory nature of some construction activities and equipment usage , and would not constitute
a significant impact under CEQA. However, for all construction activities, contractors will use
standard construction noise control measures such as temporary construction noise barriers,
low noise emission equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy
equipment to reduce the likelihood of any increases in construction noise ab ove the local noise
ordinance maximum levels.
With respect to limiting construction noise near schools, some of the commenters on the Draft
EIR have requested that PVL construction activities be limited to non-school hours. However,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-18 July 2011
this type of noise control measure would neither be reasonable nor feasible given the resulting
limited time within which the project would have to be constructed . In addition, the hours of
operation for a typical school are not limited to the school day, and subsequently may in clude
evening and early morning hours thus further reducing available construction time. As a result, if
the hours of allowable operation for construction activities were to be restricted, the construction
period would be extended and the ability to complete the proposed project within a reasonable
period of time would be substantially compromised.
The construction activity that would create the most noise and vibration is pile driving associated
with the bridge replacements near the South Perris Station an d Layover Facility, around the San
Jacinto River. However, since there are no noise sensitive receptors located within almost one
mile of the proposed Layover Facility and the pile driving sites, construction-related noise
impacts would not occur.
Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response
The issue of emergency planning and response was raised by a number of residents of the
UCR neighborhood. One concern was with regards to the possibility of a train blocking all three
crossings in the neighborhood. The primary concern, however, focused on how an emergency
involving a train along the SJBL would be handled.
With regard to the first concern, with the implementation of the PVL project, the SJBL corridor
will become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF trains under control of SCRRA.
Because of the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that freight trains would be
allowed to stop in areas of single track and thus block other trains from passing. The added
benefit of this is that the BNSF trains could only stop in the areas of bypass track along the I-
215 corridor and not in the UCR neighborhood. Moreover, PVL project trains will not significantly
worsen access to the UCR neighborhood. This is because, first, the PVL project doe s not
propose any train stops (at a station or otherwise) in the UCR neighborhood. Further, the PVL
project’s trains are commuter trains of only a few cars each. Thus, their length is far too short to
block multiple access points into the UCR neighborhood.
With regards to the primary concern, as stated in the Draft EIR, the PVL project will not
significantly impact emergency access and public services with the implementation of mitigation
measures (HHM-3, HHM-4, and TT-4). Furthermore, the PVL project will be in compliance with
applicable requirements specified by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to maintain
safety and security along rail corridors.
To comply with Federal and state requirements and to incorporate safety measures and
precautions into system wide rail operations, SCRRA/Metrolink developed a System Safety
Program Plan (SSPP) as a means of integrating safety into all facets of SCRRA (SCRRA,
2009). The SSPP establishes mechanisms for identifying and addressing hazards associated
with the SCRRA commuter rail system. It also produces a means of ensuring that proposed rail
modifications are implemented with thorough evaluation of their potential effect on safety.
Where SCRRA determines an immediate and serious hazard exists, the Director of Operations
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-19 July 2011
or the Manager of Safety and Security has the authority and responsibility to order hazardous
conditions corrected or hazardous practices halted . Accordingly, the Manager of Safety and
Security is empowered to order the cessation of unsafe activities or operations that are
evaluated as created an immediate and serious hazard within the system.
In addition, RCTC, in concert with FTA, is preparing a PVL Safety and Security Management
Plan (SSMP) to continue to integrate safety and security specifically into the PVL project . The
SSMP implements FRA and CPUC required elements for the PVL project (RCTC, 2010). These
elements include adopting and complying with a written emergency preparedness plan
approved by FRA (49 CFR 239.101) and providing a risk assessment to the CPUC (Public
Resources Code § 7665.2). The SSMP confirms the Commission and PVL’s commitment to
safety and security as described in FTA’s Circular 5800.1, Safety And Security Management
Guidance For Major Capital Projects, published August 1, 2007. The SSMP is also consistent
with the SCRRA/Metrolink SSPP and Metrolink Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan
(SEPP).
RCTC will implement the SSMP (the draft of which is currently in a second revision) to assure
the integration of safety and security into the PVL project design, construction and operation al
testing, up to the start of revenue operations. Once in revenue operation, the SSPP and SEPP
define safety and security during PVL operations.
The SSMP shall guide the integration of safety and security into the PVL project development
process including (RCTC, 2010):
Ensure the safety of the employees, contractor co-workers, passengers and the
communities that the Perris Valley Line will travel through. Use Safety Certification to
ensure that the design, construction, installation and testing of all critical system safety
elements are evaluated for conformance with the PVL project’s safety and security
requirements and that all of the PVL project elements are ready and properly functioning
to integrate with the new Metrolink revenue service.
Promote employees’ daily safety and security awareness and work practices. Ensure
that a mechanism is provided to follow to completion the resolution of any restrictions to
full safety and security certification.
Ensure compliance with requirements specified by the FRA, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the California Public Utilities Commission.
As with any emergency, the first response to a train-related incident would be the designated
first responders, the fire department with jurisdiction over the affected area. Knowing this, in
addition to the SSPP and SSMP, SCRRA/Metrolink established a Safety and Security Division
that is dedicated to ensuring that the railroad system is prepared to manage disasters (SCRRA,
2010). In support of Metrolink’s goal of achieving safety excellence, the Safety and Security
Division is responsible for training and educating the emergency first responders, as well as
Metrolink employees and contractors. Participants are trained in Incident Command principles
and Metrolink’s emergency response plan.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-20 July 2011
In addition to the preparation of a SSMP, there are additional FRA rules for Passenger Train
Emergency Preparedness (49 CFR Part 239). The purpose of 49 CFR 239 is to ensure that
railroads conducting passenger train operations can effectively manage passenger train
emergencies, such as derailments and other unexpected events during service operations.
Under these rules (49 CFR 239.101), each railroad needs to adopt and follow a FRA approved
written emergency preparedness plan, and outlines the standards and provisions for the
preparation, implementation, and administration of railroad emergency preparedness plans.
The plan requires coordination with emergency responders. In order to establish and maintain a
relationship with emergency responders, it is necessary for railroads to develop and offer a
training program for all emergency responders who are likely to respond during an emergency
situation (49 CFR Sec. 239.101). It is further prescribed that the training program shall cover
access to railroad equipment, location of railroad facilities, and an emergency simulation. These
requirements are excerpted below.
§ 239.101 Emergency Preparedness Plan.
(5) Liaison with emergency responders. Each railroad to which this part applies shall
establish and maintain a working relationship with the on -line emergency responders by,
as a minimum:
(i) Developing and making available a training program for all on -line emergency
responders who could reasonably be expected to respond during an emergency
situation. The training program shall include an emphasis on access to railroad
equipment, location of railroad facilities, and communications interface, and provide
information to emergency responders who may not have the opportunity to participate in
an emergency simulation. Each affected railroad shall either offer the training directly or
provide the program information and materials to state training institutes, firefighter
organizations, or police academies;
(ii) Inviting emergency responders to participate in emergency simulations; and
(iii) Distributing applicable portions of its current Emergency Preparedness Plan at least
once every three years, or whenever the railroad materially changes its plan in a manner
that could reasonably be expected to affect the railroad's interface with the on-line
emergency responders, whichever occurs earlier, including documentation concerning
the railroad's equipment and the physical characteristics of its line, necessary maps, and
the position titles and telephone numbers of relevant railroad officers to contact.
The rules even require full-scale emergency simulations (49 CFR Sec. 239.103), as excerpted
below:
§ 239.103 Passenger train emergency simulations
(a) General. Each railroad operating passenger train service shall conduct full-scale
emergency simulations, in order to determine its capability to execute the Emergency
Preparedness Plan under the variety of scenarios that could reasonably be expected to
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-21 July 2011
occur on its operation, and ensure coordination with all emergency responders who
voluntarily agree to participate in the emergency simulations.
These rules prescribe Federal safety standards for the preparation, adoption, and
implementation of emergency preparedness plans by railroads connected with the operation of
passenger trains, and require each affected railroad to instruct its employees on the provisions
of its plan. The rules also prescribe Federal safety standards on how the railroad shall establish
and maintain a working relationship with the on-line emergency responders.
The PVL project also falls under the oversight of the Riverside County and the City of Riverside
emergency management departments. As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.7.1, Riverside
County and the City of Riverside have Emergency Operations Plans written to address the
planned emergency responses associated with natural disasters and technological incidents.
Each specifies its own level of response within their jurisdiction.
The Emergency Management Office within the Riverside Fire Department coordinates
emergency response and has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for the City of
Riverside (Riverside Fire Department, 2002). The EOP provides for the mobilization of the
resources of the City, both public and private, to meet conditions constituting a local emergency,
state of emergency or state of war emergency. It also provides for the organization, powers and
duties, services and staff of the emergency organization. Currently the City of Riverside is
updating their EOP and associated evacuation plan (Anthony Coletta, Program Administrator for
the Riverside UASI Regional Homeland Security Program, personal communication).
According to the Fire Department, Disaster Preparedness website, the Emergency Operation
Center (EOC) for the City of Riverside is a secure facility where City department heads are able
to work in the event of a large disaster. The facility provides centralization of City response to
major events. The EOC allows for City departments to work closely together to make recovery
more efficient for the community.
The Riverside County Operational Area Emergency Operatio ns Plan (EOP), which is an
extension of the State Emergency Program, focuses on defining and coordinating the
appropriate departments that are directly involved with Riverside County emergency response
activities. This plan is a multi-agency plan and also serves as a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan for
the City of Perris. The EOP is designed to establish the framework for implementation of the
California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) for Riverside County, which
is located within Mutual Aid Region IV as defined by the Governor’s Office of Emergency
Services (State OES). By extension, the plan will also implement the National Incident
Management System (NIMS), which is being integrated into SEMS at the Governor’s directive
(Executive Order S-2-05).
The County EOP describes the operations of the Riverside County Emergency Operations
Center (EOC), which is the central management entity responsible for directing and coordinating
the various Riverside County Departments and other agencies in their e mergency response
activities. The departments and districts designated by the EOC with authority to implement the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-22 July 2011
EOP include the County Fire Department, County Office of Emergency Services (OES), Flood
Control, Transportation Department, and the Sheriff’s Department.
According to the EOP, the Riverside County EOC is activated when field response agencies
need support. Activation may involve partial or full staffing, depending on the support required .
The EOP is also intended to facilitate multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional coordination,
particularly between Riverside County and local governments, including special districts and
state agencies, in emergency operations. Though unlikely and unanticipated, if an emergency
were to occur near the PVL corridor, the Riverside County EOC and/or the City of Riverside
Emergency Management Office would be activated and trained professionals would be in place
to manage and coordinate the appropriate EOP.
Though not a component of the PVL project, BNSF freight train also travel along the PVL
corridor. In accordance with federal and state regulations, BNSF has implemented a variety of
safety precautions and procedures in order to prevent and prepare for an emergency. Every
BNSF operating division and shop has a Safety Action Plan that provides a complete safety
program, including risk identification procedures, employee participation and safety committees,
safety communication, safety incident reporting procedures, emergency response plan, and
other safety initiatives (BNSF Railway Company, 2010). Performance evaluations of BNSF
division and shop management include a review of the effectiveness of their Safety Action Plan .
The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No additional analysis was required and
no additional mitigation measures were added.
Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings
The CPUC is the regulating authority for railroad grade crossings in the state . As such, the
CPUC has been engaged throughout the development of the PVL project. Each grade crossing
within the project limits was reviewed by the CPUC through on-site Diagnostic Reviews with the
Design Team. These reviews occurred on: September 26, 2008; October 23, 2008; October 28,
2008; July 15, 2009; July 16, 2009; February 18, 2010 and October 19, 2010. The results are
documented in the 90% design drawings. As a result, the PVL project includes improving 15
grade crossings (Draft EIR, Section 2.4.6 and Figure 2.4-28) and closing two grade crossings
(the crossing at 5th Street has been temporarily closed by the City of Perris and will be formally
vacated for this project). Improvements include:
Flashing warning devices and gates
Raised center medians
Pavement striping and marking
Signage
Crossing safety lighting
Signalization
Pedestrian safety measures
The crossing improvements at Marlborough Avenue, Spruce Street, Blaine Street, and Mount
Vernon Avenue are the physical requirements to support Riverside County’s potential future
implementation of a quiet zone (See Master Response #1). These improvements include
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-23 July 2011
pedestrian swing gates, pedestrian warning devices and gates, pedestrian barricades and metal
hand railings, concrete raised medians, double yellow medians and island noses, warning
devices, safety lighting, and signs. Poarch Road in Riverside and West 6th Street in Perris
would be closed by the PVL project.
Overall rail corridor safety at grade crossings would also be enhanced by implementation of
“Operation Lifesaver,” a safety education program for schools and communities near tracks
operated by SCRRA/Metrolink (Draft EIR, Section 2.4.14). “Operation Lifesaver is a non-profit
international public education program established in 1972 to end collisions, deaths, and injuries
at rail grade crossings and along railroad ROWs. The program addresses rail safety and
teaches students at age-appropriate levels to understand rail signage, the importance of
avoiding the railroad ROW, and safe driving skills near railroads . Operation Lifesaver provides
free presentations to schools and community groups. The majority of the PVL operations would
not occur during the school session because most scheduled runs occur either before the start
of the school day or after its completion (see Table 2.4-1). SCRRA/Metrolink with RCTC
encourages school and community group participation in Operation Lifesaver.”
Since the PVL project is in full compliance with CPUC regulations regarding grade crossings
and safety, Operation Lifesaver is not required as mitigation but is simply an additional safety
measure. The Draft EIR was not changed because the PVL project would not result in
significant impacts to grade crossing locations or operations and no mitigation measures are
required.
Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic)
The PVL project would add and operate six commuter trains twice a day, making a total of 12
trips per day (six trains in each direction). Nine of these trains would operate outside of school
hours. One morning train and two mid-day trains would operate during school operating hours.
The morning train would not impact students arriving at Hyatt Elementary School because the
nearest grade crossing, Mt. Vernon Avenue, is over 0.75 miles away and of great enough
distance that the students would not likely be walking that far to school. Students arriving at
Highland Elementary School may be required to wait no more than 45 seconds at the grade
crossing at W. Blaine Street for a commuter train to pass. Students leaving both schools in the
afternoon would not be significantly impacted because there are no scheduled trains during that
time. In addition, the PVL project includes grade-crossing improvements at Spruce Street,
Blaine Street, and Mt. Vernon Avenue (described in Appendix C of the EIR), which would result
in a safer environment for pedestrian and vehicular movement.
The Draft EIR was not changed as a result of this issue area.
Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment)
Several comments expressed concern that the location of the existing track relative to the
adjoining Hyatt Elementary School poses a risk to the school from potential derailments;
specifically, the potential that a derailment could result in rail cars and cargo (including release
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-24 July 2011
of hazardous materials) rolling down the slope and onto school property. The same concern
was also expressed by several residents in the immediate area regarding their properties.
This issue is addressed in the Draft EIR, Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL service is
passenger only. As such, there would never be an occasion when hazardous materials would
be transported on the commuter trains.” Therefore, the PVL project would have no impact
specifically on the transport of hazardous materials or the potential for derailment of a train
carrying these materials. See also Master Response #4.
With regard to train derailments in general, the PVL project would replenish ballast, and replace
ties, and rail next to Hyatt Elementary School, which would improve the current track condition
and subsequently reduce the risk of derailment. Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
in the Draft EIR discussed derailment statistics that were calculated for the PVL project based
on data until fiscal year 2006/2007. This section stated that there were 4.5 million freight train
miles travelled on SCRRA tracks since 1993, and that there have been three freight train
derailments during that same period. This equates to approximately one derailment per 1.5
million train miles or 0.000000667. The derailment risk for BNSF freight trains on the SJBL
alignment is 0.00801, which equates to a derailment approximately once every 124 years .
In the year since the Draft EIR was submitted to the public for review, another set of statistics
was calculated for fiscal year 2007/2008. This updated data also computes the derailment
exposure risk on SCRRA’s lines and then compares this risk to the estimated risk now
experienced by the PVL.
First, the SCRRA had 455,684 freight train miles operated over their lines in fiscal year
2007/2008, and this is believed to be typical of operations since the start of SCRRA
operations. This yields a freight history of about 6.8 million freight train miles since 1993
(first full year of operation). There have been three main track freight train derailments
(not counting the collision at Chatsworth, which was not a derailment).
Second, this calculates to an exposure ratio of about one derailment per 2.28 million
train miles or 0.00000044.
Third, the BNSF operated 11,440 freight train miles on the SJBL in fiscal year
2007/2008, and this rate of train miles has been consistent over the years. Since 1993,
this would total 171,600 train miles.
Fourth, the annual future (after completion of the project) freight train derailment risk is
then the product of 0.00000044 (risk per train mile) and 11,440 annual train miles, or
0.00502.
Fifth, assuming that there have been two freight train derailments on the main line of the
SJBL since 1993, the risk is two divided by 171,600 (the total train miles BNSF has
operated since 1993) or 0.0000116 per train mile.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-25 July 2011
These calculations show that the SCRRA derailment risk is 0.00000044, while the BNSF freight
train derailment risk is 0.0000116. The reason for this difference is that, because the SCRRA
tracks are used for commuter rail, the tracks are maintained to high standards of safety and ride
quality due to their role in public passenger transport.
The PVL project includes track improvements throughout its length because a commuter rail
would be added to the track (see Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1). These track improvements would
upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger
infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced operational safety. Therefore, not
constructing the PVL project continues the much higher risk of freight train derailment.
The commenters also brought up a third derailment in BNSF history, which occurred in 1990
near Hyatt Elementary School. As the derailment occurred outside of the 17-year window of
SCRRA experience, it was not included in the initial analyses. However, even if it were included
in the derailment calculations, it would increase the freight train risk factor, further strengthening
the argument that the PVL project benefits the community by improving infrastructure on which
existing freight trains would travel.
Furthermore, the distance between the track and school is between 95 and 125 feet, as
depicted in the pictures shown below. Train speeds in that area are estimated at less than 20
miles per hour.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-26 July 2011
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no impacts and no mitigation is
required. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No additional analysis was
required and no additional mitigation measures were added.
Derailment Risks Near Hyatt Elementary
Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in an abundance of caution, RCTC commissioned a focused
technical study to specifically evaluate the potential risk of derailment that would result from the
proposed project’s addition of commuter trains to the existing Perris Valley Line. (Analysis of
Safety Issues for the Proposed Commuter Rail Service on the Riverside County Transportation
Commission’s Perris Valley Line in the Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Schools, dated March 22,
2011 [the “Zeta Tech Report”]).
The Zeta Tech report evaluated two questions. For purposes of this Master Response, the
relevant question addressed in the Zeta Tech Report was whether the addition of commuter rail
to the existing line significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary
School? (Zeta Tech Report, page 2).
The derailment risk analysis performed for Hyatt Elementary School used all derailment classes
in the FRA accident database for years 2007-2009 for Class 1 freight railroad operations and for
passenger rail operations. Given the severe nature of the track alignment, the severe grade,
and the severe curvature conditions in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary School, the derailment
risk analysis for Hyatt Elementary School focused on key potential high severity derailments
(Zeta Tech Report, pages 10-11).
According to the derailment risk analysis, focusing on high severity derailments, the derailment
risk for passenger train operation in all cases was less than the derailment risk for freight
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-27 July 2011
operations. In most instances, the passenger train derailment risk was 5 -10 times lower than the
freight train risk (Zeta Tech Report, page 12). The Zeta Tech study focused on three major
types of derailments: Mechanical Caused Derailments, Human Factor Caused Accidents and
Derailments, and Track Caused Derailments (Zeta Tech Report, pages 12-13). In all cases, the
passenger trains would have less derailment risk as compared to the freight trains.
Finally, with regard to Track Caused Derailments, the Zeta Tech report concluded that in the
vicinity of Hyatt School, the increase in derailment associated with the addition of passenger
trains on the existing route is 0.0001255 derailments per year or one derailment every 8000
years (Zeta Tech Report, page 13).
Thus, the Zeta Tech report supports the fact that the addition of commuter rail to the existing
railway line does not significantly increase the derailment risk at or near Hyatt El ementary
School.
Master Response #11 – Recirculate EIR and the CEQA Process
The Draft EIR was prepared according to requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR analyzed the
PVL project, identified and evaluated potential environmental impacts, and incorporated
appropriate mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant
levels. The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR and includes these detailed responses to
comments. The result is an accurate representation of the proposed PVL project and its
potential impacts, and provides the appropriate mitigation measures to ensure there are no
potentially significant impacts.
State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 state that “a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR
when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the
availability of the draft EIR for public review.” “Significant new information” requiring recirculation
includes:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; and
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion
Coalition v. Fish & Game Com.(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
The four circumstances identified above do not apply to the PVL project for the following
reasons:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-28 July 2011
No new, significant, and unmitigable impacts would result from text changes to the Draft
EIR. Mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce significant impacts as a result of
the PVL project to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures would also not
result in additional significant impacts;
Text changes to the Draft EIR did not result in a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact. PVL project components did not change – new structures were
not added and the project impact areas did not change. Changes to the mitigation
measures were to clarify the requirements, make them more enforceable, and further
mitigate previously stated project impacts; and
New alternatives were not added to the Draft EIR and the alternatives analysis did not
change. Several alternatives were originally considered in the Draft EIR, and project
proponents adopted the PVL project as the Locally Preferred Alternative (Section 3.0,
Project Alternatives). This alternative was also identified as the environmentally superior
alternative, which means there are no other considerably different alternatives that would
lessen significant environmental impacts of the project. Furthermore, since significant
impacts as a result of the PVL project will be mitigated to less than significant levels,
there is also no considerably different mitigation measure that would lessen significant
environmental impacts.
The Draft EIR was written in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines. Technical reports and
analysis in the text adequately addressed each environmental issue area. Statements made in
the Draft EIR were based on factual evidence and findings. Section 8.0, References, lists the
sources that were used to produce the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Draft EIR was more than
adequate. Additionally, the CEQA process for the PVL project has gone far beyond the
minimum requirements for CEQA. The Draft EIR, Section 1.4 explains the steps RCTC has
taken so far. RCTC prepared an IS/MND and circulated the document for public and agency
review in early 2009. As part of the public involvement for the IS/MND document, RCTC held
two public outreach workshops in June 2008, a public information meeting in February 2009,
and two public hearings in February 2009. In response to public input, RCTC decided to
proceed with an EIR.
On July 28, 2009, two weeks after the NOP was posted by the State Clearinghouse, RCTC
conducted a public scoping meeting at the Moreno Valley Towngate Community Center. The
intent of this meeting was to receive input on the issues that should be covered in greater detail
in the EIR.
The Draft EIR public review and comment period was open for 49 days between April 5, 2010
and May 24, 2010. This exceeds the CEQA prescribed minimum 45-day review period. Initially,
two public hearings (April 4, 2010 and April 22, 2010) were scheduled; however, in response to
public request, a third public hearing (May 17, 2010) was held. These public hearings were a
courtesy of RCTC and not required by CEQA (CEQA Section 15202(a)).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-29 July 2011
Master Response #12 – Grade Separations
Several commenters requested that RCTC construct grade separation at different locations
along the PVL alignment. According to the BNSF/Union Pacific Rail Road Guidelines for
Railroad Grade Separation Projects, a grade separation project is defined as a project that
includes an overpass or underpass structure that crosses railroad ROW. As explained in the
Draft EIR, all impacts related to traffic, rail, and safety at rail crossings are already less th an
significant or mitigated to a level of less than significant. Accordingly, no further mitigation in the
form of grade separations or other measures are required. (See State CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15126.4 [“An EIR shall describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant
adverse impacts”].) Moreover, grade separations are infeasible along the PVL alignment for
engineering, environmental, economic, and legal reasons.
First, grade separations are infeasible from an engineering perspective, particularly within the
UCR neighborhood. Grade separations are space-intensive and require substantial amounts of
land in order to properly maintain approach distances, roadway grades, and clearance heights .
(23 CFR 646.212(a)(3); 23 CFR Part 646 Appendix to Subpart B.) To provide the space, the
downward slope, and the cut-away areas necessary for a grade separation, the residences
along both sides of the street would have to give up their street access (e.g., the houses would
abut a steep trench that contained the roadway undercrossing). Without any street access, and
given that these homes are largely surrounded by other residences such that secondary access
is not available, these residences would have to be acquired, and the residents would have to
be relocated in order to accommodate a grade-separation.
A roadway overpass structure crossing over the track would need to provide a minimum of 23’ –
4” of vertical clearance above the existing track to comply with BNSF/Union Pacific Railroad
Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects and CPUC clearance requirements . Adding
the depth of the bridge structure, the roadway surface would be in excess of 30’ above existing
grades. Assuming a 6% roadway slope (a general roadway design maximum) and accounting
for minimal length vertical curves, the roadway approaches to the grade separation structure
would extend approximately 600’ to 700’ away from the crossing on both sides before rejoining
existing grades. In all cases (Spruce Street, Blaine Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue), other roads
exist within this range that would also need to be raised to match . Another site-specific factor
that particularly makes a grade separation at Spruce Street and Blaine Street impractical is the
proximity and orientation of Watkins Drive, which runs parallel to (and southwest of) the PVL
track. In addition to Spruce and Blaine Streets having to be reconstructed for a minimum of 600’
(both east and west of the PVL track) to rise to the required 30’ above track elevation, Watkins
Drive would similarly need to be reconstructed for that same length (both north and south of the
crossing locations) to also meet the 30’ rise. The number of driveway accesses that this would
cut off to businesses and residences would be very large.
A roadway underpass crossing under the track would result in slightly less property/access
impacts. In this configuration, the roadway would need 16’-6” of vertical clearance as it crosses
under the railroad (which would be supported by a new bridge). The railroad bridge would add
an approximate minimum of approximately 7’-6” of depth, thereby necessitating a lowering of
the roadway surface to approximately 24’ below existing grade . Using a 6% roadway slope to
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-30 July 2011
transition down the required 24’ results in a minimum required 500’ of roadway reconstruction
on each side of the crossing. While this is less than needed for the overpass configuration, it is
still impacts the access to a large number of private businesses and residences. Similar to the
overpass option, for the Spruce Street and Blaine Street crossings, Watkins Road would also
need to be lowered (in a trench) by 24’ as it approaches the crossing from both directions to tie
in.
Moreover, the construction of a grade separation would result in increased air quality emissions
due to construction, increased geological impacts due to need to stabilize the undercrossing
and rail lines, and increased construction traffic impacts because the street would have to be
closed during the construction of any grade separation. Due to these space constraints, the
severe impacts to existing private residences, and the increased environmental impacts that a
grade separation would inflict, RCTC determined that the construction of grade separations
would result in greater impacts to the community than would the proposed PVL project.
Accordingly, a grade separation is infeasible both from an engineering and an environmental
impact perspective.
Second, grade separation is cost prohibitive for the proposed PVL project. The approximate
cost of an average grade crossing is $25 million. The grade separations at Spruce Street and
Blaine Street would be substantially higher than average due to the complexity of physical and
property impacts as summarized above, and would likely be in the $40 to $60 million range
each. The engineering costs alone for a grade separation would amount to approximately 3% to
4% of the total project cost. Particularly where all impacts are already mitigated to a less than
significant level, the engineering of a grade separation is not economically feasible. In addition,
the construction, maintenance, and property acquisition costs would likely amount to between
$100 to $150 million for three grade separations at Spruce Street, Blaine Street and Mt . Vernon
Avenue, further evidence the economic infeasibility of grade separations. Even considering
potential external funding sources, the construction of grade separations would remain
economically infeasible. Specifically, Streets & Highways Code section 2452 requires the
CPUC, by July 1 of each year, to establish the priority list for highway rail crossing projects,
including grade separations, and furnish it to the California Transportation Commission for use
in the fiscal year beginning on that date. Interested local agencies are responsible for submitting
nominations of projects to the CPUC with the required information. Section 190 of the Streets &
Highways Code requires the State’s annual budget to include $15 million for funding qualified
projects on the Grade Separation Priority List Program as ranked by the CPUC. Projects may
change in ranking from one year to the next, as new nominations may show a greater public
need for grade separation or improvement. The system is not one where the first on the list is
necessarily the first to be funded. The current priority list of projects is located at
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/FINAL_DECISION/102079.pdf and none of the current
projects on the priority list fall along the PVL alignment . Thus, even potential external sources of
funding (such as that provided by the CPUC) are unavailable for the PVL crossings --
apparently because either the CPUC or the local jurisdictions have not designated the rail
crossings in the UCR neighborhood to be priority project.
Third, the CPUC has jurisdiction over the safety of highway-rail crossings in California (CPUC,
General Order 88-B). Construction of new grade separation is governed by CPUC General
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.1 MASTER RESPONSES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.1-31 July 2011
Order 88-B. According to General Order 88-B, the public agencies with jurisdiction over the
roadway must be in agreement with regard to the grade separation and the grade separation
must comport with all CPUC General Orders. As explained in Master Response #1 – Quiet
Zones, RCTC is a special district that does not have broad police powers and is not responsible
for traffic control or law enforcement at public highway-rail grade or pedestrian crossings.
Therefore, RCTC does not have legal authority to approve a grade separation, nor does it have
unilateral land use authority to construct a grade separation even if approved. Thus, the
construction of a grade-separation is legally infeasible.
Therefore, grade separations were not proposed for the PVL project and the Draft EIR was not
changed as a result of this issue.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-1 July 2011
0.3.2 Agency Letters
Table 0.3.2-1
Response to Agency Letters
Letter
No. Commenter Date Page No.
1. Jeff Brandt - Department of Fish & Game 5/18/2010 0.3.2-2
2. Department of Water Resources - David M. Samson 5/20/2010 0.3.2-16
3. Riverside Unified School District (prepared by Gresham &
Savage – Tracy M. Owens)
5/21/2010 0.3.2-19
4. California Department of Transportation - Daniel Kopulsky 5/25/2010 0.3.2-83
5. City of Perris - Michael Morales 5/24/2010 0.3.2-88
6. State Clearinghouse - Scott Morgan 5/26/2010 0.3.2-109
7. Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane 5/20/2010 0.3.2-112
8. MARCH Joint Powers Authority - Dan Fairbanks 6/3/2010 0.3.2-138
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-2 July 2011
Letter 1
Department of Fish & Game - Jeff Brandt
May 18, 2010
L1-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-3 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
Department of Fish & Game - Jeff Brandt
May 18, 2010
L1-2
L1-4
L1-5
L1-6
L1-7
L1-9
L1-8
L1-3
L1-12
L1-13
L1-14
L1-10
L1-11
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-4 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
Department of Fish & Game - Jeff Brandt
May 18, 2010
L1-15
L1-16
L1-17
L1-18
L1-19
L1-20
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-5 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
Department of Fish & Game - Jeff Brandt
May 18, 2010
L1-22
L1-23
L1-24
L1-21
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-6 July 2011
Response to Letter 1
Department of Fish & Game - Jeff Brandt
May 18, 2010
L1-1. The comments are introductory. No response is necessary.
L1-2. Although the environmental permits for this project will not be issued until after the
Final EIR is certified, it is anticipated that the agency permit conditions will be
consistent with the MSHCP Chapter 7.0 Covered Activities/Allowable Uses
requirements, and Appendix C – Standard Best Management Practices.
According to Table 4.4-3 in the Draft EIR, 0.061 acres of CDFG jurisdictional waters
and 0.037 acres of USACE jurisdictional waters would be temporarily impacted by
the PVL project based on the 90% Engineering Drawings. See Table 0.3.2-1 in this
response for a breakdown of temporary impacts based on the 90% Engineering
Drawings. Because of the very poor quality of the habitat anticipated to be impacted,
a 1:1 ratio for jurisdictional area impacts is proposed. The mitigation will be
completed through the Santa Ana River Mitigation Bank, and credits reserved prior to
the culvert work being initiated. Additionally, the Draft EIR includes the following
mitigation measures which reduce the impacts to less than significant levels:
compensatory mitigation at a minimum of 1:1 acre to acre will be secured at a local
mitigation bank, a qualified project biologist shall conduct project level training for
field personnel; the project biologist shall strictly limit construction activities, vehicles
and equipment near environmental sensitive areas; the project biologist shall clearly
identify the upstream and downstream limits of construction; and the project biologist
shall oversee re-establishing appropriate flow elevations (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.4.5). With the implementation of these mitigation measures, potential
temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters will be less than significant and no further
mitigation will be required.
L1-3. According to Table 4.4-3 in the Draft EIR, 0.039 acres of CDFG jurisdictional waters
are expected to be permanently impacted by the PVL project based on the 90%
Engineering Drawings. See Table 0.3.2-2 in this response for a breakdown of
permanent impacts based on the 90% Engineering Drawings. Because of the very
poor quality of the habitat to be impacted a 1:1 ratio for jurisdictional area impacts is
proposed. The mitigation will be completed through the Santa Ana River Mitigation
Bank and credits reserved prior to the culvert work being initiated. With the
implementation of this mitigation measure potential permanent impacts to
jurisdictional waters within the Santa Ana River Watershed will be less than
significant and no further mitigation will be required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS 92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-7 July 2011 Table 0.3.2-1 USACE Potential Jurisdictional Features and Impacts MILEPOST CULVERT/ BRIDGE WORK (90% PLANS) STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE IMPACTS USACE TEMPORARY IMPACTS USACE PERMANENT IMPACTS LIN. FT1 ACRES2 LIN. FT1 ACRES2 0.38 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 0.60 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 1.30 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 1.40 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 1.60 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 2.10 NO EPHEMERAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 3.40 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 3.90 NO PERRENIAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 5.00 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 17 0.0031 11 0.0015 5.20 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES .5 0.0001 5 0.0004 5.30 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 17 0.0033 11 0.0041 5.80 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 29 0.0043 10 0.0015 6.06 YES PERRENIAL YES NO YES 35 0.0022 3 0.0003 6.11 YES PERENNIAL YES NO YES 62 0.0084 4 0.0015 6.18 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 25 0.0050 7 0.0013 6.50 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 20 0.0034 22 0.0034 6.60 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 45 0.00332 20 0.0032 6.70 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 20 0.0119 30 0.0035 6.80 NO INTERMITTENT YES YES NO 0 0 0 0 7.30 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 8.00 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 9.70 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 9.90 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 10.10 YES INTERMITTENT YES YES YES 10 0.0019 20 0.0044 11.13 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 10 0.0022 20 0.0050 11.32 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 11.60 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 10 0.0023 23 0.0045 12.10 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS 92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-8 July 2011 Table 0.3.2-1 (cont’d) USACE Potential Jurisdictional Features and Impacts MILEPOST CULVERT/ BRIDGE WORK (90% PLANS) STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE IMPACTS USACE TEMPORARY IMPACTS USACE PERMANENT IMPACTS LIN. FT1 ACRES2 LIN. FT1 ACRES2 12.40 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 12.52 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 12.58 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 13.20 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 13.40 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 60 0.0079 5 0.0006 14.50 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 14.80 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 14.90 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 15.30 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 10 0.0040 9 0.0026 15.80 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 16.16 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 16.20 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 20 0.0053 4 0.0005 17.10 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 22 0.0036 0 0 17.30 NO N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 17.50 NO PERENNIAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 18.10 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 20.65 (Bridge)3 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 50 0.0544 0 0 20.74 (Bridge)3 YES INTERMITTENT YES YES YES 15 0.0185 0 0 Totals:477.50.145180.0383Notes: 1 = Impacts were measured in linear feet following the drainage line (east-west direction). 2 = Acreage impacts were calculated by measuring the entire impact area. 3 = Bridge will be replaced within the same footprint as original; therefore, no additional permanent impacts are expected. Temporary impacts are associated with construction and grading.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS 92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-9 July 2011 Table 0.3.2-2 CDFG Potential Jurisdictional Features and Impacts MILEPOST CULVERT/ BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OR EXTENSION (90% PLANS) STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE IMPACTS CDFG TEMPORARY IMPACTS CDFG PERMANENT IMPACTS FT ACRES FT ACRES 0.38 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 0.60 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 1.30 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 1.40 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 1.60 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 2.10 NO EPHEMERAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 3.40 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 3.90 NO PERRENIAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 5.00 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 50 0.0093 13 0.0027 5.20 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 5 0.0011 5 0.0011 5.30 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 45 0.0275 23 0.0116 5.80 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 70 0.0197 10 0.0031 6.06 YES PERRENIAL YES NO YES 32 0.0218 9 0.0020 6.11 YES PERENNIAL YES NO YES 70 0.0337 .5 0.0001 6.18 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 60 0.0213 12 0.0032 6.50 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 18 0.0165 25 0.0072 6.60 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 68 0.0259 25 0.0063 6.70 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 35 0.0191 30 0.0035 6.80 NO INTERMITTENT YES YES NO 0 0 0 0 7.30 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 8.00 NO INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 9.70 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 9.90 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 10.10 YES INTERMITTENT YES YES YES 10 0.0054 20 0.0102 11.13 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 10 0.0082 20 0.0127 11.32 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 11.60 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 10 0.0053 20 0.0096 12.10 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS 92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-10 July 2011 Table 0.3.2-2 (cont’d) CDFG Potential Jurisdictional Features and Impacts MILEPOST CULVERT/ BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OR EXTENSION (90% PLANS) STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE IMPACTS CDFG TEMPORARY IMPACTS CDFG PERMANENT IMPACTS LIN. FT1 ACRES2 LIN. FT1 ACRES2 12.40 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 12.52 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 12.58 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 13.20 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 13.40 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 90 0.0253 90 0.0068 14.50 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 14.80 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 14.90 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 15.30 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 12 0.0062 8 0.0031 15.80 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 16.16 YES N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 16.20 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 18 0.0072 4 0.0014 17.10 YES EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 22 0.0079 .5 0.0079 17.30 NO N/A N/A NO NO 0 0 0 0 17.50 NO PERENNIAL YES NO NO 0 0 0 0 18.10 YES N/A NO NO NO 0 0 0 0 20.65 (Bridge)3 YES INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 50 0.0545 0 0 20.74 (Bridge)3 YES INTERMITTENT YES YES YES 15 0.0185 0 0 Totals: 6900.33463150.0846Notes: 1 = Impacts were measured in linear feet following the drainage line (east-west direction). 2 = Acreage impacts were calculated by measuring the entire impact area. 3 = Bridge will be replaced within the same footprint as original; therefore, no additional permanent impacts are expected. Temporary impacts are associated with construction and grading.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-11 July 2011
L1-4. A survey was conducted for western spadefoot toad near the San Jacinto River
Bridge and the Overflow Channel Bridge in winter and spring of 2010. The survey
was conducted in the appropriate season (wet) and no western spadefoot toads
were detected.
Based on the survey results, no western spadefoot toads are anticipated to be
present within the area of bridge replacement (the San Jacinto River channel and its
Overflow Channel). However, in the unlikely event that western spadefoot toad
migrated into the project site between the previous survey and construction starting,
the following plans will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts: a
preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance
to determine if toads are present within the designated construction area. Should
western spadefoot toads be identified, the project biologists shall prepare a
mitigation/relocation program that would be approved by RCA, and CDFG, prior to
bridge replacement work starting. With the implementation of these mitigation
measures, potential impacts to western spadefoot toads will be less than significant
and no further mitigation will be required.
L1-5. The MSHCP identifies two areas along the corridor as wildlife movement corridors.
These areas are MSHCP criteria cells, 545, 635, 721, 3276, and 3378. The northern
area criteria cells (545, 635, and 721) are identified as Linkage 7 and connect Box
Springs Reserve (east of the ROW and I-215) and Sycamore Park (west of the I-
215). The species identified for this corridor include: Bells sage sparrow, cactus
wren, California coastal gnatcatcher, and bobcat. It is anticipated that the birds would
be able to fly over the I-215 in this area and would not be impacted by the PVL
project. The bobcat has also been identified as using this corridor; however, the I-
215 acts a barrier to the bobcat’s movement. There is one culvert under the I-215
near Poarch Road; however, the culvert does not meet the preferred dimensions for
bobcat for a movement corridor. Light is not visible from either end, and the diameter
is approximately 5 feet and not the preferred 10 feet. Based on a length of
approximately 450 feet, this provides for an openness ratio of approximately 0.04.
Based on this evaluation of the I-215 culvert, the bobcats are not anticipated to use
this corridor.
The criteria cells to the south, 3276 and 3378, are associated with the San Jacinto
River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. Linkage 19 is identified within
Criteria Cell 3276 and 3378 in the San Jacinto River area. The intent is that this
linkage would provide a corridor along the river corridor. The project is proposing to
replace the two bridges in this area, the San Jacinto River Bridge and the San
Jacinto River Overflow Channel Bridge. The new structures will be similar to the
existing and provide the same clearance underneath for both water flow and wildlife
movement. The species identified for this corridor include: mountain plover,
loggerhead shrike, white faced ibis, bobcat, and Los Angeles pocket mouse. These
species will be able to utilize the river corridor during operation of the PVL project. It
should also be noted that the work in this area will occur during the dry season when
no water is present in the river.
L1-6. The culverts along the existing SJBL-RCTC ROW are various sizes to allow for
various size drainage areas to flow under the existing tracks. These culverts have
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-12 July 2011
been in place since the railroad was built approximately 100 years ago. The type of
culvert work that the project is proposing is to either extend an existing culvert to
allow for a second track over the top, or the total replacement of an existing culvert
because of deteriorating conditions. The culvert work is not proposed in any of the
criteria cell areas that were identified as wildlife corridors. It should also be noted that
these culverts were not identified as an impact on wildlife movement and therefore
the proposed culvert work is not mitigation but a project design feature.
In the areas where the culverts are being completely replaced, a larger diameter
culvert would require the bottom of the culvert to be deeper than the existing culvert.
This is necessary because the railroad requires a minimum clearance between the
top of the culvert and the bottom of the rail. However, if a culvert is to be placed
deeper a pond would be created and thus not function properly for water
conveyance. To eliminate the potential for ponding, graded areas would be needed
to provide an appropriate flow path to and from the culvert. This would result in
additional environmental impacts than the proposed project work and was therefore
not recommended.
Approximately nine miles of the corridor is directly adjacent to I-215 which limits
opportunities for wildlife movement.
L1-7. A Narrow Endemic Plant Survey (NEPS) was conducted during the appropriate
season (April and June 2010) to detect plants. The NEPS survey focused on the
ROW area near the San Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel but included all
potential locations within the project area. No NEPS were identified within the
SJBL/RCRC ROW during the survey. Outside of the ROW, fewer than 10 individual
San Jacinto Coulter’s Goldfields (Lastheria glabrate ssp. coulteri) plants were
identified. This indicates that if the plants were present within the ROW, they would
have been identified during the survey.
Although NEPS were not identified in the work area, mitigation within the bridge
replacement work area shall be to remove and stockpile the top six inches of soil, for
use as a seed bank, post construction. This stockpile shall be kept within the ROW,
but outside the work area until the bridge replacement work is complete. Once the
bridge replacement work is complete, the soil stockpile shall be redistributed in the
area that it was removed from prior to construction.
L1-8. See comment response, L1-5. Linkage 7 is identified within Criteria Cells 545, 635,
and 721. The Linkage is designated to provide a corridor between Box Springs
Reserve and Sycamore Canyon Park. The MSHCP identifies specific species that
are anticipated to use the corridor between the two parks. The species identified
include: Bells sage sparrow, cactus wren, California coastal gnatcatcher, and bobcat.
It is anticipated that the birds would be able to fly over the I-215 in this area and
would not be impacted by the PVL project. The bobcat has also been identified as
using this corridor; however, the I-215 acts a barrier to the bobcat’s movement.
There is one culvert under the I-215 near Poarch Road; however, the culvert does
not meet the preferred dimensions for bobcat for a movement corridor. Light is not
visible from either end, and the diameter is approximately 5 feet and not the
preferred 10 feet. Based on the length of approximately 450 feet, this provides for an
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-13 July 2011
openness ratio of approximately 0.04. Based on this evaluation of the I-215 culvert,
the bobcats are not anticipated to use this corridor.
Linkage 19 is identified within Criteria Cell 3276 and 3378 in the San Jacinto River
area. The intent is that this linkage would provide a corridor along the river corridor.
The project is proposing to replace the two bridges in this area, the San Jacinto River
Bridge and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel Bridge. The new structures will
be similar to the existing and provide the same clearance underneath for both water
flow and wildlife movement. The species identified for this corridor include: mountain
plover, loggerhead shrike, white faced ibis, bobcat, and Los Angeles pocket mouse.
This species will be able to utilize the river corridor during operation of the PVL
project. It should also be noted that the work in this area will occur during the dry
season when no water is present in the river.
L1-9. There are no anticipated impacts to the Linkage 7 and therefore no mitigation plan
has been developed for work in the Linkage 7 area. A survey was conducted in the
wet season and no western spadefoot toads were encountered. Nonetheless, a pre-
construction survey will be conducted to determine whether spadefoot toads are
present. Should western spadefoot toads be identified in the area prior to
construction, CDFG and RCA will be notified and an appropriate mitigation/relocation
plan initiated.
L1-10. As a signatory to the Implementation Agreement (IA) for the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), RCTC will comply
with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP, including preparation and submittal of
appropriate documentation. The documentation will be submitted to the Western
Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) for the prescribed joint project review
process.
RCTC is aware that impacts to State Jurisdictional Waters require a § 1602 Lake and
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Agreement) from the CDFG. RCTC has submitted
and is diligently pursuing a § 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from
the CDFG. There is on-going coordination to get the permit application approved.
L1-11. The comment identifies four areas of concern, but does not provide a specific
comment regarding a specific concern for the area.
L1-12. The PVL project is not specifically mentioned as a covered activity within the
MSHCP, but railroads are referred to in general. As such, a consistency analysis and
a RCA Joint Project Review Application (JPR) are required to be submitted and
approved by RCA to indicate agreement with the consistency analysis.
A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is not
required for the project because there are not permanent impacts to the designated
Criteria Cells that the SJBL RCTC ROW passes through.
L1-13. The comment reiterates Section 14(a) of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
As indicated within the Draft EIR “the project will not have a substantial adverse
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-14 July 2011
effect…on candidate, sensitive, or special status species…” This is achieved through
the implementation of the 17 mitigation measures proposed for biology impacts.
L1-14. The project will impact riparian habitat that is under the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Fish & Game (see Draft EIR, Section 4.4). This habitat is quantified
within the Jurisdictional Determination report and in Table 5.5.2 of this comment
letter response. Additionally, permanent impacts will be mitigated through the use of
mitigation credits from the Santa Ana River Mitigation Bank.
L1-15. Any construction near potential areas that may contain southwestern willow
flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and California coastal gnatcatcher will occur outside the
breeding/nesting season identified in mitigation measures BR-12, 13, 14, 16, and 17.
The area of potential habitat for these species is located south of Poarch Road and
north of the I-215 underpass (approximately MP 5.3 to MP 6.0)
L1-16. See comment L1-7 for the results of the NEPS surveys. Since no NEPS were found
within the ROW, the 90% preservation requirement does not apply since there is no
population to protect.
L1-17 Surveys for western spadefoot toad were negative, however, additional surveys are
planned as part of pre-construction activities. Should western spadefoot toads be
identified within the project area at a future time appropriate mitigation will be
developed in coordination with RCA and CDFG.
L1-18. An assessment of the potential jurisdictional areas is contained in the Jurisdictional
Determination, Technical Report F of the Draft EIR. This document has been revised
with the most current engineering plans (90%) and will be provided as supporting
documentation to the project permit applications. The Tables 0.3.2-1 and 0.3.2-2
identify the impacts at each culvert.
L1-19. RCTC proposes a 1:1 mitigation for jurisdictional area impacts because of the very
poor functioning, disconnected habitat. Mitigation at ratio of 3:1 would be
disproportionate to the impacts caused by the proposed project. Therefore, RCTC
has imposed 1:1 mitigation and no further mitigation is required.
L1-20. This comment provides the phone number to obtain a Streambed Alteration
Agreement notification package.
L1-21. The comment introduces the Streambed Alteration Agreement and recommends the
information identified within L1-22 be incorporated into the CDFG permit application.
This will be done.
L1-22. An assessment of the potential jurisdictional areas is contained in the Jurisdictional
Determination, Technical Report F of the Draft EIR. This document has been revised
with the most current engineering plans (90%) and will be provided as supporting
documentation to the project permit applications. The Tables 0.3.2-1 and 0.3.2-2
identify the impacts at each culvert.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-15 July 2011
The impacts that are identified for the project cannot be avoided due to the nature of
the proposed work. Habitat has developed at either the opening, or exit of certain
culverts. This is very poor quality habitat because the areas are very small and does
not provide connection to adjacent habitat, and there is insufficient habitat size to
allow nesting or provide any overall value.
As previously identified the mitigation proposed for impacts to jurisdictional habitat is
to purchase credits at the Santa Ana River Mitigation Bank.
L1-23. The comment provides the State CEQA Guidelines definition of mitigation, but does
not provide a specific comment on the environmental document.
L1-24. The PVL project will utilize an existing rail ROW that has been in use for over 100
years. During that time the ROW has withstood extensive maintenance work from
grading, equipment storage, and vegetation control. The proposed rail work will be
contained within the existing ROW. The proposed Citrus Connection and station
facilities (Marlborough, Moreno Valley/March Field, South Perris, and the layover
facility) are all located on land outside of the ROW that has been previously
approved by different projects for commercial, industrial, or residential development.
In some cases these approvals were granted prior to the development of the
MSHCP. RCTC has agreed to mitigation measures for the PVL project that would
ensure the protection of species and habitat to cause the project to have a “less than
significant” impact on the local environment. The project is described and associated
mitigation measures are presented within the Draft EIR in such as a way that the
public can understand the project, the anticipated impacts, and related mitigation. In
regards to the specific concern mentioned about jurisdictional areas, the jurisdictional
areas are associated with the ends of specific culverts where runoff water was
focused, and then allowed to pond. This allowed very small jurisdictional areas (in
many cases less than 10 square feet) to develop. These areas are so small and
disconnected from suitable habitat, that they provide no function or value as a
jurisdictional area but are being mitigated as required by the “no net loss” policy
regarding impacts to riparian and wetland areas.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-16 July 2011
Letter 2
Department of Water Resources - David M. Samson
May 20, 2010
L2-1
L2-2
L2-4
L2-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-17 July 2011
Letter 2 (cont’d)
Department of Water Resources - David M. Samson
May 20, 2010
L2-5
L2-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-18 July 2011
Response to Letter 2
Department of Water Resources - David M. Samson
May 20, 2010
L2-1. The comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no further
response is required.
L2-2. DWR has an easement within the RCTC ROW. It should be noted that RCTC has
been in contact with DWR regarding coordination of design and anticipated
construction activities near DWR facilities. There are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L2-3. RCTC will coordinate with DWR for activities near DWR facilities. This will not
include a formal encroachment permit, but on-going coordination for design review
near DWR facilities. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
L2-4. RCTC will continue to coordinate with the appropriate DWR personnel regarding
design and proposed construction activities near the DWR facilities. There are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L2-5. Comment is informational. No response is necessary.
L2-6. RCTC will provide DWR with subsequent environmental documentation when
available in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-19 July 2011
Letter 3
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-2
L3-3
L3-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-20 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-5
L3-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-21 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-6
L3-7
L3-8
L3-9
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-22 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-10
L3-11
L3-12
L3-9 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-23 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-13
L3-14
L3-15
L3-16
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-24 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-17
L3-18
L3-19
L3-20
L3-21
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-25 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-22
L3-23
L3-24
L3-25
L3-26
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-26 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-27
L3-28
L3-29
L3-30
L3-31
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-27 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-31
L3-32
L3-33
L3-34
L3-35
L3-36
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-28 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-36 (cont’d)
L3-37
L3-38
L3-39
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-29 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-40
L3-41
L3-42
L3-43
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-30 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-44
L3-45
L3-43 (cont’d)
L3-46
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-31 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-47
L3-50
L3-48
L3-49
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-32 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-50 (cont’d)
L3-51
L3-52
L3-53
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-33 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-34 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-35 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-36 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-37 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-38 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-39 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-40 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-41 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-42 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-43 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-44 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-45 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-46 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-47 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-48 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-49 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-50 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-51 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-52 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-53 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-54 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-55 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-56 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-57 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-58 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-59 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-60 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-61 July 2011
Letter 3 (cont’d)
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-62 July 2011
Response to Letter 3
RUSD: Gresham & Savage - Tracy M. Owens
May 21, 2010
L3-1. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no further response is necessary.
L3-2. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master Response
#7 – Emergency Planning and Response, Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt
Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic), and Master Response #10 – Hyatt
Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment).
RCTC understands RUSD’s safety concerns. RCTC is committed to upgrading the
existing rail corridor through implementation of the PVL project. The upgrades
proposed by the PVL project would provide for safe operation of both the commuter
rail as well as the existing freight trains. RCTC believes the Draft EIR fully complies
with CEQA and does adequately analyze and mitigate all potentially significant
project impacts. No new impacts were identified in this comment and no additional
mitigation measures are required.
L3-3. This comment is introductory and does not raise specific environmental concerns. No
response is necessary.
L3-4. RCTC believes the Draft EIR complies with all requirements of CEQA and that the
public was provided extraordinary opportunities to participate throughout the
process. In addition to a public scoping meeting at the beginning of the process,
three (3) public hearings were conducted to solicit input from the public,
stakeholders, and affected public agencies. RCTC originally scheduled two [2] public
hearings during the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR; however, in
response to input received, RCTC added an additional, third public hearing. RCTC
staff also met with RUSD on several occasions throughout development of the
proposed project and participated in RUSD School Board meetings.
L3-5. RCTC believes the project description is adequate. Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR
describes all proposed track improvements and their locations by Mile Post (MP) for
the entire project, including near both Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools. There
are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR was not changed.
L3-6. This comment indicates the Draft EIR does not provide enough information regarding
proposed track upgrades and the construction process to allow for meaningful public
input and understanding of the potential impacts. As indicated in response L3-5,
Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR describes all proposed track improvements and their
locations by Mile Post (MP) for the entire project, including near both Highland and
Hyatt Elementary Schools.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, construction-related impacts
are analyzed based on assumptions about the number and type of construction
equipment that would be used in a worst-case scenario for similar types of rail
projects. Since the worst-case construction scenario was considered in the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-63 July 2011
evaluation of environmental impacts (and the Draft EIR found no unmitigable,
significant environmental impacts), the Draft EIR concluded that there will not be
additional impacts once the construction schedule and number and type of
construction equipment is finalized.
The worst-case scenario assumptions as to the types and numbers of construction
equipment that would likely be used to build the project are identified in the Air
Quality Technical Report attached to the Draft EIR as Technical Report B. For
example, for the track construction, the analysis assumed that 1,000 feet of track
would be laid per day, with an estimated number of 131 total days. One end loader,
backhoe, track laying machine (TLM), track tamper, and ballast regulator would each
be used for eight hours a day. One railroad car would be used for six hours a day
and one dynamic track stabilizer would be used for four hours a day. Lastly, one
water truck, one dump truck, and one welder’s truck would be used for nine hours a
day. A similar breakdown was used to analyze each project component.
In addition to the aforementioned assumptions, the Draft EIR explained the
anticipated construction process (Section 2.4.10). As such, the Draft EIR provides
an accurate and sufficient description of the project components. Based on this
description, the decision-makers and the public are given enough information to
understand and weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed PVL project. (Dry
Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20.) There are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-7. The landscape walls are supplemental project design features, not mitigation for any
identified impact and are provided in response to input received from RUSD. As
such, the walls are not subject to a defined performance standard.
At Hyatt Elementary School, the landscape wall is anticipated to be located near the
RCTC property boundary with the school. The school property boundary/wall location
is approximately 95 feet away from the closest rail. The landscape wall will be
constructed of similar material to the noise barrier, concrete block. The elevation
difference between top of the wall to existing ground will be approximately 8 feet.
Parallel to the wall will be an excavated ditch on the rail side of the wall. The
excavated soil will be used to create an earthen berm against the landscape wall.
The objective of the wall is to minimize the risk of rail cargo and debris reaching the
school grounds in the event of a train accident.
The landscape wall at Highland Elementary School is expected to fill in the break in
the noise barrier wall and be of the same height as the noise barrier (between 8 and
10 feet). However, the landscape wall is not intended to serve as noise mitigation.
Instead, the installation of the landscape wall will simply result in a continuous barrier
along and adjacent to the school boundaries. The landscape wall will also be made
of the same materials as the noise barriers so as to create a continuous and uniform
visual appearance.
RCTC is not planning to provide any vegetation to either the landscape walls or the
noise barriers as part of the PVL project. RCTC does not have irrigation water
available within the ROW to allow for watering of landscaping on the RCTC side of
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-64 July 2011
the barrier. The schools and other property owners that abut a noise
barrier/landscape wall would be able to provide landscaping on the side of barrier
that fronts their property if they so choose. The landscape irrigation and maintenance
would be the responsibility of the local property owner.
Information regarding construction is provided in the Draft EIR on pages 2-44 and 2-
45. Performance standards related to air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic
would be applied during construction. As stated in response L3-6, the Draft EIR
analyzed a worst-case scenario of construction impacts, which included work during
school hours. The results of the analysis indicate that construction activities for the
landscape walls would not significantly impact the schools. Therefore, no further
analysis is required. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-8. See Master Response #11 – Recirculate EIR and the CEQA Process. The project
description in the Draft EIR is accurate, stable and finite. It provides RCTC and the
public with sufficient information to understand the scope of the project and the
potential environmental impacts. Please refer to Responses L3-5, L3-6 and L3-7
above. The major components and stages of the project are described and CEQA
does not require anything more. The Draft EIR provides the decision-makers and the
public the necessary tools to understand the proposed project and potential project
related environmental impacts. Consequently, there is no need to recirculate the
Draft EIR. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L3-9. Comments concerning safety, air quality and noise are addressed below in
Responses L3-10 through L3-39.
L3-10. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master Response
#7 – Emergency Planning and Response, and Master Response #10 – Hyatt
Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment).
Kinder Morgan operates a jet fuel (JP5) line that supplies fuel to the March Air
Reserve Base. The six-inch pipeline is located within the RCTC ROW near Highland
Elementary School. The Draft EIR considers this pipeline line an existing condition
(Draft EIR, Section 4.7.1). The proposed project would not relocate or interact with
this pipeline in any way (Draft EIR, Section 4.7.4). However, during construction,
areas within RCTC ROW where the fuel line is less than three feet deep, a non-
permeable material will be placed over the fuel line where soil erosion has taken
place. This will reduce further erosion.
The addition of commuter rail to the existing railway line does not significantly
increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School and the Kinder
Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). Therefore, the analysis
in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and no mitigation is
required for this issue.
L3-11. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), and Master
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-65 July 2011
Response #7 - Emergency Planning and Response. As stated in the Draft EIR the
proposed PVL project would not create a reasonably foreseeable significant hazard
to the public or the environment through upset or accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR, Section 4.7.4). Per
the Zeta Tech Report, the risk of a derailment of a commuter train in the vicinity of
each school is approximately one derailment every 3,000 years. This statistic
demonstrates that derailment is not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore the impact is
appropriately determined less than significant.
In addition, the improvements proposed by the PVL project would improve the overall
safety of rail operations within the corridor. This would include both the existing
freight traffic as well as the future commuter trains. By improving the existing track
conditions, the current statistics regarding derailment are not representative of future
operating conditions. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no
significant impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue.
L3-12. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School. Attached to the comment letter is a report, “Railroad Safety
Study and Pipeline Risk Analysis” (Kleinfelder, November 2005, for Christopher
Joseph & Associates). This study was prepared in accordance with the California
Department of Education’s Guidance Protocol for School Site Rail and Pipeline Risk
Analysis. This guidance protocol is used for determining the risk associated with
siting a new school, not determining the risk at an existing school location. (See
Master Response # 2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary
School.) Additionally, the potential school site discussed in the study that the
commenter provided is located in northern California, which does not provide any
local information about derailment risk in the Riverside area. So, although the study
was prepared, it is irrelevant to the PVL project because the RUSD schools were
sited adjacent to this active rail corridor over 50 years ago.
Further discussion of the report can be found within Response to Comment L3-53.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
L3-13. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment), as well as, Response L3-14. The depth of the pipeline within
the ROW varies. In some places it is as deep as 10 feet and in other places it is as
shallow as 2 feet 4 inches. The reason for this range of depths is that erosion and
weathering slowly remove topsoil and therefore reduce the overall depth of the line.
Therefore, the description of the pipeline is not inconsistent or inaccurate.
Per Kinder Morgan's construction oversight and safety requirements described below
in L3-14, the engineering and construction activities will not impact the pipeline.
However, during construction, areas where the fuel line is less than three feet deep,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-66 July 2011
a non-permeable material will be placed over the fuel line where soil erosion has
taken place, this will reduce further erosion. Kinder Morgan has specific
requirements for work within their pipeline easement. One requirement is that a
company representative monitors construction activity within 25 feet of a pipeline.
RCTC will fully comply with Kinder Morgan’s standard requirements, including
monitoring of construction activity. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-14. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment). As stated in L3-13, no engineering or construction activities
are expected to impact the pipeline during construction. It should also be noted that
the drilling associated with the foundation for the landscape walls and noise barriers
will require a non-permeable barrier be placed over the fuel line in areas where the
pipeline is less than three feet deep. In addition to the wall work, new rail ties and the
placement of new ballast would be added to the existing ballast (which is not
anchored to the ground) to provide the appropriate support to the ties. The ties are
supported by the ballast that in turn are connected to and support the rails. The
ballast replenishment, and tie replacement (or re-leveling) occurs with the use of a
track car that travels on the rails and carries all the materials necessary to install and
maintain the track.
Kinder Morgan has specific requirements that must be met if construction is
conducted within their easement. These requirements are outlined in Kinder Morgan
Guidelines for Design and Construction near Kinder Morgan Hazardous Liquid
Operated Facilities (November, 2007), which includes (but is not limited to), the
following:
Design:
Kinder Morgan shall be provided sufficient notice of planned activities
involving excavation, blasting, or any types of construction on Kinder
Morgan ROWs to determine and resolve any location, grade,
encroachment problems and provide protection of Kinder Morgan facilities
and the public before the actual work takes place.
Encroaching entity shall provide Kinder Morgan with a set of drawings for
review and a set of final construction drawings shall show all aspects of
the proposed facilities in the vicinity of Kinder Morgan’s ROW. The
encroaching entity shall also provide a set of as-built drawings showing
the proposed facilities in the vicinity of Kinder Morgan’s ROW.
These Guidelines continue to address specific design issues, as well as construction
issues, including (but not limited to) the following:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-67 July 2011
Construction:
Contractors shall be advised of Kinder Morgan‘s requirements and shall
be contractually obligated to comply.
The continued integrity of Kinder Morgan’s pipelines and the safety of all
individuals in the area of proposed work near Kinder Morgan’s facilities
are of the utmost importance. Therefore, contractor must meet with
Kinder Morgan representatives prior to construction to provide and
receive notification listings for appropriate area operations and
emergency personnel. Kinder Morgan’s on-site representative will require
discontinuation of any work that, in his opinion, endangers the operations
or safety of personnel, pipelines or facilities. The Contractor must expose
all Kinder Morgan pipelines prior to crossing to determine the exact
alignment and depth of the lines. A Kinder Morgan representative must be
present. In the event of parallel lines, only one pipeline can be exposed at
a time.
A Kinder Morgan representative shall be on-site to observe any
construction activities within 25 feet of a Kinder Morgan pipeline or
aboveground appurtenance. The contractor shall not work within this
distance without a Kinder Morgan representative being on site. Only hand
excavation shall be permitted within two feet of Kinder Morgan pipelines,
valves and fittings unless State requirements are more stringent,
however, proceed with extreme caution when within three feet of the pipe.
A Kinder Morgan representative will monitor construction activity within 25
feet of Kinder Morgan facilities during and after the activities to verify the
integrity of the pipeline and to ensure the scope and conditions agreed to
have not changed. Monitoring means to conduct site inspections on a
pre-determined frequency based on items such as: scope of work,
duration of expected excavator work, type of equipment, potential impact
on pipeline, complexity of work and/or number of excavators involved.
Because construction for the PVL project would comply with all applicable Kinder
Morgan construction requirements, the project would not have significant impacts for
construction work around the pipeline and no mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct – there are no significant impacts
as a result of this issue and no mitigation measures are required. Additionally, this
comment has not raised new impacts and the Draft EIR has not been changed as a
result.
L3-15. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The analysis in
the Draft EIR is correct – there are no anticipated significant impacts as a result of
this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as
a result of this comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-68 July 2011
L3-16. See Response L3-13 and L3-14 above.
L3-17. See Master Response #6 – Noise. With respect to limiting construction noise near
schools, some of the commenters on the Draft EIR have requested that PVL
construction activities be limited to non-school hours. However, this type of noise
control measure would neither be reasonable nor feasible given the resulting limited
time within which the project would have to be constructed. In addition, the hours of
operation for a typical school are not limited to the school day, and subsequently
may include evening and early morning hours thus further reducing available
construction time. As a result, if the hours of allowable operation for construction
activities were to be restricted, the construction period would be extended and the
ability to complete the proposed project within a reasonable period of time would be
substantially compromised. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-18. See Response L3-6, L3-7, and L3-14, and Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan
Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary School. There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-19. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The Draft EIR
evaluates the risk of derailment to all people generally, not just students specifically
(Draft EIR, Section 4.7.4). According to the Draft EIR, if a SCRRA/Metrolink train
derails on the SJBL corridor there is a potential that the diesel fuel within the fuel
tanks could spill. Regardless, even if a derailment were to occur, the amount of
diesel in a full tank (2,500 gallons) would not be a large enough quantity to flow
outside of the RCTC ROW. Spill cleanup would consist of containing any ponded
fuel, and then clean-up the contaminated soil. Therefore, the analysis in the
Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and no mitigation is required for
this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and no mitigation
measures are required.
L3-20. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The Draft EIR
is correct - there are no significant impacts and no mitigation is required for this
issue. However, it should be noted that the master responses describe a more recent
risk analysis that was completed, the Zeta Tech Report. This report takes into
account train speeds of approximately 30 mph at Highland Elementary School and
less than 30 mph at Hyatt Elementary School. No new impacts as a result of this
comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
L3-21. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment). Additionally, the distance between the rail and Hyatt
Elementary School is between 95 and 125 feet away from the school property. The
photograph within the Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby
Residences Supplement Protection (Derailment), illustrates a view that accurately
represents the distance relationship between the rail and the school.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-69 July 2011
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts
and no mitigation is required for this issue. No new impacts as a result of this
comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
L3-22. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master Response #8 – Grade
Crossings. The statistic this comment cites, “from 1999 to mid-2008, 94 people died
from incidents involving Metrolink trains”, raises broader issues of safety beyond
derailments. The comment acknowledges this fact as well: “cars and pedestrians at
the 464 street-level crossings on Metrolink’s ROW are a key factor in the [Metrolink]
fatalities.”
With regard to grade crossings, safety is a primary concern of both RCTC and
SCRRA (the operators of the Metrolink service) for implementation and operation of
the project. Grade crossing improvements are identified along the PVL corridor in the
Draft EIR in Section 2.4.6 and Figure 2.4-28. Two grade crossings, at W. Blaine
Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue, are located near Highland (approximately 950 feet
away) and Hyatt Elementary Schools (approximately 3,960 feet away), respectively.
Improvements to these two grade crossings include pedestrian swing gates,
pedestrian warning devices and gates, pedestrian barricades and metal hand
railings, concrete raised medians, double yellow medians and island noses, warning
devices, safety lighting, and signs. Please note that these grade crossing
improvements are not mitigation for an impact; the Draft EIR found no significant,
unmitigable impacts as a result of the PVL project. The project does not increase
safety risks. Instead, the PVL project would upgrade the existing physical condition
of the rail line, which would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of
maintenance, and enhanced safety.
To further increase the awareness of trains and increase safety, Metrolink provides
“Operation Lifesaver,” a safety education program. Operation Lifesaver provides age
appropriate programs for communities and schools within the Metrolink service area.
For additional information regarding the program, see the Draft EIR on page 2-48.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts
and no mitigation is required for this issue. No new impacts as a result of this
comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
L3-23. See response L3-22 and Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. The grade
crossing warning systems are being upgraded along the entire PVL corridor. These
upgrades are approved by the CPUC and incorporate the most up-to-date safety
requirements. The commenter has provided two examples of accidents that did not
occur along the PVL alignment. RCTC will implement the most current Metrolink
standards for all grade crossings along the PVL project alignment. Nevertheless,
SCRRA/Metrolink cannot control individuals who willfully bypass or ignore safety-
warning devices and trespass onto the tracks. The Draft EIR stated that there are no
significant impacts as a result of the PVL project and no mitigation is required. There
are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-70 July 2011
L3-24. See response L3-19 through L3-23, Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and
Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train
Traffic). The Draft EIR found no significant safety impacts at grade crossings as a
result of the PVL project, with the implementation of mitigation measures. Since the
identified mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels,
no additional mitigation measures are required. There are no new impacts as a result
of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-25. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master Response #9 –
Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic). Regardless of
when the trains pass the school, the Draft EIR did not identify a significant risk to
Hyatt Elementary School from the PVL project. The SJBL/RCTC ROW is located
behind the school and would not interfere with students entering the school from the
entrance, which is located at the front of the school. The distance from the closest
classroom building at Hyatt Elementary School to the rail line is approximately 350
feet. It is also almost 100 feet from the basketball courts at the school to the nearest
rail. Additionally, there are no crossings near the school which means that children
would not be drawn to access the school from the back of the property and across
the tracks. The landscape wall will be constructed of similar material to the noise
barrier, concrete block. The elevation difference between top of the wall and the
existing ground will approximately 8 feet. Parallel to the wall will be an excavated
ditch on the rail side of the wall. The excavated soil will be used to create an earthen
berm against the landscape wall. The objective of the landscape wall is to minimize
the risk of rail cargo and debris reaching the school grounds in the event of a train
accident. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant
impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to
further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and
no mitigation measures are required.
L3-26. See response L3-7 and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The derailment
risk is less than significant; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.
Additionally, the landscape walls have been integrated into the project design as
project design features. Landscape walls are distinct from the noise barriers, which
are mitigation for noise related impacts. The landscape wall will be constructed of the
same material as the noise barrier, concrete block. The elevation difference between
top of the wall and the existing ground will approximately 8 feet. Parallel to the wall
will be an excavated ditch on the rail side of the wall. The excavated soil will be used
to create an earthen berm against the landscape wall. The objective of the landscape
wall is to minimize the risk of rail cargo and debris reaching the school grounds in the
event of a train accident. Therefore, no new impacts were raised by this comment
and no mitigation measures are required.
L3-27. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The Draft EIR explains that the
derailment potential for a commuter train is less than significant (Draft EIR,
Section 4.7.4). Therefore, mitigation measures are not required.
The three-foot berm does not currently exist near the Hyatt Elementary School. In
the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary School, a wall will be constructed very near the outer
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-71 July 2011
limit of the right of way. The elevation difference between top of the wall to existing
ground will be approximately 8 feet. Paralleling the wall will be an excavated ditch on
the railway-side of the wall. The ditch spoils will be used to create an earthen berm
against the reinforced concrete wall. The objective of the wall is to minimize the risk
of rail cargo and debris reaching the playground in the event of a train derailment.
L3-28. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Response and Planning. Emergency access
to Hyatt Elementary School would either come along Central Avenue to Watkins
Drive from the south or along Watkins Drive from the north. Neither of these main
roads is bisected by the RCTC ROW. In the event of a derailment near Hyatt
Elementary School, emergency response would be able to reach the train by
entering the RCTC ROW at Poarch Road (south of the school), or by entering the
ROW at Manfield Street (north of the school).
Emergency access to Highland Elementary School could come from either Spruce
Street (north of the school) or from Blaine Street (south of the school). If either
Spruce Street or Blaine Street is blocked for any reason, the other street could be
used for access into or out of the area. Emergency response would be able to reach
the derailed train by entering the RCTC ROW at the same grade crossings and not
having to travel through the school.
Furthermore, the PVL project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a few cars.
These trains are too short to block more than a single crossing. Thus, even in the
unlikely event that a project train stops in the neighborhood, there would be no
significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress locations would be
affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become a
shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under the responsibility of SCRRA. Due
to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be
allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood) because
this would block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would stop in the
areas where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90, the section that
is parallel and adjacent to I-215) and not in the UCR neighborhood. Therefore, there
are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L3-29. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. There are no reports of student deaths
as a result of train traffic along the SJBL. SCRRA/Metrolink provides a safety and
awareness program called Operation Lifesaver (Draft EIR, Section 2.4.14). This
program is designed to increase awareness of the trains and the extreme hazards
created by illegally crossing the tracks. The program is designed for both students
and the general public. It should also be noted that students do not have to cross the
ROW, legally or illegally, to reach Hyatt Elementary School. The main road into the
area is Watkins Drive. There are no impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-30. For the proposed PVL project, a health risk assessment was conducted, following
CEQA air quality guidelines, to take into account the effects of air toxic contaminants
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-72 July 2011
on human health (see Draft EIR, Section 4.3.3). The results of the health risk
assessment are shown in Table 4.3-9 of the Draft EIR and are presented in full detail
in the Air Quality Technical Report, Appendix C. Based on the results shown in
Table 4.3-9, there would be no exceedances of the impact thresholds for any of the
criteria pollutants arising from the operation of the proposed PVL project. Therefore,
the Draft EIR adequately considers potential health impacts to children at the
elementary schools.
Concerning air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in specific locations, the
Draft EIR evaluated carbon monoxide hot spots at six specific locations. Included in
those six locations were Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.3.4). The hot spot analysis evaluated the potential impacts to sensitive
receptors near intersections most affected by the project, and parking lots (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.3.4). Additionally, the health risk assessment evaluated potential
impacts to sensitive receptors as a result of diesel emissions (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.3.4). Based upon the hot spot analysis and the health risk assessment, it
was determined that the risk to sensitive receptors would be below the SCAQMD
threshold of significance. Therefore, it was determined that the impacts to sensitive
receptors would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
L3-31. See L3-17 and Master Response #6 – Noise. The results of the assessment of
construction emissions from the proposed project are shown in Table 4.3-11 (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.3.3). None of the daily construction activities would exceed
SCAQMD’s daily construction emissions thresholds and, therefore, are properly
identified in the Draft EIR as less than significant (see Draft EIR, Section 4.3.3).
Although significant adverse impacts would not occur during construction,
contractors would be required to implement BMPs during the construction period to
control fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.3.3, and the Air Quality Technical Report).
Information regarding construction is provided in the Draft EIR, Section 2.1.10.
Performance standards related to air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic would be
applied during construction.
L3-32. The purpose of the health risk assessment is to evaluate the potential health risks
created by the proposed project (see response L3-30). The proposed project would
add twelve (12) passenger commuter train trips to the existing rail alignment. The
addition of 12 passenger commuter train trips was taken into account in the health
risk assessment and was found to have a negligible effect on emissions in the
vicinity of nearby homes, schools, and businesses along the PVL alignment.
Concerning pollutant emissions from existing freight trains, because the PVL project
is already included in the RTIP (see Draft EIR, Section 4.3.2), existing freight
emissions are already accounted for with regard to public exposure. In addition,
emissions from the existing freight trains are included in measurements taken by
local air quality monitoring stations. Consequently, pollutant emissions from existing
freight trains are already accounted for in the baseline condition. Moreover, the
AQMD health risk methodology specifically requires that the analysis focus on the
project’s incremental risk to health, which was properly the focus of the health risk
assessment.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-73 July 2011
In addition, the project underwent a regional-level air quality assessment and it was
determined that the PVL is not a POAQC on April 16, 2010
(http://www.scag.ca.gov/tcwg/projectlist/march10.htm). A copy of the TCWG review
form is shown in Appendix F of the Air Quality Traffic Report. Any additional
increases in train traffic above that described for the proposed PVL project would
have to be evaluated independently of this assessment.
Overall, with the consideration of existing emissions and expected reductions in
vehicle traffic as a result of the use of the PVL commuter trains, the proposed PVL
project would result in decreases in emissions for the majority of pollutants, thus
producing a cumulative net benefit to the region’s air quality.
L3-33. See above response to L3-32.
L3-34. The discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR accurately
assesses cumulative impacts of the proposed PVL project in the context of past,
present, and probable future projects in the PVL study area. As indicated above,
freight train emissions were included in the baseline conditions and were
appropriately captured by the cumulative impact analysis. The discussion of air
quality within the Cumulative Impacts Section 5.3 in the Draft EIR is correctly
addressed. Also, see response to L3-32.
L3-35. Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) are entirely voluntary (see SCAQMD Fact
Sheet on LSTs, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/localgovt/images/lst_fact_sheet.pdf). Based on the SCAQMD
Fact Sheet, it is recommended that proposed projects larger than five acres in area
undergo air dispersion modeling to determine localized air quality.
For operational impacts, LSTs are more appropriate for stationary source projects.
With respect to the proposed project, this would apply to proposed stations and their
parking lots. As noted in the above referenced LST Fact Sheet for construction
impacts, LSTs are more appropriate for a medium sized to large project that would
have a longer-term influence on specific sensitive receptors neighboring the
construction site. None of the stations that will be constructed as part of the PVL
project would be larger than two acres in size so the PVL would be considered a
smaller project. The overall project construction period is estimated at approximately
18 months. However, because of the linear nature of rail construction, the actual
construction period at any one individual sensitive receptor would be approximately
two to three months. As a result, the assessment of localized air quality impacts for
the proposed project did not utilize LSTs.
However, for project operations, a microscale analysis utilizing the NAAQS was
conducted for the project. Pollutant concentrations were calculated near the
intersections in the study area where air quality is expected to be the worst. In
addition, localized calculations were made near receptors close to proposed PVL
parking lots. Finally, a health risk assessment was conducted based on diesel
emissions from the operation of the proposed SCRRA/Metrolink locomotives.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-74 July 2011
With respect to construction, the daily SCAQMD regional construction threshold
emission limits were used in the assessment of PVL construction. In this manner, the
overall project impact can be evaluated. With respect to any temporary localized
construction emissions, contractors would be required to implement BMPs to control
fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (see Draft EIR,
page 4.3-25).
L3-36. This comment correctly indicates that Mitigation Measure NV-1 requires the noise
barrier to be 680 feet long and nine feet high.
L3-37. See Master Response #6 – Noise. A noise barrier specifically designed to mitigate
project noise levels is proposed for Highland Elementary School (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-11). The required project noise decibel reduction near the school is less
than one decibel (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16). However, the noise barrier would
actually provide three decibels of project noise reduction (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-
11). The height and length of the proposed noise barrier can be found in the
Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16. The noise barrier will be constructed of concrete block.
L3-38. See Master Response #6 – Noise. A noise barrier is provided to attenuate noise
impacts at Highland Elementary School. The landscape wall will be constructed of
the same material and at the same height as the noise barrier in order to provide
continuity with the noise barrier. The locations of the landscape walls are shown on
Figure 4.1-4 Landscape Walls, and locations of the noise barriers are shown on
Figure 4.10-6 Noise Barrier Locations of the Draft EIR.
L3-39. See Master Response #6 – Noise. As explained in the Noise and Vibration Technical
Report, construction noise impacts of the proposed project were evaluated using the
established FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (see
Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Section II G). According to the FTA
methodology, potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors are measured in Leq,
which accounts for sensitivity of particular land uses (see FTA Manual, Section 12.1).
Local ordinances and noise codes were not used in the assessment because they
are typically associated with maximum noise levels (Lmax) which are not to be
exceeded. While this represents useful information limiting noise from a construction
site, they are not practical for assessing the noise impact of an actual construction
project since human sensitivity to noise is related to both time and degree, and local
noise ordinance Lmax levels do not assess potential impacts over a period of time.
Conversely, the FTA construction noise criteria utilize an equivalent noise level (Leq)
which is applied over a specific period of time. Because these criteria are assessed
over a period of time, they are more effective at identifying impacts on humans’ daily
activities and annoyance levels.
Based on the examination of potential construction noise impacts at a representative
worst-case location, a construction noise assessment for the Perris Station area was
conducted since this area would experience the most noise impacts. The criteria
used for selecting the representative location included the proximity of construction
activities to noise sensitive receivers and the extent of construction-related activities
in the area. The location at 228 C Street in the City of Perris was chosen because it
is directly adjacent to the alignment and the proposed Perris Station. Therefore, it
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-75 July 2011
represents the only sensitive cluster location adjacent to the alignment that would be
exposed to both station and track-related construction activities. This is a worst-case
scenario in terms of the potential impact to a sensitive residential receptor, the length
of time for construction, the distance to an existing receptor, and the types of
equipment that would be used. No impacts were predicted at this location and
therefore, it is assumed that no impacts would occur at other locations (such as
Highland Elementary School) where less intense construction would occur. With
respect to the types of construction equipment that would be used for track and
station construction, noise levels and types of equipment are presented in the
Draft EIR Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Table 14. The similarity between
construction equipment used in rail construction projects and street utility projects is
also made in the Draft EIR. The construction activity that would create the most
noise and vibration is pile driving associated with the bridge replacements near the
South Perris Station and Layover Facility, around the San Jacinto River. However,
since there are no noise sensitive receptors located within almost one mile of the
proposed Layover Facility and the pile driving sites, construction-related noise
impacts would not occur.
Construction noise impacts as defined by the FTA construction noise criteria (see
FTA Manual, Section 12.1.3) would not be expected. However, during the normal
allowable hours of construction defined in the local noise ordinances, project-related
construction activities could result in increases in noise levels at noise-sensitive
areas adjoining the project alignment. These increases would be based on potential
occurrences of atypical events given the inconsistent and transitory nature of some
construction activities and equipment usage. Contractors are required to adhere to
the local noise code and therefore, implement standard construction noise control
measures such as: temporary construction noise barriers, low-noise emission
equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf).
L3-40. The traffic impact study identifies key intersections that are likely to be affected by
the assignment of project-generated trips by considering the primary streets serving
the general area and the potential access points to the stations. These include
mainly intersections in close proximity of the proposed station locations because the
project-generated trips would originate from various directions, and merge together
in the vicinity of the station, resulting in more substantial increases in traffic at these
intersections than remote intersections.
With respect to cumulative projects, discussions were held with local jurisdictions to
identify all major approved land developments to be occupied or implemented by the
PVL opening year, which were incorporated into the traffic analyses of the future
opening Build Year (see Draft EIR, Section 4.11.4).
L3-41. The size of the March LifeCare Campus indicated in the comment letter reflects the
full build-out size of this project, which would be developed over the next 20-25
years. Because the Draft EIR studies only the PVL opening year of 2012, the traffic
impact analysis for the Moreno Valley/March Field Station area incorporated the
vehicle trip generation and assignments from the 2011 opening year of the March
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-76 July 2011
LifeCare Campus, which represents approximately 25 percent of the daily vehicle
trips that would be expected by full build-out.
The trip generation and vehicle assignments for the March LifeCare Campus
development as well as other cumulative projects in the area were derived from the
Cactus Avenue and Commerce Center Drive Commercial Center Traffic Impact
Study (2008) per the direction of the City of Moreno Valley. A review of the March
LifeCare Campus Specific Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (2009)
was undertaken per this comment, which indicated that the trip generation for the
March LifeCare Campus opening year used from the Cactus Avenue and Commerce
Center Drive Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study per the direction of the City in
the Draft EIR is accurate. Therefore, the total number of trips that was assumed to
be added to the roadway network by the March LifeCare Campus in the Draft EIR
remains unchanged.
However, the vehicle assignments in the March LifeCare Campus EIR differ from the
assumptions of the 2008 Cactus Avenue and Commerce Center Drive Commercial
Center Traffic Impact Study. The 2009 March LifeCare Campus EIR generally
assigns slightly higher traffic volumes (in the range of 50 vehicles per hour) to the
study area intersections than the 2008 Cactus Avenue and Commerce Center Drive
Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study, with the exception of Alessandro Boulevard
and Cactus Avenue at Old 215, where the 2009 March LifeCare Campus EIR’s
assigned traffic to westbound Alessandro Boulevard and Cactus Avenue is lower
than the volume used in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was revised to incorporate the
vehicle assignments from the 2009 March LifeCare Campus EIR (see Appendix D of
the Traffic Technical Report). However, this revision did not reveal new or different
significant environmental impacts or mitigation measures compared to the originally
circulated Draft EIR; it merely clarified and amplified the existing explanation.
Therefore, these revisions do not require recirculation. (State CEQA Guidelines
§ 15088.5).
L3-42. The analyses for the 2012 Conditions with and without the proposed PVL project at
Moreno Valley/March Field Station were revised to incorporate the vehicle
assignments provided in the 2009 March LifeCare Campus EIR, as this document
provides more recent and detailed information relating to this development. The
revised traffic volumes and levels of service are provided in Figures 14 and 26 and
Tables 3 and 7 in the Traffic Technical Report to the Draft EIR. As shown in Tables 3
and 7, traffic impacts at the Moreno Valley/March Field Station would be the same as
the original traffic counts. The previously recommended Mitigation Measure TT-1
(signal timing adjustments) at the Cactus Avenue/Old 215 intersection would
completely mitigate the PVL project impacts (see Draft EIR, Section 4.11.6).
Therefore, no new significant impacts would result and no new mitigation measures
are necessary.
L3-43. See Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR, which addresses growth-inducing impacts. The
PVL project is intended to provide an option to commuters along the I-215 corridor.
In this way, the project is accommodating the existing population. While the PVL
project would alleviate current traffic congestion by providing alternative means of
transportation it would not itself promote future growth. Moreover, because the PVL
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-77 July 2011
study area is serviced by existing roads, highways, and freeways, the PVL project
does not remove a transportation impediment to growth. The infrastructure already
exists. Finally, RCTC does not have land use authority. Therefore, the scope of
RCTC’s authority is limited to providing transportation planning and implementation
that accommodates local and regional growth induced by decisions made by local
governments with land use jurisdiction. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-44. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The PVL project would not increase
freight train usage. Instead, the PVL project would provide for improved track
conditions along the RCTC ROW to accommodate commuter rail service into the I-
215 corridor. As stated in Master Response #5, freight service depends on market
based conditions and not the condition of local tracks. If the PVL is not constructed,
then freight traffic will continue on the existing tracks as a market driven service and
will abide by the local freight speed restrictions in place for the various segments of
track. The growth inducing impacts analysis is sufficient and no impacts would result
from this comment. Therefore, no changes in the Draft EIR are necessary.
L3-45. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The improved track conditions will
not increase freight traffic either directly or indirectly. The improved track conditions
will provide for safer operations along the entire corridor. Freight traffic will only
increase if local market forces demand it.
L3-46. CEQA does not require an evaluation of future train service needs in this PVL
Draft EIR because (1) the future train service is not a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the PVL project, which is a commuter rail project; and (2) the future
expansion of commuter rail service will likely change the scope of this PVL project
because the PVL project involves adding 12 commuter train trips to the line whereas
a future expansion would add more trips to the project description. (Laurel Heights
Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. 396.)
Moreover, RCTC does not have current plans to add future train service to the PVL.
Consequently, RCTC has committed to conduct supplemental environmental review
should additional train stations become necessary along the corridor.
L3-47. See response to comment L3-46. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15130, the Draft EIR evaluated a list of past, present and probable future
projects producing related or cumulative impacts. The list included fourteen (14)
related projects (see Draft EIR, Section 5.3). The list of projects was established
based on information “garnered from interviews with county and city planning
agencies” Appendix E (see Draft EIR, Section 5.3). Appendix E was attached to the
Draft EIR during public circulation and provided a list of individuals who were
contacted for interviews in preparation of the Draft EIR. This list includes the City of
Riverside Principal Planner, City of Moreno Valley Planning Official, Principal
Planner for the Riverside County Planning Department, Planning Manager for the
March Joint Powers Authority, and the Executive Director for the Western Riverside
Council of Governments. These varied individuals provided a broad perspective on
past, present, and probable future planning activities within the project area, which
also included “those projects outside the control of the agency”, as mentioned in
State CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(A). As stated in the Draft EIR, these
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-78 July 2011
individuals provided the project team with the list of projects that was included in the
analysis.
L3-48. See response L3-46. Economic conditions and recent trends make projecting future
ridership beyond the project’s opening year of 2012, speculative, at best.
L3-49. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the Draft EIR evaluated a
list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts. The list included fourteen (14) related projects (see Draft EIR, Section 5.3).
The list of projects was established based on information “garnered from interviews
with county and city planning agencies” Appendix E (see Draft EIR, Section 5.3).
Appendix E was attached to the Draft EIR during public circulation and provided a list
of individuals who were contacted for interviews in preparation of the Draft EIR. This
list includes the City of Riverside Principal Planner, City of Moreno Valley Planning
Official, Principal Planner for the Riverside County Planning Department, Planning
Manager for the March Joint Powers Authority, and the Executive Director for the
Western Riverside Council of Governments. These varied individuals provided a
broad perspective on past, present, and probable future planning activities within the
project area, which also included “those projects outside the control of the agency”,
as mentioned in State CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(A). As stated in the Draft EIR,
these individuals provided the project team with the list of projects that was included
in the analysis.
As no specific concerns were raised, a more specific response is not required.
(Browning-Ferris Industries v. City of San Jose (1986) 1818 Cal. App. 3d 852 [where
a general comment is made, a general response is sufficient]). Therefore, there are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-50. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the Draft EIR evaluated a
list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts. The list included fourteen (14) related projects (see Draft EIR Technical
Reports B through D for Air Quality, Noise and Vibration and Traffic). The list of
projects was established based on information “garnered from interviews with county
and city planning agencies” Appendix E (see Draft EIR, Section 5.3). Appendix E
was attached to the Draft EIR during public circulation and provided a list of
individuals who were contacted for interviews in preparation of the Draft EIR. This list
includes the City of Riverside Principal Planner, City of Moreno Valley Planning
Official, Principal Planner for the Riverside County Planning Department, Planning
Manager for the March Joint Powers Authority, and the Executive Director for the
Western Riverside Council of Governments. These varied individuals provided a
broad perspective on past, present, and probable future planning activities within the
project area, which also included “those projects outside the control of the agency”,
as mentioned in State CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(A). As stated in the Draft EIR,
these individuals provided the project team with the list of projects that was included
in the analysis.
L3-51. March LifeCare Campus was analyzed in the cumulative analysis. For example, it is
discussed in Section 4.11.4. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-79 July 2011
L3-52. The discussion of the March LifeCare Campus in the Draft EIR in Section 4.11.1 is
revised in this Final EIR to further clarify what was considered in the traffic analysis.
The updated text states that:
“March LifeCare Campus is a development project including a mix of healthcare and
ancillary uses, including hospitals, general and specialty medical offices, medical
retail, research and education, a wellness center, senior center,
independent/assisted-living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and related support
facilities. The project will be developed in five planning areas, of which the first two
are expected to be developed by 2011, and include a 50-bed hospital, 660 units of
institutional residential, 190,000 square feet of medical office, 200,000 square feet of
research and education, and 210,000 square feet of retail land uses. The remaining
planning areas will be developed over the next 20 to 25 years. Therefore, the trip
generation and vehicle assignments associated with only the first two planning areas
for this project were incorporated into the 2012 future traffic volumes without the
project. Vehicle trip generation and assignments for this development project were
obtained from the March LifeCare Campus Specific Plan Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (Applied Planning Inc., 2009).”
The analysis did not mistakenly identify the March LifeCare Campus as being only a
30-acre project; it only considered the phases of the project that would occur in the
reasonable future. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3-53. See Responses L3-12 and L3-14, and Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan
Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary School, Master Response #3 –
Derailment (General), Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport, Master
Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response, and Master Response #10 -
Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection
(Derailment).
Attached to the comment letter is a report, “Railroad Safety Study and Pipeline Risk
Analysis” (Kleinfelder, November 2005, for Christopher Joseph & Associates). This
study was prepared in accordance with the California Department of Education’s
Guidance Protocol for School Site Rail and Pipeline Risk Analysis. This guidance
protocol is used for determining the risk associated with siting a new school, not
determining the risk at an existing school location. (See Master Response # 2 –
Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary School.) Additionally,
the potential school site discussed in the study that the commenter provided is
located in northern California, which does not provide any local information about
derailment risk in the Riverside area.
With regard to railroad hazards, the study states that, “For example, a determination
of low probability of a hazardous situation would be based on non-hazardous
materials being transported, low frequency of track use, the presence of control
measures within a system, the existence of emergency response plans, the
existence of federal, state, or local agencies that inspect and permit these
businesses, and a low rate of emergency incidents in the industry as a whole.”
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-80 July 2011
The PVL project is a commuter rail project and, as such, there would never be an
occasion when hazardous materials would be transported. The SJBL alignment near
Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools currently has about two freight trains
traveling on it daily and, including the PVL project commuter trains, 14 train trips
would occur along the SJBL alignment. This number is far less than the study’s
project with 32 passenger trains and 28 freight trains, and could be considered a low
frequency of track use. Additionally, the PVL project includes track improvements
throughout its length that would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail
line, which would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance,
and enhanced operational safety (see Draft EIR, Section 4.7.1).
Furthermore, as explained in Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and
Response, SCRRA/Metrolink developed a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) as a
means of integrating safety into all facets of SCRRA, and RCTC, in concert with
FTA, is preparing a PVL Safety and Security Management Plan (SSMP) to continue
to integrate safety and security specifically into the PVL project. Additionally, the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have a variety of rules and
regulations in place to maintain safety and security along rail corridors, with which
the PVL project would be fully compliant (explained more fully in Master Response
#7 – Emergency Planning and Response). Finally, Master Response #3 –
Derailment discusses statistics of past derailments. These calculations show that the
risk for train derailments on SCRRA tracks is lower than the risk for train derailments
on BNSF tracks. The reason for this difference is that, because the SCRRA tracks
are used for commuter rail, the tracks are maintained to high standards of safety and
ride quality due to their role in public passenger transport.
The PVL project would not transport hazardous materials and would have a low
frequency of track use. Control measures within a system would be present,
emergency response plans would exist, federal, state, or local agencies would
inspect and permit the project, and the tracks would be upgraded to SCRRA tracks,
which would mean a lower risk of derailments than is currently present. Therefore,
the PVL project would be considered having a low probability of a hazardous
situation occurring.
With regard to pipeline hazards, a separate risk analysis was conducted for the
Kinder Morgan pipeline and Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools because both
are already in existence (Analysis of Safety Issues for the Proposed Commuter Rail
Service on the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s Perris Valley Line in
the Vicinity of the Highland and Hyatt Schools, Zeta Tech, 2011). This risk analysis
supporting the finding that no significant impacts would occur with the addition of
PVL commuter trains to the tracks.
Furthermore, Response L3-14 describes the risk management procedures Kinder
Morgan requires for construction activities near their pipelines, and Master Response
#7 – Emergency Planning and Response describes the federal, state, and local,
emergency response plans present. As stated in Master Response #2 – Kinder
Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary School, maintenance and
operation of fuel pipelines are defined and mandated by state and federal laws, with
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-81 July 2011
which Kinder Morgan is in full compliance. Additionally, unlike the project analyzed in
the study, the PVL project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone
or fault, and the seismic risk is considered less than significant. Finally, the
calculations determining the probability of a fatality resulting from a leak or rupture
presented in the study are specific to that project, and are not appropriate to
compare with the PVL project.
The aforementioned explanations further illustrate the validity of the evaluation in the
Draft EIR, namely that the implementation of the PVL project would not result in
significant impacts to Hyatt or Highland Elementary Schools. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
Also, included with the report attached to commenter’s letter was a photograph taken
from Hyatt Elementary School looking east as a freight train was travelling north. The
photograph appears to exaggerate the actual spatial relationship between the SJBL
and school. It should be noted the closest rail is approximately 350 feet away from
the nearest school building and more than 90 feet to the school property line. The
photo included in Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby
Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment) better illustrates the distance
between the rail and the school property.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-82 July 2011
Letter 4
California Department of Transportation - Daniel Kopulsky
May 25, 2010
L4-2
L4-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-83 July 2011
Letter 4 (cont’d)
California Department of Transportation - Daniel Kopulsky
May 25, 2010
L4-4
L4-2 (cont’d)
L4-3
L4-5
L4-6
L4-8
L4-7
L4-9
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-84 July 2011
Letter 4 (cont’d)
California Department of Transportation - Daniel Kopulsky
May 25, 2010
L4-5 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-85 July 2011
Response to Letter 4
California Department of Transportation - Daniel Kopulsky
May 25, 2010
L4-1. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
L4-2. This comment indicates that the California Department of Transportation previously
commented in support of the PVL project. In addition, it is indicated that intersections
operating at LOS E or F would require improvements. The comment closes by
pointing out specific mitigation measures that RCTC included in the Draft EIR to
address traffic impacts. RCTC notes that the City of Perris now has jurisdiction over
the intersection of SR-74 (now 4th Street) and D Street, and that the intersection at
Bonnie Drive and southbound I-215 ramps is in the PID phase.
L4-3. One of the six ramp termini locations requested to be analyzed, I-215 at Bonnie
Drive, has already been analyzed as part of the project, and included in the Draft EIR
(see Draft EIR, Section 4.11.4 and Table 4.11-8). The analyses indicated that the
project would result in significant impacts at this location, and a new traffic signal was
proposed to fully mitigate those impacts.
Another location, where the northbound I-215 on-ramp splits off from Cactus Avenue
to the highway below, would experience an increase of up to 106 vehicles during the
peak hours, none of which would be merging onto I-215. As this intersection does
not have any traffic control devices and all project-generated traffic is assigned to the
westbound through movement, the level of service would be constrained by the
traffic signal operation downstream at the Cactus Avenue intersection with the
southbound I-215 off-ramp, which is analyzed in the Draft EIR (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.11-6).
As shown in the Traffic Technical Report, Figures 17 through 22, the project would
add fewer than 49 vehicles during the peak hours to the remaining ramp termini
locations listed (I-215 at Columbia Avenue, I-215 at Alessandro Boulevard, I-215 at
D Street, and I-215 at Redlands Avenue), and these locations do not experience
significant delay, unstable or forced traffic conditions (LOS E or F) per the Cities of
Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris General Plans. Therefore, a traffic impact study
would not be required at these locations according to the most recent web-issued
Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
L4-4. The Draft EIR identifies key intersections that are likely to be affected by the
assignment of project-generated trips by considering the primary streets serving the
general area and the potential access points to the stations. Following this approach,
two ramp termini intersections were selected and analyzed using the Highway
Capacity Manual procedures as advocated by Caltrans, and significant impacts at
State facilities that would be caused by the PVL project were disclosed in the
Draft EIR. Thus, there is no reason to anticipate that utilization of Synchro software
would result in different findings or conclusions.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-86 July 2011
Further, such network simulation would require an extensive data collection effort.
Considering that the PVL is a commuter rail project with relatively low levels of new
trip generation at any study area intersection approach and these trips would occur
mostly outside of typical peak traffic periods, an extensive data collection program
and additional Synchro analyses would be disproportionate to the small percentage
of study approaches (13 of 163 studied) that were potentially impacted.
L4-5. As indicated above, an in-depth study including merge/diverge and queuing analyses
of the I-215 ramp termini locations mentioned was determined not to be necessary
per the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
L4-6. The levels of service with/without the project and with improvements (mitigation)
have been indicated in the Traffic Technical Report to the Draft EIR for two termini
locations (Cactus Avenue/SB I-215 and Bonnie Drive/SB I-215). Refer to Table 3,
Table 7 and Table 8 in the Traffic Technical Report.
L4-7. All traffic impact analyses and supporting documentation are provided in the Traffic
Technical Report and its six appendices (A–F). As mentioned above, Synchro was
not utilized for this project as it was determined that impacts could be properly
assessed for this project without its use; therefore, electronic Synchro analysis files
are not available (see Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies).
L4-8. A Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be obtained for any work within Caltrans ROW.
L4-9. RCTC will provide Caltrans with any subsequent environmental documentation in
accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-87 July 2011
Letter 5
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-1
L5-2
L5-3
L5-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-88 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-6
L5-5
L5-7
L5-8
L5-4 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-89 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-8 (cont’d)
L5-9
L5-10
L5-11
L5-12
L5-13
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-90 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-14
L5-15
L5-16
L5-17
L5-18
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-91 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-18 (cont’d)
L5-19
L5-20
L5-21
L5-22
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-92 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-23
L5-24
L5-25
L5-26
L5-30
L5-27
L5-28
L5-29
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-93 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-31
L5-32
L5-33
L5-34
L5-35
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-94 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-35 (cont’d)
L5-36
L5-37
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-95 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-96 July 2011
Letter 5 (cont’d)
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-97 July 2011
Response to Letter 5
City of Perris - Michael Morales
May 24, 2010
L5-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. However, this comment expresses support for the project. No response is
necessary.
L5-2. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
L5-3. The project does not propose any landscaping outside of the station parking areas.
The parking areas are being landscaped to provide a visually pleasing experience to
patrons of the Multi-Modal Transit Center. There is no intention of providing seating
areas, or pedestrian plazas outside of the current Multi-Modal Transit Center.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L5-4. This comment states that the area around the South Perris Station and Layover
Facility “is currently zoned light industrial or Riverglen Specific Plan…The
incorporation of mitigation measures, although not described in the EIR, would
support the finding that the planned improvements are consistent with the scenic
vistas in the area.” This comment misunderstands the term “scenic vista” as it
applies to CEQA. While the definition of a scenic vista according to CEQA is
subjective, a general plan, specific plan, zoning code, or other planning ordinance
can identify scenic vistas. For example, as stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.1.2,
“according to the Multipurpose Open Space Element chapter in the Riverside County
General Plan, ‘Scenic vistas are points, accessible to the general public, that provide
a view of the countryside’.” The Riverside County General Plan and the City of Perris
General Plan do not identify specific scenic vistas in the vicinity of the South Perris
Station and Layover Facility.
Furthermore, the proposed Layover Facility is planned to be located across Case
Road from the existing wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater plant currently
has limited landscaping and is surrounded by chain link fencing. The PVL project
intends to match the wastewater treatment plant fencing and will provide for a
consistent visual experience. Since there are no scenic vistas that would be
impacted, no mitigation measures, such as the “decorative garden wall” are required.
This comment also states that, “the proposed project should consider a landscape
plan that provides for a landscape design that fosters a scenic roadway…” However,
as the Draft EIR stated, there are no impacts to scenic roadways and therefore no
mitigation measures are required. As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.1.1, a “scenic
roadway” or a “scenic highway” are designated on a national, state, and local level.
Roadways can be designated as scenic by the National Scenic Byways Program, the
California Scenic Highway Program, or a city’s general plan. The nearest, designated
scenic highway near the South Perris Station/Layover Facility is SR-74. As the
Draft EIR states in Section 4.1.4, from this location, “the view of SR-74 currently
includes an airport, wastewater treatment plant, and various industrial structures.”
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-98 July 2011
Since the South Perris Station and Layover Facility would be consistent with existing
conditions and would not introduce new visually impacting elements around SR-74,
there are no significant impacts as a result of the project. Therefore, no mitigation
measures, including the “landscape plan” that this comment suggests, are
necessary. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L5-5. RCTC is currently coordinating fencing plans with the City of Perris. SCRRA has very
specific fencing requirements to safely guide pedestrians to appropriate crossings of
the RCTC ROW. SCRRA requires welded wire mesh fence along the ROW and as
an intertrack fence where two or more tracks run adjacent to one another, i.e., the
Orange Empire Railroad Museum (OERM) track from 4th to 7th Streets. There are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-6. Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the Air Quality Technical Report) outlines the
extensive measures used to calculate the expected emissions due to the
implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for the PVL accounted for
relevant project parameters and conditions. Where applicable, the analysis was done
in compliance with the most up-to-date local, state, and federal air quality regulations
and guidance from the SCAQMD, CARB, and the USEPA. Table 4.3-10 of the
Draft EIR shows that emissions of greenhouse gases by the locomotives associated
with the PVL will be completely offset by the reduction in emissions resulting from the
diversion in ridership from private vehicles.
It should be noted that the station locations do not propose habitable buildings. The
proposed stations comprise a platform, canopy over the platform, and parking as
described with the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.2 . The platform and parking area lighting
is designed to provide sufficient lighting to provide a safe experience for commuters
while at the station but to cycle to limited lighting when the platform and parking
areas are not in use. This is designed to conserve energy. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-7. As stated in the comment, RCTC continues to coordinate with the City of Perris
regarding the existing and project conditions of the Downtown Perris Station (the
Multi-Modal Transit Center). There are many safety considerations to evaluate prior
to allowing vehicle traffic through the middle of an existing passenger platform.
The Perris Downtown Specific Plan, on page II-6, requires street closures to
eliminate rail and vehicular conflicts at 2nd, 5th, 6th and G Streets. The PVL project is
consistent with the specific plan’s goals to eliminate vehicular conflicts with the
proposed rail operations and minimize grade crossings where vehicles and/or
pedestrians would have to wait for a train to pass.
Resolution 3647 for the vacation (formal closure) of portions of 1st and 2nd Streets
states the City reserves and exempt from the vacation an easement and right to non-
vehicular trails (pedestrian access) but does not mention fire or vehicular crossings
to be maintained (in short, no vehicles but pedestrians would be allowed). This is
reiterated in Condition #8 of the conditions of approval for the street vacation P06-
0063, and does not mention vehicular access is to be maintained.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-99 July 2011
Also, the Perris Multimodal P05-0425 Condition #4 from the Department of
Engineering states “First and Second Streets within this project shall be vacated
subject to 60’ wide utility easement retained by the City for maintenance of utilities”
but does not mention the exception or reservation for vehicular access or emergency
vehicular crossings. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-8. The Layover Facility is for storing trains overnight. It is expected that the inside of the
trains would be cleaned of any solid waste debris, and empty the restroom holding
tanks for appropriate treatment while at the Facility. There is no anticipated
maintenance at the Layover Facility, and no hazardous materials storage. All train
maintenance work would occur outside the SJBL corridor.
Additionally, the PVL project will comply with both the local storm water requirements
but also the most current Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Permit for
Riverside County. The site will have a detention basin and vegetative swales as
permanent BMPs for the site.
The Layover Facility will incorporate best management practices post construction to
reduce contaminated runoff. BMPs could include catch basin inserts and oil/water
separators that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the MS4s.
The BMPs selected place the emphasis on separating runoff flows from industrial
activities. For example, track underdrains will be routed to the storm drain system
while track drip pans and track pit drains will be routed to an oil-water separator then
diverted via a sewage force main to the sanitary sewer. This ensures that runoff from
industrial activities do not contaminate storm water runoff. Grading is designed such
that storm water runoff flows away from the track pit, track drain pan, or sewage
dump stations so that storm water runoff is separate.
The South Perris Station will incorporate BMPs that could include catch basin inserts
and oil/water separators that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from
entering the MS4s. The lack of storm drain infrastructure in the area and deeper
underground storm drainage facilities limit the storm drain BMP selection for this
Station to above ground facilities such as swales and shallow basins. Parking lot
sweeping will mitigate gross pollutants, where particulate matter, sediments and oils
will be mitigated by long swales and the detention basin.
The detention basin will be designed with an outlet structure containing orifice plates,
weirs and/or an overflow structure that will drain the basin within 48 hours as to not
attract a hazard to the airport operations from bird nesting or migratory birds (and
comply with ALUC approval conditions). Extended detention using the limit of 72
hours to mitigate mosquito breeding will be eliminated and the more restrictive
design of a complete drain down time within 48 hours will be adopted. It should be
noted that the EMWD Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility’s outfall into
the adjacent basin across Case Road (21.6 acres in area) will be a more significant
attraction to migratory birds than the station’s basin (1.3 acres in area), especially
since the outfall is partially full over much longer periods of time throughout the year
whereas the station’s basin will be dry most of the year.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-100 July 2011
The increased impervious area created by the additional parking lots at the
Downtown Perris Station was analyzed and the increased runoff resulting from the
additional impervious area will be controlled through the modification of the
approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) from Phase I for the existing
Perris Multimodal Facility. It is not expected that the hydraulic flow will require the
replacement of the existing oil-water separator (Vortechnic Unit model 4000), The
station’s proposed improvements will not significantly alter the design methodology in
the approved WQMP from the previous phase. Therefore, there are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-9. See response L5-11. In addition, the PVL project is proposing oil/water separators to
remove contaminants prior to discharge into the local storm water system or into the
San Jacinto River. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-10. During operation, the PVL project is not anticipated to generate sediment/turbidity,
nutrients, organic compounds, or oxygen demanding substances. The operation and
maintenance of the SJBL alignment for the PVL project would be the same as it is
currently; therefore, no new nutrients, organic compounds, or oxygen demanding
substances would be created.
It is noted that the City will classify the PVL project (Perris, South Perris and Layover
Facility are only project components that the City can regulate) as an industrial
activity and the WQMP selections and designs will be adjusted accordingly with the
specified Standard Industrial Classification codes and the appropriate items added
for industrial education materials, industrial activity mitigations, and inspection logs.
Based upon the industrial activities noted, and the Riverside County/City’s Storm
Water Management Plan’s pollutant matrix with respect to the development’s use
and activities, the potential to create the pollutants listed is noted and the WQMP will
address each accordingly. The discussion of the scope and detail of such controls
will be addressed in the project specific WQMP. Therefore, there are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-11. It is anticipated that the largest potential contributor of pollutants would be the
passenger cars parked at the station sites during the day. RCTC will implement
source control by providing regular sweeping of the parking areas at each of the
station sites.
A WQMP is being developed that addresses the impairments of downstream
reaches, specifically Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore which are listed in the State’s
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to the following:
Canyon Lake - nutrients and pathogens; Lake Elsinore – nutrients, organics and
toxicity. Since the project’s downstream receiving waters are listed as impaired, the
project specific WQMP will address specific controls that will result in a no net
loading criteria for the listed impairments in the downstream reaches. The extensive
discussion for these mitigations is the subject of the WQMP.
To summarize, the WQMP makes controls of site, source and treatment mechanisms
to eliminate potential pollutants and the impaired listed pollutants from entering
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-101 July 2011
downstream reaches via the project’s storm water runoff. To accomplish this, the
project makes use of the following:
(1) Site design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as:
a. Reducing the storm water runoff using detention methods. At the South
Perris Station, a detention basin to promote infiltration and minimize
developed flows. At the Downtown Perris Station, pipe detention to
minimize developed flows.
b. Minimizing impervious areas by clustering the developed areas as much
as possible and only improving the width of streets required for the
expected traffic flows.
(2) Source control BMPs such as:
a. Non-structural source controls such as education of employees on the
proper handling of hazardous wastes, spill prevention, outdoor storage
restrictions, proper disposal of landscape wastes, education of low flow
irrigation systems and leak inspections, education on storm water
pollution, contamination and control measures.
b. Parking lot sweeping to eliminate trash, debris and pathogen propagation.
Common area litter control by maintenance personnel.
c. Drainage facility inspection and proper maintenance to prevent the build-
up of trash and debris, sediments or erosion problem areas.
d. Structural source control BMPs such as trash enclosure isolation to
prevent the transport of pollutants offsite via wind and water by placing
the bins in a masonry enclosure, providing a roof to eliminate storm water
run-on, lids on the bins to prevent wind transport, and grading controls to
prevent runoff from entering the enclosure.
e. Catch basin stenciling.
f. Irrigation designs such as the use of low flow irrigation design and point-
to-point emitter instead of pop-up spray heads, irrigation controllers with
rain sensors, and limit or group landscaping.
g. Pave the fueling or maintenance areas with concrete instead of asphalt
concrete to minimize spill degradation of the paving, grade controls to
prevent storm water run-on, isolation of the area to prevent spills from
draining offsite.
(3) Treatment control BMPs such as:
a. Vegetative swales to promote biofiltration and infiltration of low flows.
b. A detention basin that eliminates pathogens through the disposal of low
flows via infiltration.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-102 July 2011
c. Swale pre-filters such as the Kristar SwaleGard that captures and
contains gross pollutants while promoting infiltration and oil absorption
(http://www.kristar.com/products.asp?id=14).
d. At the Downtown Perris Station, treatment controls include a Vortechnic
storm water clarifier that includes oil-water separation and hydrodynamic
pollutant separation via a vortex grit chamber.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L5-12. Culverts: It was the intent of the investigation associated with the PVL project to
identify the existing conveyances tributary to the RCTC ROW and their influence on
the existing culverts along the SJBL alignment. During meetings with Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Caltrans, requests were
received from the agencies to convey only the existing runoff and that no additional
conveyance could be accommodated. These requests coincide with the PVL design
philosophy to upgrade the track alignment, ditches and culverts to current Metrolink
standards. Special considerations were made to ensure that the improvements being
made do not have an adverse effect on the upstream and downstream properties
and existing systems with increased erosion or other impacts. Therefore, the PVL
design was to upgrade the track and culverts for immediate service and not to
upgrade to future development, including drainage.
Crossings and Bridges: Drainage design for the street crossings in Perris attempted
to design for the 100-year design storm per the City’s and SCRRA requirements. The
crossings in Perris from 4th Street south to Ellis do not have existing local drainage
systems which can accommodate the volume of water in the 100-year design storm
because of the relatively flat local topography therefore the project is unable to meet
these requirements without constructing extensive new storm drains throughout the
area. The designs include low flow systems to convey water from the west under the
tracks to the east as per existing flow patterns, or capture the street flow and convey
it down the RCTC ROW towards the San Jacinto River. The project maintains the
existing flow patterns and doesn’t conflict with the overall Area Drainage Plan.
At the San Jacinto River, the existing flow capacities under the two bridge structures
were maintained as is to comply with the “No Rise” constraint for flood zone
requirements. As such once the capacities are reached, the storm water will begin to
overtop the bridges and tracks. The designs of all facilities in this area consider this
situation. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L5-13. See previous comment.
L5-14. See Responses L5-9 through L5-13 regarding the adequacy of drainage facilities.
RCTC and the project design engineers will continue to coordinate with the City of
Perris, Caltrans, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District with regards to drainage improvements related to the project. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-103 July 2011
L5-15. RCTC and the project design engineers will continue to coordinate with the City of
Perris. As stated in Responses L5-9 through L5-13, the PVL project will not
significantly impact hydrology and water quality. Therefore, there are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-16. The comment proposes paying the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) development fee
within the City of Perris. As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.4.5, RCTC shall pay
the $500 per acre to the SKR for development outside of the existing ROW. This fee
will be paid when the project applies for grading permits for South Perris Station and
the Layover Facility. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-17. The Pinacate Railroad Station is outside of the Area of Potential Effect as identified
for the PVL project, which means the PVL project will not impact it. As stated in the
Draft EIR, Section 4.5.4, the historic Perris Depot is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places and will not be impacted by the PVL project. Additionally, the PVL
project will not modify the setting and engineering of the tracks so the “historic
connection between Pinacate Station and the historic depot” will not be significantly
impacted. The State Office of Historical Preservation has agreed to this conclusion
(letter dated October 4, 2010).
Please see Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. The grade crossing
improvements at 4th Street and 7th Street would include pedestrian swing gates,
pedestrian warning devices and gates, pedestrian barricades and metal hand
railings, concrete raised medians, double yellow medians and island noses, warning
devices, safety lighting, and signs. These improvements would meet the current
standards set by the CPUC. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-18. RCTC is currently in discussions with the City of Perris, SCRRA and the CPUC to
determine the location of the pedestrian crossing that is mentioned at both 1st Street
and 2nd Street to provide pedestrian access from C Street to D Street between San
Jacinto Avenue and 4th Street to comply with the Downtown Specific Plan. There are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-19. The PVL project intends to provide commuter rail service along the I-215 corridor
between the cities of Riverside and Perris. The goals and objectives of the project do
not rely on pedestrian movements in order to be successful. The goals and
objectives relate to removing vehicles from the I-215 corridor. With the stated goals
and objectives, the station locations need to be easily accessed by passenger
vehicles or the project will not be successful.
L5-20. The City of Perris General Plan EIR, October 2004, does not include 5th Street in the
list of “at-grade” crossing identified on page 135. Also on the map, Exhibit 4.9-6, City
of Perris Future Roadway Network, 5th Street is not shown crossing the ROW. The
street is physically blocked with concrete barriers during the environmental analysis
but the closure of 5th Street is not complete and the City still retains rights. The PVL
project will file the necessary submittals, street vacations, design reviews and work
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-104 July 2011
with the City to legally complete the closure. There are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L5-21. RCTC intends to pay the appropriate project fees as required to develop the project
features. For the South Perris Station and Layover Facility, the General Plan
Amendment and Zoning change, are being coordinated with the City directly. There
are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L5-22. A detailed noise assessment as per the “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual, 2006) was conducted for project Metrolink trains at
representative sensitive properties along the entire project rail alignment (FTA
Manual. page 3-10). Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including sound
insulation and noise barriers were proposed at specific locations to reduce impacts to
less than significant levels. Specific locations analyzed included the downtown
Promenade, the Mercado Condominiums and Neighborhoods 1 and 2 (see
Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-5, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11). Less than significant noise impacts
were predicted at sensitive properties in the City of Perris. As a result, noise
mitigation was not proposed for the City of Perris.
It is important to note that, the FTA Manual contains noise criteria based on USEPA
studies that have been adapted by major federal agencies such as the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (FTA Manual, Section 2.4 & 2.5.5).
The City of Perris General Plan “noise element” is also based on HUD standards;
therefore, the PVL noise assessment methodology is consistent with Perris noise
element standards.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L5-23. See Comment L5-22. The downtown Perris area, including the Promenade district
was examined for sensitive residential receptors. One sensitive receptor at the
Senior Center on 146 W San Jacinto Avenue was selected for analysis (see
Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-5, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11). This receptor was closest to the
alignment and is most representative of potentially impacted noise sensitive sites in
the area. As indicated in the Draft EIR, there would be no noise impacts to the Senior
Center (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11). Therefore, no mitigation was required (Id.).
L5-24. See Comment L5-22. The downtown Perris area, including the Mercado area was
examined for sensitive residential receptors. Sensitive receptors on 10th Street, State
Street and Case Road were selected for analysis (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-5,
4.10-10 and 4.10-11). These receptors were closest to the alignment and are most
representative of potentially impacted noise sensitive sites in the area. As indicated
in the Draft EIR, there would be no noise impacts to sensitive receptors at 10th
Street, State Street or Case Road (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-10). Therefore, no
mitigation was required. (Id.)
L5-25. See Comments L5-22, L5-23 and L5-24.
L5-26. The City of Perris General Plan Circulation Element, page 14, paragraph 2 states
that “According to Caltrans policy, roadways maintained by Caltrans (I-215 and SR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-105 July 2011
74 in the City of Perris) must maintain a minimum LOS of “D“. The City of Perris
currently has adopted minimum LOS of “E” (based on the 1991 General Plan
Circulation Element) along its local roads.” This criterion is correctly stated in the
Draft EIR in Section 4.11.2. Therefore, the Draft EIR text will remain unchanged.
L5-27. This intersection was analyzed as signalized for the future conditions, based on
previous information provided by the City of Perris. As the City of Perris has decided
not to put this signal into operation by the PVL opening year, this intersection was re-
analyzed as an all-way stop controlled intersection for the future conditions without
the project and the analyses in the Draft EIR were updated accordingly. The
signalization of this location is now proposed as a PVL project feature. Therefore, the
future conditions with the project were also revised. However, these changes did not
result in new, different, or amplified impacts. Instead, the revisions merely clarify the
future conditions and the proposed PVL project feature.
L5-28. The Draft EIR’s assumptions regarding the trip distribution are based on the project’s
ridership model, which shows that the majority of the passengers coming from the
north would originate from the residential communities east of Perris Boulevard
between Rider Street and San Jacinto Avenue. Passengers would need to travel
north to Ramona Expressway or south to Harvill Avenue to access I-215, either of
which would lengthen their travel distance, as opposed to traveling south on Perris
Boulevard to access the station. Overall, Perris Boulevard would be a shorter and
more direct travel route for these passengers. Please refer to Appendix E of the
Traffic Technical Report attached to the Draft EIR for the station access maps.
L5-29. The Draft EIR analyses and text were revised to propose a different Mitigation
Measure TT-2 at the intersection of SR-74 and D Street for the north and
southbound D Street’s left-turn/through movements. The revised mitigation measure
(to reduce the maximum green time for the east/westbound SR-74 left-turn phase to
14 seconds during the PM analysis hour) was added to the Draft EIR in place of
restriping north/southbound D Street.
L5-30. This comment is not entirely correct. Although certain movements at two of the
intersections mentioned, SR-74 and Nuevo Road at Perris Boulevard, would operate
at LOS E or F in the future, those intersections would not experience any
deterioration in level of service from future conditions without the project to future
conditions with the project. Also, all approaches at the intersection of 7th Street at
Perris Boulevard would operate within LOS C with the project. Therefore, no
mitigation was required for these intersections.
The intersection of San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue would experience
significant increases in delay, for which the installation of a new traffic signal was
recommended as a mitigation measure. A traffic signal will be installed at this
location by a private developer for the Venue at Perris project (not part of the PVL
project) as conditioned by the City of Perris upon the completion of the SR-74 and I-
215 Interchange Improvement project in early 2012. All approaches at this
intersection would operate within LOS D with this measure in place (as shown in
Table 4.11-9 in the Draft EIR).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-106 July 2011
Finally, the intersection of San Jacinto Avenue and C Street was reconfigured
recently and the 2012 future conditions without the project were revised as a result.
In addition, the PVL project would implement intersection control and striping related
changes at this intersection as part of the San Jacinto Avenue crossing
improvements (restripe westbound San Jacinto Avenue with a left/through shared
and a right-only lane and make the intersection two-way stop controlled with San
Jacinto Avenue having the ROW). Therefore, the future conditions with the project
were revised to reflect these changes. The intersection would not experience any
significant traffic impacts with these improvements in place. Therefore, no new
mitigation measures are necessary.
L5-31. The roadway acquisitions that are identified within the Draft EIR are necessary for
safety issues related to sight lines, placement of warning devices or necessary space
for turning movements. The acquisitions are not related to providing additional
roadway capacity necessary to mitigate for project traffic impacts.
L5-32. The project would not add any new vehicle trips to the intersection of I-215 and
Nuevo Road, and would assign up to 80 vehicles to Case Road intersections at
Mapes and Murrieta roads, which, considering the existing volumes (less than 3,000
vehicles daily) and roadway levels of services (LOS A) indicated in the City of Perris
General Plan Circulation Element, would not be a significant increase and would not
be expected to create any significant traffic impacts. Therefore, detailed analyses at
these three locations were deemed to be unnecessary.
L5-33. It should be noted that the Draft EIR does not propose the complete closure of 2nd
Street in downtown Perris. The grade crossing at 2nd Street was closed to vehicular
and pedestrian traffic in 2008 as part of the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility project
(not a part of the PVL project) and will remain closed to vehicular traffic permanently.
Therefore, the traffic analysis performed for the Draft EIR evaluated 2nd Street as
closed. With regards to pedestrian access, the Draft EIR does not propose any
changes to the Condition of Approval for the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility
project. RCTC continues to work with the City of Perris, SCRRA and the CPUC as
indicated by the commenter to ensure full compliance with the Conditions of
Approval and with the Downtown Specific Plan.
L5-34. The closure of Ellis Avenue was considered as part of the project in the earlier
planning stages but the closure was later abandoned. The current version of the
Draft EIR (April, 2010) no longer proposes this closure. Ellis Avenue will be improved
as part of the PVL project in accordance with the agreement between RCTC and the
City of Perris.
L5-35. In the event that planned traffic signals are not installed by other projects (unrelated
to the PVL) prior to the opening year of the PVL (as part of the future conditions
without the project), the installation of additional traffic signals at three locations
where significant impacts are expected (San Jacinto and Redlands avenues, SR-74
at northbound I-215 Off-Ramp, and SR-74 at Sherman Road) shall be required as
part of the PVL project.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-107 July 2011
L5-36. The proposed PVL project is the extension of Metrolink service from the existing
Riverside Downtown Station to south of the City of Perris. All proposed
improvements are directly related to initiating commuter rail service to this area. Any
improvements that are not directly related to implementing the PVL project are not
included or identified, particularly if they are outside the existing ROW. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L5-37. This comment concludes the letter and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-108 July 2011
Letter 6
State Clearinghouse - Scott Morgan
May 26, 2010
L6-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-109 July 2011
Letter 6 (cont’d)
State Clearinghouse - Scott Morgan
May 26, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-110 July 2011
Response to Letter 6
State Clearinghouse - Scott Morgan
May 26, 2010
L6-1. This comment is introductory in nature, informational and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-111 July 2011
Letter 7
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
L7-1
L7-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-112 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
L7-2 (cont’d)
L7-3
L7-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-113 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
L7-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-114 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-115 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-116 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-117 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-118 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-119 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-120 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-121 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-122 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-123 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-124 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-125 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-126 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-127 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-128 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-129 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-130 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-131 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-132 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-133 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-134 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-135 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-136 July 2011
Response to Letter 7
Metropolitan Water District - Delaine Shane
May 20, 2010
L7-1. This comment is informational and does not raise specific environmental concerns.
Therefore, no response is necessary.
L7-2. The commenter identifies the following MWD facilities within the PVL project area;
Colorado River Aqueduct, Chemical Unloading Facility, Box Springs Feeder, Perris
Valley Pipeline, and a future pipeline to connect the Perris Valley Pipeline with Lake
Mathews.
L7-3. RCTC will coordinate with MWD for project improvements near the MWD easement.
It should be noted that attached to commenter’s letter was a document entitled
“Guidelines for Development of the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or
Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California”. This
attachment, as indicated, outlines the MWD requirements for work near existing
facilities. Since MWD does not require an environmental related permit there is no
need to update Table 1.6-2. However, RCTC will coordinate with MWD, as
necessary. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L7-4. A copy of the 90% plans has been sent to the Substructures Section of MWD for
review. RCTC will continue to coordinate with MWD for project improvements that
are identified near the MWD existing facilities. There are no new impacts as a result
of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L7-5. This comment concludes the letter and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-137 July 2011
Letter 8
MARCH Joint Powers Authority - Dan Fairbanks
June 3, 2010
L8-1
L34-2
L8-3
L8-4
L8-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-138 July 2011
Letter 8 (cont’d)
MARCH Joint Powers Authority - Dan Fairbanks
June 3, 2010
L8-5
L8-6
L8-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.2 AGENCY LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.2-139 July 2011
Response to Letter 8
MARCH Joint Powers Authority - Dan Fairbanks
June 3, 2010
L8-1. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
L8-2. This comment indicates that March JPA’s comments are limited to the Moreno
Valley/March Field Station only. Therefore, no response is necessary.
L8-3. This comment expresses March JPA’s concurrence with the traffic impact analysis in
the six specified areas. Therefore, no response is necessary.
L8-4. The commenter identifies the three categories of traffic impacts evaluated in the
Draft EIR. However, the commenter does not raise specific environmental concerns
regarding the analysis. Therefore, no further response is required.
L8-5. Traffic signal timing changes are a low-cost, easily implemented mitigation measure
that is widely accepted by the engineering community (A Toolbox for Alleviating
Traffic Congestion and Enhancing Mobility, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
1996). The proposed signal timing changes at Cactus Avenue and Old 215 would not
require any changes/upgrades to the traffic control hardware and can be achieved by
simply reprogramming the controller. Further, the addition of travel lanes as a
mitigation measure as suggested would be redundant at this location since all
intersection approaches (with the exception of the westbound Cactus Avenue
approach, which would experience a significant impact) would operate at acceptable
levels-of-service C or better and well below their theoretical travel capacities.
Moreover, roadway widening is a capital-intensive measure that may entail potential
land acquisition and extensive roadway reconstruction. Therefore, adjusting the
signal timing to allow more effective use of the signal system and the existing
roadway capacity is a more preferable measure in the pursuit of smooth traffic
operations.
L8-6. The traffic signal is not recommended as a mitigation measure, but is incorporated
as part of the design for the proposed station (refer to Figure 2.4-13 of the Draft EIR).
L8-7. This comment closes the letter and does not raise specific environmental concerns.
Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-1 July 2011
0.3.3.1 Other Interested Parties Letters
Table 0.3.3.3-1
Response to Other Interested Parties Letters
Letter
No. Commenter Date Page No.
1. R.A. Barney Barnett 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-2
2. Stephanie Pacheco 5/17/2010 0.3.3.1-70
3a. Austin E. Sullivan 5/17/2010 0.3.3.1-76
3b. Austin E. Sullivan 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-88
4. David Keeling 5/2/2010 0.3.3.1-97
5. Paul W. Carlisle 5/7/2010 0.3.3.1-99
6. Aliana Lopez de Victoria 5/14/2010 0.3.3.1-101
7. Mark Hansen 5/17/2010 0.3.3.1-105
8. Martha Offeney 5/17/2010 0.3.3.1-117
9. Espana Velez 5/17/2010 0.3.3.1-122
10. Lenita Kellstrand 5/19/2010 0.3.3.1-125
11. Diane E. Elton 5/21/2010 0.3.3.1-129
12. Kevin Dawson 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-132
13. Robert Hice 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-143
14. Robert J. Dobry 5/17/2010 0.3.3.1-148
15. Robert A. Phillips 5/23/2010 0.3.3.1-150
16. Ramona Batista 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-160
17. Gurumantra S. Khalsa 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-167
18. Marcia McQuern 5/19/2010 0.3.3.1-170
19. Kenneth S. Alpern, MD – The Transit Coalition 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-172
20. Richard E. Block 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-178
21. Len Nunney 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-197
22. Cindy Roth – Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce 5/28/2010 0.3.3.1-201
23. Raymond W. Johnson – Johnson & Sedlack 5/24/2010 0.3.3.1-203
24. Highland Elementary School (Multiple Submissions) 5/17/2010 0.3.3.1-211
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-2 July 2011
Letter 1
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-3 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-4 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-5 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-6 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-7 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-8 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-9 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-10 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-11 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-12 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-13 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-14 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-15 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-16 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-17 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-18 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-19 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-20 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-21 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-22 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-23 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-24 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-25 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-26 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-27 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-28 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-29 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-30 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-31 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-32 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-33 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-34 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-35 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-36 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-37 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-38 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-39 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-40 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-41 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-42 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-43 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-44 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-45 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-46 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-47 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-48 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-49 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-50 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-51 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-52 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-53 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-54 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-55 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-56 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-57 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-58 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-59 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-60 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-61 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-62 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-63 July 2011
Letter 1 (cont’d)
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-64 July 2011
Response to Letter 1
R.A. Barney Barnett
May 24, 2010
L1-1. The submittal is a compilation of material in support of a new Highgrove station. Most
of the materials are signature cards or internet postings or newspaper articles that
express the commenter’s opinion on the need for a Highgrove station. Since pure
opinion does not constitute substantial evidence of environmental concerns under
CEQA, no response to these materials is required (see State CEQA Guidelines §§
15384, 15088). With regard to those materials that do raise environmental
comments/issues, responses are provided below. Since the materials raise the same
issues many times, the responses below are presented in a discussion format to
avoid repetition. The Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove
Station and reasons why it is not being considered as part of the proposed project.
This response provides the most up to date information regarding why the Highgrove
station is not part of the PVL project.
The concept of a Metrolink Station in the Highgrove area has been raised by
members of the public throughout RCTC’s commuter rail planning process. In
response, RCTC studied the concept on a number of occasions between 1994 and
2010. The evaluations consistently reaffirm that a Highgrove area station is not a
feasible option for the PVL project. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1)
[feasibility of alternatives can be determined based on factors such as site suitability,
economic viability, availability of infrastructure].) Below is an explanation of why the
Highgrove area station is not feasible.
During the planning period for the proposed project, site conditions have changed at
the commenter’s Highgrove area station site. The previously undeveloped 34± acres
of private land now has an approved Parcel Map and Design Review (Planning Case
P06-1506 and P06-1508) from the City of Riverside (November 2007) for
development of the Citrus Business Park. Improvements to the property will include
constructing four new industrial buildings (509,787 square feet). Access was
approved via Citrus Street; emergency access is via Villa Street.
With public access to the site limited to Citrus Street, access across Springbrook
Wash is the only way to access the two designated parcels north of the Wash. This
area, north of the wash, was approved for two industrial buildings as part of the
approval for the Citrus Business Park. The approved access is from a new crossing
constructed on the western portion of the site, adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way.
Since the approval of the Citrus Business Park, the two industrial buildings south of
Springbrook Wash have been constructed. As such, the existing condition for the
commenter’s proposed Highgrove station site consists of two industrial buildings with
access from Citrus Street and a crossing at Springbrook Wash at the western
boundary of the property adjacent to the BNSF.
The proposed PVL project would construct the Citrus Connection on the two parcels
north of Springbrook Wash. As discussed in the environmental document, the Citrus
Connection would connect the BNSF main line with the SJBL/RCTC ROW via a
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-65 July 2011
short curved track to be constructed. This would replace the two industrial buildings
proposed for this northern area.
In addition to the approved Citrus Business Park, the City of Riverside is scheduled
to start construction of a railroad grade separation at Iowa Street on the BNSF main
line. The planned grade separation would allow Iowa Street to be raised over the
BNSF main line between Palmyrita Street and Spring Street. Citrus Street would
remain in the current configuration but only a right turn in/right turn out would be
allowed to and from Iowa Street.
It should also be noted that construction has started on the Spring Mountain Ranch
development, along the northern section of Pigeon Pass Road. The Riverside
County Transportation Department (RCTD) is currently studying alternatives for
roadway alignment through the development to connect Pigeon Pass Road with the
City of Riverside. Currently, neither Center Street nor Villa Street (Highgrove area)
connect to the east to provide access to the Spring Mountain Ranch area. The
closest connection for Pigeon Pass Road would be at Marlborough Street which
allows access to the Hunter Park Station. These alignments will continue to be
studied by RCTD.
The planning history of the PVL began in 1988 when RCTC initiated studies of
potential station sites on the BNSF main line to serve future commuter rail service to
Orange County. As a result, RCTC decided to purchase passenger rail operating
rights on the BNSF. As the Metrolink system expanded within Riverside County,
existing stations were reaching capacity and various station selection studies were
undertaken. Unlike other Metrolink member agencies, RCTC takes responsibility to
fund the capital and operating costs for Metrolink Stations within the county. As such,
RCTC takes into account both capital, operation, and maintenance costs when
evaluating station locations.
Commuter rail station siting and selection considerations are based on a number of
factors, including projected ridership and revenue; operational requirements;
geographic spacing in relation to other stations; right-of-way requirements and
availability; local conditions such as surrounding land use and traffic circulation; and
rail configuration. Additionally, both the BNSF and the CPUC prefer the Marlborough
Station location over the Highgrove site. The BNSF is concerned the Highgrove
station location would cause increased congestion on the main line and not be a
feasible option (Project Meeting, February 25, 2009). The CPUC identifies the
Marlborough Station as the preferred location because of the existing roadway
access. The Highgrove station would require two new grade crossings while
Marlborough would not require any (email communication, February 2, 2011).
From an engineering perspective, the Highgrove area station is infeasible for the
reasons enumerated below:
Prior to planning the PVL project, RCTC received public input concerning the
construction of transit facilities in the Highgrove area. The desired facilities included
locating a station on the BNSF main line near Citrus and Villa Streets. RCTC has
revisited the feasibility of this option numerous times in the past (1994, 1999, 2003,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-66 July 2011
2007, and 2009). In general, the limitations identified by RCTC in early evaluations
have not changed over the years. During a January 2006 evaluation, RCTC
identified the following key reasons to decline development of a Metrolink commuter
rail station at Highgrove on the BNSF:
1. Public preference was to expand existing stations (38%) compared to
construction of brand new stations (only 6% of the public wanted a Highgrove
option when compared to three other station sites);
2. Constrained Operating Environment – Highgrove weekday volume ranks the
lowest in comparison to the current train volumes for the five existing RCTC
Metrolink stations. The closest station (existing Riverside Downtown Station) to
the Highgrove area is only 3.7 miles away. The Riverside Downtown Station
train volume is more than 4 times that of a potential Highgrove option. Riverside
Downtown serves three commuter lines while Highgrove would serve just one
line.
3. It was determined that the opportunity to have a station site on the RCTC owned
SJBL alignment, at a location just south of the Highgrove area (Hunter Park
region), would be a better solution instead of purchasing property from BNSF.
The Hunter Park Station would also allow for commuters from the Spring Mountain
Ranch the shortest access via Marlborough Avenue or Palmyrita Street (which
connects to the Ranch development directly). Neither Citrus Avenue nor Villa Street
connect east across the SJBL/RCTC ROW to allow access to a station from the east.
Subsequently, after the January 2006 presentation, members of the public requested
additional evaluations to determine the viability of the Highgrove station option as
part of the PVL project. In February 2009 RCTC requested STV Incorporated to
prepare a Highgrove Station Site Plan Study. The results of this study indicated 13
impediments to the construction of a Highgrove Station. On September 19, 2009,
Barney Barnett submitted a letter rebutting STV Incorporated’s study. STV
Incorporated prepared a response to Mr. Barnett’s rebuttal by letter dated
January 11, 2010. A summary of STV’s response is outlined below:
1. Reconfiguration of the Villa Street grade crossing would be necessary. This
would include extensive and costly safety and engineering enhancements and
poses potential vehicular and pedestrian safety issues. In addition, the City of
Riverside will not allow regular truck and vehicular access from Villa Street to
the northern parcels in the Parcel Map and Design Review document dated
November 8, 2007 (Planning Cases P06-1506 and P06-1508) that would cause
adverse impacts the existing adjacent residential neighborhood. The CPUC has
indicated, in a project email, dated February 2, 2011, that they will not allow a
station at Highgrove because of the need to improve two at grade crossings
when none require improvements at Hunter Park.
2. Extending Spring Street westward through an existing vacant residential
property and creating a new vehicular and pedestrian grade crossing creates
risks of train and vehicular/pedestrian collisions and is not feasible for the same
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-67 July 2011
reasons as accessing the site from Villa Street. In addition, the CPUC has
reviewed the Highgrove alternative and prefers the Hunter Park Station
(Marlborough alternative) because of the close proximity of the two sites and
existing crossings provide access to the Hunter Park Station (Marlborough
alternative). The CPUC implementation practice for General Order Number 88-B
is to not allow the construction of new at-grade crossings when not absolutely
necessary. The CPUC views new at-grade crossings at Spring Street or over
the Citrus Connection track as not absolutely necessary because of the option
for a station to be located at Hunter Park (email communication, February 2,
2011).
3. The existing topography and evidence of substantial ponding on either sides of
the crossing within the right-of-way (ROW) indicate serious drainage and
visibility problems that would need to be addressed by extensive excavation and
grading. Such work would add substantial construction and
operational/maintenance costs and would also introduce new impacts to soils,
geology and air quality during excavation. Thus, it’s not “environmentally
friendly” as commenter claims.
4. Diverting traffic into the Villa Street neighborhood to access the station parking
on the northern parcels is not viable because the City of Riverside will not allow
regular truck and vehicular access from Villa Street to the northern parcels. This
limitation was stated as a condition of approval in the Parcel Map and Design
Review document dated November 8, 2007 (Planning Cases P06-1506 and
P06-1508). The City of Riverside indicated that Villa Street could only be used
for emergency access into the site.
5. The original estimate in the 2009 Site Plan Study of 7 acres of available land for
parking was based upon utilizing only the parcel north of the Citrus Connection
track. Due to further design development and moving the Citrus Connection
track further north to avoid the Springbrook Wash conservation easement, the
northern parcel area available for parking has been reduced. STV Incorporated
has reevaluated the available land for parking and included a portion of the
parcel south of the Citrus Connection track in parking land area calculation
netting approximately 9.3 acres total available land for parking. Although,
considering the size, shape and configuration of the parcels available, a less
than efficient parking plan would be the result. The actual area available for
parking in the Citrus Connection area is slightly less than the Marlborough
alternative containing 9.5 acres. The current total area north of Springbrook
Wash is 17.22 acres. This 17.22 acres would then have the Citrus Connection
track through the center of it which would result in a net usable area of 6.6
acres. Access to the approximately 6.6 acres on the north parcel would be
dependent upon a vehicular undercrossing beneath the Citrus Connection track
due to the access restrictions at Villa Street discussed above. The land area
needed for an undercrossing would severely restrict the 6.6 acres available.
6. RCTC cannot limit access to the western driveway to only Metrolink passengers.
The existing western driveway is shared access with the current property owner
of the parcels (currently an existing industrial warehouse use) south of the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-68 July 2011
Springbrook Wash, forcing passenger traffic to mix with semi-truck traffic and
creating an unsafe condition for access to the station parking. Per an easement
in the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions for the purchase of the property by
RCTC, access from this western driveway must be maintained for the owner of
existing warehouse development. Any parking facilities located within the parcel
area south of the Citrus Connection track are limited by the California
Department of Fish and Game 50 foot setback from the Springbrook Wash due
to Condition 22 of the Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake
Alteration imposed on the subject property dated 5/30/08.
7. The only viable location for disabled parking is immediately adjacent or in the
near vicinity of the platform and the ticket vending machine which would be in
the western drive and does not fit due to the placement of the adjacent
warehouse building. The alternative is to place the disabled parking north of the
Springbrook Wash which would impose an unreasonable travel distance (in
excess of 800 feet) from the closest parking spaces to the ticket vending
machine and platform for disabled passengers.
8. BNSF representatives have stated that they prefer not to have a platform in their
ROW in this location due to operational congestion and track capacity because
of the high volume of freight traffic on their Main Line (Project Meeting, February
25, 2009).
9. The Highgrove station would require an inner-track fence to separate the station
track (4th track) from the three BNSF Main Line tracks for safety reasons. This
would move the 4th track further east, thus requiring a design modification to the
Citrus Connection curve increasing the degree of the curve causing decreased
train speed, higher wheel noise, and higher maintenance due to the increased
wear on the track. In addition, the minimum width with required clearances
(approximately 44 feet) would force the platform to encroach into the driveway.
Per an easement in the CC&R’s for the purchase of the property by RCTC,
access from this western driveway must be maintained for the owner of the
warehouse development on the southern parcels.
10. There is adequate bus service to the area proposed for the Highgrove station
alternative, but there would be no on-site bus drop-off area near the platform
because of the constrained space between the platform and the existing open
access driveway. Bus passengers would be dropped off curb-side on either
Iowa Avenue or Citrus Street.
11. Reconfiguration of Citrus Street would be required. It is agreed that the Citrus
Street connection to Iowa Avenue will remain unchanged. Because of the length
of the platform and the required distance (150’) from the switch for the Citrus
Connector track, reconfiguration, including real property acquisition on the east
side of the street, would be required to move Citrus Street eastward where it
curves adjacent to the BNSF Main Line ROW. This would result in an increase
in project cost related to the property acquisition and the road reconfiguration.
These costs would not be required for the Hunter Park station location.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-69 July 2011
12. A possible option to attempt to accommodate a station in the Highgrove location
just south of the Citrus Connection is for RCTC to purchase the western-most
building and property of the existing warehouse development on Parcel 4,
demolish the building, and convert the property to on-site bus drop-off, disabled
parking, and kiss-and-ride (drop off area with no parking) drop-off. This option
presents traffic and congestion challenges due to the single entry and exit for
passenger vehicles and buses. This would also require the demolition of the
newly constructed industrial buildings at the site. Additionally, the vehicular
access issues discussed above for the parcels north of the Citrus Connection
would remain unchanged due to restrictions from the City of Riverside and
CPUC.
As a result of additional study subsequent to the Site Plan Study prepared by STV
Incorporated dated 2/27/09, the difference in cost to locate a station at this
Highgrove site is now estimated at an additional $35 Million to $45 Million.
Many commenters suggested that the “existing” depot in Highgrove could be used as
a station site to avoid the cost of constructing a new station. However, there is no
existing Highgrove depot. The Highgrove depot was originally located just south of
Center Street and was demolished in 1953 (Applied Earthworks, 2009). The former
depot location is located approximately 2,300 north of Citrus Street and adjacent to
where the BNSF mainline and the SJBL currently connect. This proposed location
would only allow for access to the BNSF mainline and not the proposed PVL project
because the PVL project does not travel that far north. Additionally, this area is a low
income minority area that would be significantly impacted by moving services north
of Villa Street.
For all the above stated reasons, the Highgrove station option was not included as a
component of the PVL project or as a feasible alternative, and therefore is not
evaluated further within this EIR.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-70 July 2011
Letter 2
Stephanie Pacheco
May 17, 2010
L2-3
L2-2
L2-1
L2-4
L2-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-71 July 2011
Letter 2 (cont’d)
Stephanie Pacheco
May 17, 2010
L2-5 (cont’d)
L2-7
L2-8
L2-9
L2-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-72 July 2011
Response to Letter 2
Stephanie Pacheco
May 17, 2010
L2-1 Comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
L2-2. See Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased
Traffic), Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response, Master
Response #8 – Grade Crossings, and Master Response #10 - Hyatt Elementary
School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment). This
comment states that “the Draft EIR does not provide adequate mitigations to provide
a safe environment for our children” and that “adequate safeguards” have not been
identified. However, this comment does not specifically identify desired mitigation
measures, what “adequate safeguards” would entail, and what impacts these
mitigation measures and safeguards would protect against. CEQA requires
mitigation measures where a significant impact is identified (State CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.4). Since the Draft EIR found no significant impacts with this issue, no
mitigation measures are needed. Without knowledge of the specific impacts this
commenter is concerned about, this comment cannot be addressed further.
Please note that safety is the primary concern of RCTC and SCRRA for
implementation and operation of the project. The PVL project is proposing to improve
track conditions and grade crossings along the project alignment. These
improvements include tie replacement, welded rail, and ballast replenishment where
necessary and the addition of pedestrian warning devices and gates, concrete raised
medians, safety lighting, and signs. By improving the overall condition of the tracks
and grade crossings, both Metrolink and freight trains can operate safely along the
same alignment. Additionally, to increase the awareness of trains and increase
safety Metrolink provides “Operation Lifesaver,” a safety education program.
Operation Lifesaver provides age appropriate programs for communities and schools
within the Metrolink service area. For additional information regarding the program,
see the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.14. Please note that Operation Lifesaver is not
required as mitigation but is simply a gesture of “good will” by RCTC to provide an
additional safety measure. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L2-3. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. This comment
states that “an analysis of potential hazards construction and use of the BNSF line
have not been fully considered.” The Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4 and Section 4.7.5
discussed hazards and hazardous materials associated with the project and
identified three mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
This analysis included potential hazardous impacts related to construction. Without
knowledge of the specific hazard impacts this commenter is concerned about, this
comment cannot be addressed further. (Browning-Ferris Ind. v. City Council (1986)
181 Cal. App. 3d 852, 862 [where a general comment is made, a general response is
sufficient]). There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-73 July 2011
L2-4. See Master Response #6 – Noise. For projects where sound reflections off noise
barriers are of concern, sound absorptive materials are often proposed for use on
noise barriers. However, here it is not expected that reflections off noise barriers
would result in any significant increases in noise levels since the PVL alignment
would not be very close to the proposed noise barriers (FTA Manual, page 2-12). In
this section of the alignment, barriers would be located at least 100 feet from the
alignment. Depending upon the frequency of a noise source, sound can refract over
the tops off noise barriers, however, these refractions are taken into account when
the height requirements for the noise barriers were calculated. At the 255 West
Campus View Drive location, between civil stations 323+00 and 335+00, there would
be a set of parallel barriers; however, along this alignment segment, the barriers
would be tall enough and sufficiently far enough away from each other and the
SCRRA/Metrolink trains that sound reflections would not be significant.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L2-5. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones and Master Response #6 – Noise. A
detailed noise assessment was conducted for project Metrolink trains at
representative sensitive properties along the entire project rail alignment (FTA
Manual, page 3-10). Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including sound
insulation and noise barriers were proposed at specific locations (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Second row
buildings from the alignment were also considered. Second row residences such as
255 West Campus View Drive have the benefit of having a building between itself
and the proposed alignment. As a result, noise levels at this type of receiver would
be reduced in three ways: 1) the proposed noise barrier, 2) the intervening building
that also acts as a noise barrier, and 3) the added distance between the PVL
alignment and the property that increases the distance noise attenuation for the
property. By definition, noise barriers are effective when they block the line of sight
between the receiver and the noise-generating source (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.3).
Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts as
a result of the PVL project. CEQA has defined threshold limits related to the
exposure of persons to noise and vibration. These thresholds are contained in local
general plans and noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies.
According to CEQA, a significant impact from noise or vibration would occur if the
project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state, or local policies and
regulations. Accordingly, the FTA impact criteria were used to determine significant
impacts as a result of the PVL project (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L2-6. Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train
Traffic) and Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. This comment states that “the
Draft EIR does not provide a discussion of the hazards to the community that the
proposed increased number of train trips through the neighborhood poses.” This
comment is incorrect. The environmental analysis completed within the Draft EIR
provides an evaluation of both construction and operational impacts of the PVL
project. For example, the Draft EIR, Section 4.7.4 and Section 4.7.5 discussed
hazards and hazardous materials associated with the project and identified three
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-74 July 2011
with the track and grade crossing improvements proposed, the PVL project does not
have a significant impact to community safety. These track improvements include tie
replacement, welded rail, and ballast replenishment where necessary, and the
addition of pedestrian warning devices and gates, concrete raised medians, safety
lighting, and signs at grade crossings. Without knowledge of the specific hazard
impacts this commenter is concerned about, this comment cannot be addressed
further. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has
not been changed.
L2-7. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The PVL project is proposing to
improve track conditions along the project alignment. Accordingly, any risk of
derailment would actually be reduced by the project. These improvements would
include tie replacement, welded rail, and ballast replenishment where necessary.
Improvement to the overall track conditions would allow for both Metrolink and freight
trains to operate safely along the same alignment. Since this comment does not
specify which “neighborhood” the commenter is referencing, we assume she means
the UCR neighborhood. The PVL project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a
few cars. These trains are too short to block more than a single crossing. Thus, even
in the unanticipated event that a project train stops in the neighborhood, there would
be no significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress locations would be
affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become a
shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of SCRRA. Due to the
shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be allowed to
stop in areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood) because this would
block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas
where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR
neighborhood. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and
the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L2-8. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. This comment states that “the
DRAFT EIR does not adequately analyze proposed manufacturing/light industries
associated with the March Global Port and other proposed industries in the area.”
This comment also states that the Draft EIR did not adequately study “the potential
cumulative impact of the proposed track improvement and likely increased train
traffic of both commuter and cargo trains.” These comments are misleading. First of
all, Global Port operations have not occurred in many months and, regardless,
Global Port does not use or have sidings along the SJBL.
Secondly, as stated in the Draft EIR in Section 5.3, the cumulative list is consistent
with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A), which states that “a list of past,
present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
including if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency should be
included in analysis of cumulative effects in the EIR.” The Draft EIR also states that
the “information for the cumulative projects was garnered from interviews with county
and city planning agencies”, and references Appendix E (Section 5.3). Appendix E
was attached with the Draft EIR during public circulation and provided a list of
individuals who were contacted for interviews in preparation of the Draft EIR. This list
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-75 July 2011
includes the City of Riverside Principal Planner, City of Moreno Valley Planning
Official, Principal Planner for the Riverside County Planning Department, Planning
Manager for the March Joint Powers Authority, and the Executive Director for the
Western Riverside Council of Governments. These varied individuals provided a
broad perspective on past, present, and probable future planning activities within the
project area. Since the cumulative section in the Draft EIR analyzed potential
cumulative impacts based on the reasonably foreseeable projects in the area and
since the commenter does not specify any other projects that she believes should
have been included on the cumulative list, the EIR is compliant with CEQA.
Thirdly, as explained in the Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13 and Master Response #5 -
Freight Operations, freight trains are not a part of the project and RCTC is not
responsible for freight traffic. As stated in Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13, freight
operations are dictated by costumer demand; in turn, customer demand is a function
of economic conditions. The business decision to provide freight service along the
alignment is profit driven. As long as the customer demand for freight service is low,
there is no reason to assume BNSF would increase operations on the SJBL,
regardless of the PVL project (see Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13).
If ridership for the PVL project increases in the future, RCTC might build additional
stations to meet this demand. RCTC has committed to conducting additional
environmental reviews for any new stations that would be added in the future. There
are no new impacts as a result of this comment, the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L2-9. See Master Response #11 – Recirculate EIR and the CEQA Process. The response
to comments, in conjunction with the revisions, updates, and corrections made to the
Draft EIR adequately address project-related environmental issues. As such,
recirculation of the environmental document is not warranted.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-76 July 2011
Letter 3a
Austin E. Sullivan
May 17, 2010
L3a-1
L3a-2
L3a-3
L3a-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-77 July 2011
Letter 3a (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 17, 2010
L3a-4 (cont’d)
L3a-5
L3a-6
L3a-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-78 July 2011
Letter 3a (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 17, 2010
L3a-8
L3a-9
L3a-10
L3a-11
L3a-7 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-79 July 2011
Letter 3a (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 17, 2010
L3a-11 (cont’d)
L3a-12
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-80 July 2011
Letter 3a (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 17, 2010
L3a-13
L3a-15
L3a-16
L3a-14
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-81 July 2011
Letter 3a (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 17, 2010
L3a-16 (cont’d)
L3a-17
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-82 July 2011
Response to Letter 3a
Austin E. Sullivan
May 17, 2010
L3a-1. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
L3a-2. The environmental analysis completed was for all reasonably foreseeable operations
as is required by CEQA. If ridership increases in the future, RCTC might build
additional stations to meet this demand. RCTC has committed to conducting
additional environmental reviews for any new stations that would be added in the
future. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment, therefore the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L3a-3. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The PVL project is the introduction of
commuter rail service. Freight operations will continue on the SJBL whether the PVL
project is constructed or not. The frequency and quantity of materials, as with all
freight operations, is dependent on customer demand. There are no new impacts as
a result of this comment, therefore the Draft EIR has not been changed.
The PVL noise study assumes that no time shifting of freight trains to night-time
hours would be required as a result of the PVL project implementation based on the
2008 freight study commissioned by RCTC, which found no evidence that shifting
freight trips to night-time hours was a reasonably foreseeable result of the PVL
project. A detailed noise assessment was conducted for project SCRRA/Metrolink
trains at representative sensitive properties along the entire project rail alignment.
Where potential significant noise impacts were predicted, noise mitigation, including
noise barriers and sound insulation, was proposed (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5) to
reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
See Master Response #6 – Noise. Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR discusses the
potential noise and vibration impacts as a result of the PVL project. CEQA has
defined threshold limits related to the exposure of persons to noise and vibration.
These thresholds are contained in local general plans and noise ordinances, or
applicable standards of other agencies. According to CEQA, a significant impact
from noise or vibration would occur if the project exceeded allowable limits defined
by federal, state, or local policies and regulations. Accordingly, the FTA impact
criteria were used to determine significant impacts as a result of the PVL project (see
Draft EIR, 4.10.1). As per the FTA Manual (FTA Manual, page 6-43), sound
insulation was proposed at seven homes and one church along the alignment where
the use of a noise barrier would not be feasible.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L3a-4. The commenter has suggested that Federal Aviation Administration FAA noise
standards be used to assess the PVL project. As an FTA commuter rail project,
potential project-related noise and vibration impacts were analyzed and mitigation
measures were developed in accordance with the prescribed 2006 “Transit Noise
and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual). The FTA Manual is specific
to rail transit noise and vibration and its use is required by FTA for commuter rail
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-83 July 2011
projects. To apply FAA noise standards to a commuter rail project is inappropriate
and contrary to FTA requirements.
The FAA FAR Part 150 represents the recognized federal regulation for aviation
noise. Conversely, the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA
(FTA Manual) represents the industry recognized federal guidelines for rail transit
noise and vibration. Both regulatory directives are legitimate when they are properly
applied. However, to use the FAA regulations on a rail project would be an
inappropriate use of government guidelines since the very nature of rail versus
airplane noise necessitates different methods of evaluation. As a result, the
proposed PVL noise and vibration assessment methodology (which includes relevant
noise monitoring procedures and assessment criteria) and the subsequent mitigation
recommendations were based on FTA procedures (see FTA Manual, Chapters 3 and
6 as well as Appendix D) (see Draft EIR, pages 4.10-4 to 4.10-6).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L3a-5. Please see Responses L3a-6 and L3a-7 below.
L3a-6. With respect to noise descriptors, the FTA Manual calls for the use of Ldn as the
appropriate descriptor for transit-related noise as it relates to residential uses where
sleep is required and Leq for “primary daytime” land uses such as schools and
churches (FTA Manual, Section 2.5.5 and Table 3-2). As the commenter
acknowledges, the Ldn descriptor (as with CNEL) weighs night-time noise more
heavily than daytime noise. Concerning the CNEL descriptor suggested by the
commenter, although it also adds an additional decibel penalty for noise during
evening hours, it is geared primarily towards describing overall community noise for
potential development projects. Therefore, while the project is located in California
where the CNEL descriptor is used in the assessment of many non-transit based
projects, because the PVL project is related to rail usage, the Ldn descriptor based on
FTA Manual guidance was used here. See Master Response #6 – Noise.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L3a-7. The commenter’s statement “An increase of one dBA cannot be perceived” is correct
in its proper context. However, it is also important to note that the FTA Manual noise
criteria is based on EPA studies which have been adapted by major federal agencies
such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (FTA
Manual, Section 2.4 and 2.5.5). Specifically, the HUD absolute criteria recognize that
65 dBA and 75 dBA noise levels would result in acceptable and unacceptable living
environments, respectively, which correlate with FTA criteria (FTA Manual, page
3.1.2). In addition, the FTA noise criteria also incorporate relative criteria, therefore,
the possibility that a cumulative noise increase of one dB would result in a project
noise impact is valid (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1). This results when a
community’s existing noise exposure is already high.
Noise monitoring data were updated several times to ensure that the most up-to-date
data were used (see Master Response #6 – Noise). Therefore, although we do agree
that individual train events may be objectionable to residents, the FTA criteria
effectively utilizes absolute and relative criteria to identify the relationship between
the percentage of highly annoyed people and the noise levels in the community
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-84 July 2011
environment. The incorporation of night-time noise sensitivity is also critically
important and is accomplished by using the Ldn descriptor.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L3a-8. See Master Response #6 – Noise. The Draft EIR has predicted that 83 residential
units would be impacted by noise from the proposed PVL project. This represents a
reduction in the number of impacted properties compared to the previous 2004
study. However, the most recent study includes the use of more up-to-date noise
monitoring data, revisions in the proposed train schedule, and improvements in the
way “wheel squeal” will be handled at short radius curves (see Draft EIR, Section
4.10.4). The 2010 Draft EIR proposes noise barriers for the majority of impacted
homes, however, sound insulation will also be provided at seven homes and one
church. This represents more than twice the number of properties recommended for
sound insulation in the 2004 report. The selection of eight properties for sound
insulation was based on the fact that these particular properties would either not be
properly protected by noise barriers or the existing terrain would make the use of
noise barriers infeasible (FTA Manual, page 6-43). All eight properties are located
near grade crossings. Because these grade crossings naturally create noise barrier
discontinuity (since the barrier cannot traverse the intersection), homes nearby the
crossings are often left either unprotected or under-protected, thus the need for
sound insulation at these properties. Where this discontinuity occurred, sound
insulation was recommended. The requirements for building insulation (such as
window sound transmission class, insulation techniques/materials, required interior
noise decibel reductions and interior noise levels) are further described in the Noise
and Vibration Technical Report and the FTA Manual, pages 6-43 to 6-44. Extensive
industry-wide use of sound insulation products and installation techniques have
demonstrated that sound insulation is an effective mitgation measure for reducing
interior noise levels.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L3a-9. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
L3a-10. The commenter is incorrectly trying to apply aviation noise criteria to a rail project.
See Responses L3a-2, L3a-3, and L3a-4.
L3a-11. In order to predict where potential noise impacts would occur as a result of the PVL
project, exterior noise criteria described in the FTA Manual, Section 3-1 was used to
assess properties along the entire length of the project. The 45 dBA interior noise
level mentioned by the commenter is indeed the basis for the exterior noise level
criteria developed by the FTA (FTA Manual, Section 2.4). However, for those
properties that would be impacted by train noise but could not be mitigated using
exterior mitigation measures (such as noise barriers), sound insulation was
proposed. As a result, for the eight properties where sound insulation is proposed,
the FTA interior transit noise criteria level of 65 dBA is applicable (FTA Manual, page
6-44). This interior criterion is different from the FTA noise criteria applied to the
exterior of properties (FTA Manual, Section 3-1) because it applies to the required
interior noise level for occurrences of noise from project-related transit sources only
(in this case the noise from Metrolink trains). Therefore, the 65 dBA interior noise
criteria level was correctly applied to properties where sound insulation was
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-85 July 2011
proposed. As a consequence, any sound insulation provided by the contractor must
provide a net interior noise level reduction of at least 5 dBA while also providing an
absolute interior noise level of 65 dBA or less. In addition, because all of the eight
properties proposed for sound insulation are at grade crossings, the interior noise
levels specifically related to train horn noise must be 70 dBA or less (FTA Manual,
page 6-44). With respect to specific sound insulation measures, see Response L3a-
4. Exterior post-operational noise monitoring is not proposed but may take place if
the FTA decides to evaluate the effectiveness of noise mitigation. This would be at
FTA cost and not part of the PVL project since this type of monitoring can only be
authorized and provided at the request of the FTA.
With respect to central air conditioning, if the installation of sound insulation would
result in residences not having any means of ventilation, then these homes would
require central air conditioning as part of the sound insulation process (FTA Manual,
page 6-43).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L3a-12. Implementation of the proposed PVL project will provide noise mitigation measures
and safety improvements that would not be available to the community under any
other circumstances. It is expected that with the mitigation measures associated with
the PVL project, freight train impacts would also be reduced and therefore provide an
overall benefit to the community. It should be noted that the commenter is
speculating about changes in neighborhood stability and character due to the PVL
project from inadequate mitigation measures. Thus, no further response is required.
L3a-13. This comment states that “this environmental review and these public hearings are
being conducted in order to fulfill legal requirements, and there is little real interest in
determining impacts and proper mitigation.” This comment is untrue. It is true, that
the Draft EIR was written in full compliance with State CEQA Guidelines. Technical
reports and analysis in the text adequately addressed each environmental issue
area. Statements made in the Draft EIR were based on factual evidence and
findings. Section 8.0, References, lists the sources that were used to produce the
Draft EIR. However, not only is the Draft EIR compliant with CEQA, the CEQA
process for the PVL project has gone far beyond the minimum requirements. The
Draft EIR, Section 1.4 explains the steps RCTC has taken so far. RCTC prepared an
IS/MND and circulated the document for public and agency review in early 2009. As
part of the public involvement for the IS/MND document, RCTC held two public
outreach workshops in June 2008, a public information meeting in February 2009,
and two public hearings in February 2009. In response to public input, RCTC
decided to proceed with an EIR and would consider the IS/MND comments in the
EIR.
Additionally, on July 28, 2009, two weeks after the NOP was posted by the State
Clearinghouse, RCTC conducted a public scoping meeting at the Moreno Valley
Towngate Community Center. The intent of this meeting was to receive input on the
issues that should be covered in greater detail in the EIR. The Draft EIR public
review and comment period was open for 49 days between May 24, 2010 and May
24, 2010. This exceeds the CEQA prescribed minimum 45-day review period.
Initially, two public hearings (April 4, 2010 and April 22, 2010) were scheduled;
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-86 July 2011
however, in response to public request, a third public hearing (May 17, 2010) was
held. These public hearings were a courtesy of RCTC and not required by CEQA
(CEQA Section 15202(a)).
The commenter claims the signal at Campus View Drive and Blaine Street is an
example of a “pre-commitment.” However, the signalization of Campus View Drive
and Blaine Street are not pre-commitment under CEQA because the signalizations
had separate and independent utility from the PVL project. Therefore, not only has
the Draft EIR fulfilled the CEQA requirements, it has more than adequately analyzed
impacts and mitigation measures.
The commenter also states, “these expenditures only make sense if one anticipates
high-speed trains in the near future.” This comment is incorrect. RCTC is proposing
to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to south of the City of Perris. This would
be the extension of the existing 91 line from downtown Los Angeles. RCTC is not
proposing high-speed train service along this corridor. If another agency is proposing
high-speed train service along the PVL corridor then they will have to seek approval
from RCTC, the landowner.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the PVL project and the EIR process have
been fully compliant with CEQA. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3a-14. This comment provides no substantial support to the claim that the PVL project is
similar to the New York case. “Fears” are not substantive evidence (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15384). Furthermore, RCTC has devoted years of study to this project
(see Response L3a-13). Additionally, the commenter’s claim that the PVL project
would induce additional housing development is speculative. Indeed, the project is
growth accomodating based on local planning documents. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3a-15. See Master Response #6 – Noise.
L3a-16. An Express Bus Alternative was considered In the San Jacinto Branchline/I-215
Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (STV Incorporated, 2004), included as
Technical Report A to the Draft EIR, but was rejected because the Express Bus
Alternative would not reduce highway congestion in the SJBL/I-215 corridor and
automobile and bus modes would still be tied to the congested roadway network.
However, all three commuter rail alternatives would allow commuters to decrease
their travel time in the corridor and decrease personal vehicles used in the corridor
reducing congestion. Therefore, a commuter rail option was selected to provide
mobility through the corridor without relying on or adding to the congestion of the
area highways.
The ridership projections for this study were developed using the forecasting for the
Alternatives Analysis that was performed by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) utilizing the existing and approved SCAG regional travel
demand model. The model was run for different scenarios at different time intervals:
base year, start-up year, and forecast year. The forecast year for the study was
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-87 July 2011
2025. Please refer to Technical Report A (Chapter 4) for a discussion of ridership for
the proposed alternatives. Exhibit 25 in Chapter 4 depicts the boardings by stations
for the Express Bus Alternative and three commuter rail alternatives. The selected
commuter rail option shows a ridership in 2025 (7,472 boardings) which is slightly
more than double the ridership for the Express Bus Alternative (3,705 boardings).
In accordance with CEQA, mitigation measures imposed by the project shall reduce
potentially significant impacts to a level of non-significance. Analyses completed for
the potential project impacts followed standard practices for a project of this nature.
With the proposed mitigation measures, RCTC has reduced all potentially significant
impacts to a level of non-significance.
Mitigation measures shall be in place prior to initiation of service.
L3a-17. This comment is conclusory. No response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-88 July 2011
Letter 3b
Austin E. Sullivan
May 24, 2010
L3b-1
L3b-2
L3b-3
L3b-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-89 July 2011
Letter 3b (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 24, 2010
L3b-5
L3b-6
L3b-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-90 July 2011
Letter 3b (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 24, 2010
L3b-8
L3b-7 (cont’d)
L3b-9
L3b-10
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-91 July 2011
Letter 3b (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 24, 2010
L3b-11
L3b-12
L3b-13
L3b-14
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-92 July 2011
Letter 3b (cont’d)
Austin E. Sullivan
May 24, 2010
L3b-15
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-93 July 2011
Response to Letter 3b
Austin E. Sullivan
May 24, 2010
L3b-1. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3b-2. Although the number of freight trains would occasionally fluctuate up or down, based
on the best information available from RCTC along with field observations and
information from local engineers familiar with the SJBL, the Draft EIR’s
characterization of freight movement along the SJBL is accurate.
L3b-3. The commenter is incorrect, the proposed vibration mitigation measures would
reduce predicted impacts to below significant levels (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5).
L3b-4. The comment refers to the quote “…when assessing vibration mitigation it is
important to consider both the degree of impact and the cost as any mitigation
should be both reasonable and feasible.” A full analysis of vibration impacts was
conducted and the assessment procedure and the resulting outcome were both
influenced only by the available data and not by costs. Further, two separate
vibration mitigation options were provided, independent of costs (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5). However, according to the CEQA Public Resource Code Section
21061.1, the definition for feasibility would include economic considerations.
L3b-5. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master Response #10 – Hyatt
Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment).
The PVL project is proposing to improve track conditions along the project alignment.
These improvements include tie replacement, welded rail, and ballast replenishment
where necessary. This will improve the overall condition of the alignment, and
therefore make it safer for both the commuter and freight operations. The commenter
also mentions rodents impacting the tracks berm structure in the park area. As part
of ROW maintenance, BNSF controls vegetation and removes any rodents and fills
any burrows on the railroad berm that could impact the track. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3b-6. The ROW has been in existence for over 100 years and the City of Riverside and the
County of Riverside developed these parks without considering access across
private property (the SJBL/RCTC ROW). If unauthorized people enter the ROW,
even to “just” cross the tracks to get to the other side, they are considered to be
trespassing. The PVL project does not include adding additional track in this area or
affecting existing access to parks in any way. The existing track will remain in its
current location.
This comment also states that, “the DRAFT EIR also ignores the risk which is
inherent in the operation of both freight and passenger trains on a single line,
especially one with this extremely steep grade.” This comment is incorrect. The PVL
project includes track improvements that would upgrade the existing physical
condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level
of maintenance, and enhanced operational safety. Therefore, no significant impacts
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-94 July 2011
were identified as a result of this issue area. Since the commenter does not identify
the specific risk he is concerned about, no further response is possible. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L3b-7. Because existing freight operations will not be affected by RCTC’s proposed PVL
project, the air quality assessment put forth in the Draft EIR is related only to the
future operation of SCRRA/Metrolink passenger trains. Consequently, Section 4.3 of
the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air Quality Technical Report) outlines the
extensive methodologies used to calculate the expected localized and regional
emissions due to the implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for
the PVL accounted for all relevant project parameters and conditions. Where
applicable, the analysis was done in compliance with the most up-to-date local, state,
and federal air quality regulations and guidance from the SCAQMD, CARB, and the
USEPA. Tables 4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that emissions projected for
criteria pollutants from sources such as local traffic intersections (CO hotspots),
greenhouse gases, localized mobile source air toxics (from project locomotives),
construction activities and parking operations all fall below local thresholds of
significance and state and federal emissions standards.
The use of Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) are entirely voluntary
(SCAQMD Fact Sheet LSTs). Based on the SCAQMD Fact Sheet, it is
recommended that proposed projects larger than five acres in area undergo air
dispersion modeling to determine localized air quality. For operational impacts, LSTs
are more appropriate for stationary source projects. With respect to the proposed
project, this would apply to proposed stations and their parking lots. As noted in the
above referenced LST Fact Sheet for construction impacts, LSTs are more
appropriate for a medium sized to large project that would have a longer-term
influence on specific sensitive receptors neighboring the construction site. None of
the stations that will be constructed as part of the PVL project would be larger than
two acres in size so the PVL would be considered a smaller project. The overall
project construction period is estimated at approximately 18 months. However,
because of the linear nature of rail construction, the actual construction period at any
one individual sensitive receptor would be approximately two to three months. As a
result, the assessment of localized air quality impacts for the proposed project did
not utilize LSTs.
The discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR accurately
assesses cumulative impacts of the proposed PVL project in the context of past,
present, and probable future projects in the PVL study area. Specifically, the
emissions of the existing freight trains are already accounted for due to the project
being included in the RTIP. Emissions from the existing freight trains are also
measured by the local air quality monitoring stations. Furthermore, the SCAG
Transportation Conformity Working Group has reviewed the health risk assessment
and determined that the PVL is not a POAQC (Project of Air Quality Concern), as
shown in the TCWG review form in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix F.
Existing emissions were included in this assessment. Therefore, the discussion of air
quality within the Cumulative Impacts Section 5.3 in the Draft EIR is correctly
addressed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-95 July 2011
L3b-8. As noted in Section 4.3.4 of the Draft EIR, sensitive receptors were identified using
the criteria outlined by CARB. Some examples of sensitive receptors analyzed in the
study area include Highland, Hyatt, and Nan Sanders elementary schools, UCR
Child Development Center, Highland Park, and the City of Perris Senior Center. The
air quality analysis accounted for the buildings identified as sensitive receptors and
also included adjacent parking lots, yards, and outdoor play areas. In addition, the
CAAQS provide air quality standards, not relative criteria. CEQA does not require a
lead agency to correct conditions in the existing environment. The lead agency is
only required to mitigate project impacts or cumulative impacts. See Response L3b-7
above. This commenter is arguing that the creation of even one molecule of pollution
somehow constitutes a significant impact. However, the one molecule rule is not the
law (Comm. For Better Environ. V. Cal. Res. Agency (2002)).
L3b-9 Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the air quality analysis performed for the PVL
is not “generic” but instead examined in detail project-specific parameters that could
potentially cause an air quality impact. The schoolyards of the two schools in the
UCR area are considered sensitive receptor areas. The distances from sensitive
properties to the proposed PVL alignment identified in Section 4.3.4 of the Draft EIR
are only reference distances that represent the approximate location of the property.
They do not exclude any segment of the overall property boundaries. In addition, as
mentioned in Section 4.3.4 of the Draft EIR, none of the school properties is located
close to congested intersections or proposed PVL parking areas. The distances are
between the alignment and the schools (approximately 150 feet for Highland
Elementary School and 500 feet for Hyatt Elementary School, as referenced in
Section 4.3.4) are from the tracks to the nearest edge of the schoolyards. Pollutant
concentrations decrease as the distance from the pollutant source to a receptor
increases; therefore, if the analysis determined that there would be a less than
significant impact at a reference distance from the source, then it is expected that
impacts to receptors located further away from the source would also be less than
significant. For example, the health risk assessment shows that near Highland
Elementary School, the maximum pollutant concentration from the rail line occurs at
a distance of 78 feet. As a result, it can be expected that there will also be a less
than significant impact at Highland Elementary School which is located
approximately 150 feet from the rail line. Furthermore, the maximum pollutant
concentration is below the threshold for significant impacts.
L3b-10. The methodology utilized in predicting air quality impacts from the PVL project was
adopted from guidance within the USEPA, California DOT, FHWA and CEQA as is
required in California. Specific aspects of the PVL project, as it pertains to pollutant
emissions, were taken into consideration for all communities abutting the alignment.
This includes but is not limited to pollutant emissions from existing local sources
(highway vehicles, freight trains, industry) and future project related sources (PVL
related locomotive and vehicular emissions,
L3b-11. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. Page 2-47 of the Draft EIR provides
a description of the freight usage for the corridor. The freight traffic is solely dictated
by local economic conditions and not the proposed PVL track improvements.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-96 July 2011
L3b-12. The PVL project is the introduction of commuter rail service. The project is intended
to reduce existing vehicle traffic along the I-1215 corridor. Additionally, RCTC, as the
regional transportation agency, does not have land use authority and therefore
cannot increase planned land use densities in areas already planned for housing
developments. Furthermore, the commenter’s claim that the PVL project would
induce additional housing development is speculative. Therefore, there are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3b-13. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. Page 2-47 of the Draft EIR provides
a description of the freight usage for the corridor. The freight traffic is solely dictated
by local economic conditions and not the proposed rail, tie, and ballast
improvements. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and
the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L3b-14. See Comment L3b-7. Cumulative noise impacts have been addressed and as
explained in Section 5.3.9 of the Draft EIR, these impacts would be less than
significant (FTA Manual, Section 2.5.5). The effects of existing noise (including noise
from freight traffic, vehicular traffic and other environmental sounds) were accounted
for in the PVL noise assessment by utilizing the data collected from the extensive
noise monitoring program conducted for the project (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1).
These existing noise levels were then used as a baseline for relative impact criteria
(see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-2).
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L3b-15. The comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, not response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-97 July 2011
Letter 4
David Keeling
May 2, 2010
L4-2
L4-1
L4-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-98 July 2011
Response to Letter 4
David Keeling
May 2, 2010
L4-1. The commenter is proposing a station at a Highgrove location instead of at the
Palmyrita station. The commenter feels that a station in this location would provide
easier access but does not discuss access at the proposed location. The sentiment
is similar to the comments from Letter 1 and the commenter is referred to that. The
Draft EIR, Section 2.2 looked at a number of factors when considering commuter rail
station siting and selections, including “local conditions such as surrounding land use
and traffic circulation.” The Draft EIR in Section 2.2 also provides a description of the
Highgrove Station and reasons why it is not being considered as part of the
proposed project. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L4-2. The Center-Main location that is identified in the letter is also identified in the Draft
EIR in Section 2.2 and by other commenters as the Highgrove Station. The
information presented is not new information and therefore there are no impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L4-3. As in the previous comment, the commenter is requesting a station be located at
Center-Main, also known as the Highgrove Station. The previous two comments
make the same request as does Letter 1. The reasons that the Highgrove Station
option was not advanced are provided in the Draft EIR, Section 2.2, as well as
Response to Letter 1. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-99 July 2011
Letter 5
Paul W. Carlisle
May 7, 2010
L5-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-100 July 2011
Response to Letter 5
Paul W. Carlisle
May 7, 2010
L5-1. The Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station and
reasons why it is not being considered as part of the proposed project. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-101 July 2011
Letter 6
Aliana Lopez de Victoria
May 14, 2010
L6-1
L6-3
L6-4
L6-5
L6-6
L6-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-102 July 2011
Letter 6 (cont’d)
Aliana Lopez de Victoria
May 14, 2010
L6-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-103 July 2011
Response to Letter 6
Aliana Lopez de Victoria
May 14, 2010
L6-1. See Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences
Supplemental Protection (Derailment). Safety is a primary concern of both RCTC
and SCRRA (the operators of the Metrolink service) for implementation and
operation of the project. The Draft EIR found no significant, unmitigable impacts as a
result of the PVL project. The project does not increase safety risks. Instead, the PVL
project would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which would
result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced
safety.
As no specific concerns were raised, a more specific response is not required
(Browning-Ferris Industries v. City of San Jose (1986) 1818 Cal. App. 3d 852 [where
a general comment is made, a general response is sufficient]). Therefore, there are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L6-2. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master Response #10 – Hyatt
Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment).
The PVL project is proposing to improve track conditions along the project alignment.
These improvements include tie replacement, welded rail, ballast replenishment
where necessary. These improvements will provide for a safer operating
environment for both the Metrolink commuter and freight trains. Therefore, there are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L6-3. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, and Master Response #3 - Derailment. The existing Kinder
Morgan jet fuel line is located within the ROW, however, the PVL project is not
planning to relocate or alter the pipeline as it currently exists. During construction of
the noise barriers and landscape walls, where utilities such as Kinder Morgan are
involved, the utility owner typically would require advanced notification of the planned
work. During the design stage, plans will be forwarded to the utility owner for
consideration of any precautionary measures needed to protect the utility during
construction. The utility owner also evaluates if a representative is to be present at
the time of construction. Kinder Morgan requires an inspector to be present for any
work within 25 feet of a pipeline.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
L6-4. See Master Response #6 – Noise. The Draft EIR conducted a construction noise
assessment utilizing FTA criteria (FTA Manual, Section 12.1.3). The assessment
predicted that any impacts related to PVL construction noise would be less than
significant (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). Although the overall project construction
period is approximately 18 months, the actual construction period near Highland
Elementary School would only be approximately 2 to 3 months (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.4). If exceedences of local noise codes or ordinances from construction
activities do occur, they would be temporary and sporadic. However, these
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-104 July 2011
exceedences would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Limiting
construction activities to non-school hours is not feasible because the applicable
local ordinances typically limit construction to day time hours that correspond to the
hours when children are generally at school. Consequently, very little to no
construction activity could be achieved during the day if construction was limited to
non-school hours.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
The results of the assessment of construction emissions from the proposed project
are shown in Table 4.3-11 of the Draft EIR. The resulting construction-related
emissions were not deemed significant as defined by CEQA SCAQMD daily
construction emission limits. In addition, during the construction period, contractors
would be required to implement Best Management Practices to control fugitive dust
emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (see Draft EIR, Section 4.3.4).
L6-5. A noise barrier specifically designed to mitigate noise is proposed for Highland
Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11). This would reduce predicted
impacts to less than significant levels. The noise barrier is nine feet high and 680 feet
long between Civil Sections 283+00 and Sta. 289+40 (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16).
Landscape walls are discussed in the Draft EIR, Sections 2-4.9 and 4.1.3.
Landscape walls are not mitigation for any identified impacts. The landscape walls
would provide a separation between the schools and the railroad ROW. Because the
implementation of these walls is part of the PVL project, RCTC will provide funding
for the design and construction.
For information regarding derailments, see Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General) and Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby
Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment).
L6-6. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and Master Response #9 – Highland
and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic). There are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L6-7. This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-105 July 2011
Letter 7
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
L7-1
L7-2
L7-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-106 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-107 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-108 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-109 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-110 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-111 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-112 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-113 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-114 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-115 July 2011
Letter 7 (cont’d)
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-116 July 2011
Response to Letter 7
Mark Hansen
May 17, 2010
L7-1. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport and Master Response #5
– Freight Operations. As stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail
line, PVL service is passenger only. As such, there would never be an occasion
when hazardous materials would be transported on the commuter trains.” The
frequency and quantity of materials shipped via freight, as with all freight operations,
is completely dependent on customer demand. One known freight delivery is chlorine
which is used by MWD for the water treatment facility. Overall the PVL project will
improve track conditions so that both Metrolink and freight trains can operate with
increased safety along the alignment. Therefore, less than significant impacts are
anticipated for this issue area and no mitigation measures are required. Since there
are no new impacts as a result of this comment, the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L7-2. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations and Master Response #3 –
Derailment (General). The Draft EIR in Section 2.4.13 discussed how freight
operations are linked to local economic conditions, which are independent of the PVL
project. The PVL project will improve overall track conditions so that both Metrolink
and freight trains can operate with increased safety along the alignment. It should
also be noted that the PVL project is a commuter train and thus would not transport
freight or cargo of hazardous materials.
L7-3. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. RCTC does not
currently have operation or maintenance responsibilities for the ROW. BNSF
currently, under agreement with RCTC, has a responsibility for operation and
maintenance for the existing ROW. Once the PVL project is initiated, SCRRA will
have operation and maintenance responsibilities for the ROW. It should be noted
that SCRRA has a higher standard of rail maintenance because of the different
standards between passenger and freight requirements. As a result, maintenance of
the rail will improve. Furthermore, the ROW is a controlled industrial area where
debris can be inadvertently left behind after maintenance.
This comment states that a “coordinated disaster plan” should be developed for the
PVL project. Though unlikely and unanticipated, if an emergency were to occur near
the PVL corridor, the Riverside County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and/or
the City of Riverside Emergency Management Office would be activated and trained
professionals would be in place to manage and coordinate the appropriate
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result
of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
Note: Attached behind the comment letter are a series of newspaper articles from
The Press Enterprise Special Section dated November 20, 2005. The articles
provide a regional overview of freight train traffic in southern California and a
discussion of hazardous materials transported on by rail. The article is not specific to
the SJBL/RCTC ROW, nor does it bring up any new environmental issues that were
not addressed in the Draft EIR, and therefore no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-117 July 2011
Letter 8
Martha Offeney
May 17, 2010
L8-1
L8-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-118 July 2011
Letter 8 (cont’d)
Martha Offeney
May 17, 2010
L8-3
L8-4
L8-5
L8-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-119 July 2011
Letter 8 (cont’d)
Martha Offeney
May 17, 2010
L8-7
L8-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-120 July 2011
Response to Letter 8
Martha Offeney
May 17, 2010
L8-1. See Master Response #6 – Noise. While noise impacts from SCRRA/Metrolink train
operations were not predicted in the area of the PVL alignment referenced by the
commenter (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to 4.10-11), the area includes several
short-radius curves at which noise from wheel squeal can be produced. However,
the wheel squeal from the trains on these curves will be reduced by the use of
wayside applicators. Wayside applicators apply lubrication to the wheel, so that the
contact between the inside flange of the wheel and the track is reduced. These
wayside applicators are proposed for the curves in the Box Springs area near
Hillandale Court to reduce wheel squeal. Thus, the commenter is incorrect in saying
that there are no provisions for noise control near their home.
For safety concerns and the project, the commenter should review Master Response
#3 – Derailment and #7 - Emergency, Planning and Response.
L8-2. Noise measurements were taken near 396 East Big Springs Road which is close to
300 Hillandale Court and thus is representative of existing noise in the local area
(see Response to Comment L8-1).
L8-3. See Master Response #8 – Derailment. There is no public information available
regarding the mentioned spill. If the spill was not reported, then it would not appear in
the government databases. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L8-4. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. The PVL project is
proposing the introduction of commuter rail service in the corridor. The PVL project is
independent of the existing freight operations, and does not include alterations to
freight operations. The PVL project does not anticipate a chemical spill because it is
a commuter rail project that will not transport hazardous materials. Therefore, the
PVL project is not proposing to install chemical sensors that would sound an alarm in
the event of a chemical spill in the area because the project will not include the
transport of any chemicals. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L8-5. See Master Response #3 – Derailment and Master Response #6 – Noise. A detailed
noise assessment was conducted for project Metrolink trains at representative
sensitive properties along the entire project rail alignment (FTA Manual, page 3-10).
Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including noise barriers and sound
insulation were proposed at specific locations (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16) to
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. For the property at 300 Hillandale
Court, no impacts were predicted to occur. As a result, no noise mitigation measures
were proposed at that location.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
The principal source of noise near the curved area would be wheel squeal. Therefore
as part of the project, wayside applicators are proposed to significantly reduce the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-121 July 2011
noise from wheel squeal at all tight radius curves along the entire length of the
project alignment (see Response to Comment L8-1 and Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4).
L8-6 See Response to Comment L8-3. This comment does not relate to the PVL project
or the Draft EIR. Accordingly, no response is required for the purpose of CEQA.
L8-7. The construction that would occur along the tracks near the commenter’s house
includes replacing wooden ties as needed and adding new ballast (see Draft EIR,
Section 2.4.1). Based on the work proposed for the Hillandale Court area, no
increased risk of landslides to the commenter’s properties are expected. There are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L8-8. It is difficult to distinguish between “behind our home” and “next to us” to properly
identify the appropriate parcel of land and therefore the appropriate landowner.
RCTC is the landowner of the existing rail ROW, but the City of Riverside owns
Islander Park (north of Hillandale Court) and the County of Riverside owns Box
Springs Mountain Reserve (east of the RCTC ROW). Landowners are responsible
for conditions on their property and to comply with fire department standards. It
should be noted though, that currently RCTC has an agreement with BNSF for ROW
operation and maintenance. Also, prior to project initiation SCRRA will become
responsible for operation and maintenance of the corridor. The Draft EIR, Section
4.7.4 analyzed potential impacts involving fires and found less than significant
impacts with mitigation incorporated for this issue area. Therefore, no additional
mitigation measures or further analysis is required. There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-122 July 2011
Letter 9
Espana Velez
May 17, 2010
L9-1
L9-2
L9-3
L9-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-123 July 2011
Response to Letter 9
Espana Velez
May 17, 2010
L9-1. See Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences
Supplemental Protection (Derailment). Safety is a primary concern of both RCTC
and SCRRA (the operators of the Metrolink service) for implementation and
operation of the project. The Draft EIR found no significant, unmitigable impacts as a
result of the PVL project. The project does not increase safety risks. Instead, the PVL
project would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which would
result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced
safety.
As no specific concerns were raised, a more specific response is not required
(Browning-Ferris Industries v. City of San Jose (1986) 1818 Cal. App. 3d 852 [where
a general comment is made, a general response is sufficient]). Therefore, there are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L9-2. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master Response #10 – Hyatt
Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment).
The PVL project is proposing to improve track conditions along the project alignment.
These improvements include tie replacement, welded rail, ballast replenishment
where necessary. These improvements will provide for a safer operating
environment for both the Metrolink commuter and freight trains. Therefore, there are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L9-3. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, and Master Response #3 - Derailment. The existing Kinder
Morgan jet fuel line is located within the ROW, however, the PVL project is not
planning to relocate or alter the pipeline as it currently exists.
It should also be noted that Kinder Morgan requires on-site monitoring when work is
being conducted near their pipelines. So for any construction activities near the
pipeline including track work, or wall foundations, an experienced Kinder Morgan
inspector will be present. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and
the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L9-4. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and Master Response #9 – Highland
and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic). The majority of PVL trains
will pass both Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools either before the start of the
school day, or after the end of the school day. Additionally, it should be noted that
the PVL project plans to improve the grade crossings along the entire corridor.
As required by the CPUC, the project will make modifications to several existing
grade crossings to ensure public safety and to facilitate safe train movements.
Improvements include flashing warning devices and gates, raised center medians,
striping, signage and pavement markings, crossing safety lighting, signalization, and
pedestrian safety improvements. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-124 July 2011
Letter 10
Lenita Kellstrand
May 19, 2010
L10-1
L10-2
L10-3
L10-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-125 July 2011
Letter 10 (cont’d)
Lenita Kellstrand
May 19, 2010
L10-4 (cont’d)
L10-6
L10-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-126 July 2011
Response to Letter 10
Lenita Kellstrand
May 19, 2010
L10-1. See Master Response #6 – Noise. Several Metrolink trains would be running very
early in the morning near the property at 242 East Campus View Drive. As defined
by the 2006 FTA Manual, this is a period of heightened noise sensitivity for
residential uses. As a result, the FTA noise prediction model takes into consideration
these early morning hours by accentuating project noise levels occurring between
the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM (FTA Manual, Table 6-4).
A detailed noise assessment was conducted for project Metrolink trains at
representative sensitive properties along the entire project rail alignment (see FTA
Manual, page 3-10). Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including noise
barriers and sound insulation were proposed at specific locations (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As per the FTA
Manual (FTA Manual, page 6-43), sound insulation was proposed at seven homes
and one church along the alignment where the use of a noise barrier would not be
feasible. For the property at 242 East Campus View Drive, noise barriers are an
effective mitigation measure that will reduce noise impacts to below a level of
significance (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.3).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L10-2. See Response above to comment L10-1.
See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). Welded rail is specified for the
proposed PVL alignment. Proposed wheel squeal treatments, in the form of wayside
applicators will significantly reduce the squeal noise at short radius curves along the
proposed alignment including the curves near 242 East Campus View Drive (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). A vibration assessment for SCRRA/Metrolink trains
determined that impacts for this area would be less than significant (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-12).
L10-3. See Response L10-1. Additionally, with regard to covering the noise barriers with
landscape material, a watering system would be needed which is not available within
the RCTC ROW. As the noise barriers are located at the outer edge of the RCTC
ROW, the adjacent property owners would have the opportunity to landscape the
noise barriers as they may or may not desire. Even without landscaping, there is no
substantial evidence of any potentially significant aesthetic impacts from graffiti.
Nonetheless, if any graffiti appears on the barriers after they are built, SCRRA will
have the responsibility of removing it promptly.
The selection of eight properties (seven homes and one church) for sound insulation
was based on the fact that these particular properties would either not be fully
protected by noise barriers or the existing terrain would make the use of noise
barriers infeasible (FTA Manual, page 6-43). All eight properties are located near
grade crossings. Because these grade crossings naturally create noise barrier
discontinuity (since the barrier cannot traverse the intersection), properties near the
crossings are either unprotected or under-protected by noise barriers, thus the need
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-127 July 2011
for sound insulation at these properties. Where this discontinuity occurred, sound
insulation was recommended.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L10-4. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones. Horns represent one of the loudest noise
elements with respect to train operations. Based on guidance from the FTA, the
Metrolink horns will not be as loud as the existing freight train horns. RCTC is without
power to itself initiate quiet zones, but has collaborated with the City of Riverside in
this regard. The noise analysis (Draft EIR, Section 4.10) accounts for the early
morning sound of horn blowing, and the FTA Manual methodologies also have
provision for the disturbance horns can cause in early morning hours. There are no
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L10-5. Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General),
and Master Response #6 – Noise, and Responses L10-1 through L10-4. If ridership
increases in the future, RCTC might build additional stations to meet this demand.
RCTC has committed to conducting additional environmental reviews for new
stations that would be added in the future. There are no new impacts as a result of
this comment, the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L10-6. The mitigation proposed for the project has been identified as appropriate to reduce
the level of impact to below a significance threshold. The project related mitigation
measures will be considered during the Commission’s review and potential
certification of the EIR document. By certifying the EIR, RCTC would be accepting
responsibility to enforce the identified mitigation measures. Accordingly, the City of
Riverside is not being asked to bear significant impacts nor to bear the financial cost
of the project’s mitigation. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment, the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-128 July 2011
Letter 11
Diane E. Elton
May 21, 2010
L11-1
L11-2
L11-3
L11-4
L11-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-129 July 2011
Response to Letter 11
Diane E. Elton
May 21, 2010
L11-1. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
L11-2. See Master Response #6 - Noise. Both the noise and vibration assessments for the
PVL project considered sensitive properties in the Riverside area. With respect to the
Casa de Oro Condominiums, impacts relative to noise from Metrolink trains were
predicted to be less than significant. However, with respect to vibration from
Metrolink trains, the analysis predicted that vibration impacts would occur in the area
of Casa de Oro Condominiums. As a result, mitigation was proposed that would
reduce these predicted vibration impacts to less than significant levels (see Draft
EIR, Section 4.10.5).
The commenter states that heavy trains “shake windows”. Vibration from locomotives
is the main determinant for rail vibration. Existing vibration in this area is based on
freight traffic, with each train containing several older locomotives that include
suspension systems that are in general stiffer than the newer Metrolink passenger
locomotives. Rigid locomotive suspension systems often translate into higher levels
of vibration (FTA Manual, Section 7.2.1). This stiffer suspension in turn causes more
vibration. In addition, although no noise mitigation is required at the Casa de Oro
Condominiums, new welded rail proposed for the PVL project will result in the
reduction of both noise and vibration levels from existing freight traffic.
With respect to horn noise, based on technical guidance from the FTA, the Metrolink
horns will not be as loud as the existing freight train horns.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L11-3. See Master Response #6 – Noise. The mitigation plan proposed for the PVL project
was developed based on the results of the PVL noise and vibration assessment. The
noise and vibration assessment methodology and the subsequent mitigation
recommendations were based on FTA procedures (FTA Manual, Section 6.8). Noise
barrier locations were based on the location of impacted properties that would be
representative of neighboring properties in terms of their general topography and
existing noise exposure. The use of noise barriers would mitigate noise impact levels
at sensitive properties to less than significant (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.4). The noise
assessment did not result in any predictions of noise impacts at the Casa de Oro
Condominiums, as represented by the Watkins Drive properties which are located
between Spruce and Blaine Streets (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-9). As a result, noise
mitigation was not proposed, as noise impacts would be less than significant.
For projects where sound reflections off noise barriers are of concern, sound
absorptive materials are often proposed for use on noise barriers. However, it is not
expected that reflections off noise barriers in the area of the Casa de Oro
Condominiums would result in any significant increases in noise levels because the
Metrolink alignment would not be close to any of the proposed noise barriers (FTA
Manual, page 2-12). In the area near Casa de Oro Condominiums, noise barriers
proposed on the western side of the track alignment would be located approximately
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-130 July 2011
50 feet from the train.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L11-4. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The existing
Kinder Morgan jet fuel line is located within the ROW, however, the PVL project is
not planning to relocate or alter the pipeline as it currently exists. However, for any
project work that is occurring near the Kinder Morgan pipeline, a company
representative will be onsite to monitor construction and ensure that proper
construction protocols are followed.
L11-5. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). Welded rail in addition to ballast
replenishment are the track improvements proposed for the entire length of the PVL
project alignment. This will reduce the noise and vibration generated by both the
freight and commuter trains (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.3).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-131 July 2011
Letter 12
Kevin Dawson
May 24, 2010
L12-1
L12-2
L12-3
L12-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-132 July 2011
Letter 12 (cont’d)
Kevin Dawson
May 24, 2010
L12-5
L12-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-133 July 2011
Letter 12 (cont’d)
Kevin Dawson
May 24, 2010
L12-7
L12-8
L12-9
L12-10
L12-11
L12-12
L12-13
L12-14
L12-15
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-134 July 2011
Letter 12 (cont’d)
Kevin Dawson
May 24, 2010
L12-15 (cont’d)
L12-16
L12-17
L12-18
L12-19
L12-20
L12-21
L12-22
L12-23
L12-24
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-135 July 2011
Letter 12 (cont’d)
Kevin Dawson
May 24, 2010
L12-24 (cont’d)
L12-25
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-136 July 2011
Response to Letter 12
Kevin Dawson
May 24, 2010
L12-1. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
The existing and future freight service is not a part of the proposed PVL project, and
so existing freight train noise may not be reduced significantly as a result of the
proposed project. However, the proposed project would indeed result in some
reduction in existing freight train noise for certain residences. These reductions
would result from the proposed mitigation measures for Metrolink trains (i.e. noise
barriers and sound insulation) as well as the replacement of rail with welded rail for
the entire length of the alignment. In addition, future PVL Metrolink trains would be
traveling at higher speeds and would be shorter in length than the existing freight
trains; as a result, the exposure time for noise sensitive properties will be significantly
less (trains will pass by in seconds not minutes) than for the freight trains.
L12-2. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School. The pipeline within the RCTC ROW is considered an existing
condition of the local environment and was not evaluated as part of the Draft EIR. As
an existing condition, it is assumed that the pipeline is operated and maintained to
the current industry standards, including evaluation for oxidation and corrosion.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L12-3. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Response to Comment L12-2. The PVL project complies
with applicable regulations. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-4. The comment expresses an opinion but does not contain a comment on the
environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR, and therefore no response is
necessary. See also Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School.
L12-5. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The track improvements proposed
by the PVL project include welded rail, tie replacement, and ballast replenishment
where necessary along the alignment. These improvements will improve the overall
safety of both Metrolink and freight trains. Since there are no impacts to this issue
area as a result of the PVL project, mitigation measures are not required.
Additionally, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
L12-6 See Master Response #3 –Derailment (General) and Master Responses #4 –
Hazardous Materials Transport and #5 – Freight Operations. The PVL project is a
commuter rail project that will not transport hazardous materials along the route.
However, hazardous materials will continue to be shipped along the RCTC ROW by
freight operations. Regardless freight will continue to ship materials into the corridor
whether the PVL project moves forward or not. The frequency and quantity of
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-137 July 2011
materials, as with all freight operations, is completely dependent on customer
demand. The track improvements mentioned above in L12-5 as part of the PVL
project would also reduce the noise and vibration from the freight trains, and improve
overall safety along the corridor. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-7 See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. This comment
states that “RCTC needs to develop with partnering agencies a master response
plan…” Though unlikely and unanticipated, if an emergency were to occur near the
PVL corridor, the Riverside County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and/or the
City of Riverside Emergency Management Office would be activated and trained
professionals would be in place to manage and coordinate the appropriate
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).
Furthermore, the PVL project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a few cars.
These trains are too short to block more than a single crossing. Thus, even in the
unanticipated event that a project train stops in the neighborhood, there would be no
significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress locations would be
affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become a
shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under the responsibility of SCRRA. Due
to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be
allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood) because
this would block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would stop in the
areas where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the
UCR neighborhood. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-8. See Master Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations, where
roadways go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific approach distance to
maintain the appropriate roadway grades and clearance heights for the tracks. For
grade separations to be possible within the UCR neighborhood at any location, many
homes would lose vehicle and driveway access. Accordingly, a grade separation into
the University Neighborhood is infeasible. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-9. The rail ROW has been in existence for over 100 years and the City of Riverside and
the County of Riverside developed these parks without considering access across
private property (the SJBL/RCTC ROW). If unauthorized people enter the ROW,
even to “just” cross the tracks to get to the other side, they are trespassing.
The PVL project does not include adding additional track in this area and will not
affect existing access to parks in any way. The existing track will remain in its current
location. CEQA requires agencies to address their project’s impacts not to remedy
conditions in the existing environment that are unrelated to the project. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-138 July 2011
L12-10. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. RCTC is proposing safety
improvements at the existing grade crossings along the project alignment. These
grade crossing improvements are fully compliant with CPUC regulations and no
further improvements are required. Additionally, Metrolink will be providing rail safety
awareness both for schools and for the general public as discussed on Section
2.4.14 of the Draft EIR. This safety awareness training is designed to teach people
about the safety hazards of being too close to the trains and the hazards of
trespassing on active rail ROW. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-11. There is station area landscaping proposed for the PVL project. The comment that
the RCTC must conform to the University Neighborhood Plan is incorrect. As a
railroad owner, RCTC is not required to conform to local specific plans because of
the potential to limit commerce; RCTC is protected by the Interstate Commerce
Clause, as are all railroads in the United States. This clause allows the railroads to
conduct business throughout the country without having to comply with the local
planning requirements through which the ROW passes. Therefore, there are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-12. With regard to covering the noise barriers with landscape material, a watering
system would be needed which is not available within the RCTC ROW. As the noise
barriers are located at the outer edge of the RCTC ROW, the adjacent property
owners would have the opportunity to landscape the noise barriers as they may or
may not desire. Even without landscaping, there is no substantial evidence of any
potentially significant aesthetic impacts from graffiti. Nonetheless, if any graffiti
appears on the barriers after they are built, SCRRA will have the responsibility of
removing it promptly.
L12-13. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and Master Response #9 – Highland
and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic). The PVL proposed train
schedule as indicated in the Draft EIR in Table 2.4-2 has a majority of the trains
passing the schools prior to school starting and after the school day ends.
Additionally, with the exception of one of the morning trains and two mid-day trains,
commuter rail movements would occur early in the morning and later in the
afternoon, outside of school operating hours. The morning train would not impact
students arriving at Hyatt Elementary School because the nearest grade crossing, Mt
Vernon Avenue, is over 0.75 miles away. Students arriving at Highland Elementary
School may be required to wait no more than 45 seconds at the grade crossing at W.
Blaine Street. Students leaving either school in the afternoon would not be
significantly impacted because there are no scheduled trains during that time.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
Additionally, the current warning signs and signals are being upgraded and will
provide for an up-to-date warning system. Since there are no significant impacts as a
result of this issue area, no mitigation measures are required. Additionally, there are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-139 July 2011
L12-14. CARB and SCAQMD operate an ambient air quality-monitoring network throughout
the state that monitors air pollutants. This network encompasses every county in the
state (including Riverside County where the proposed PVL would operate) and the
most current and relevant data from these monitoring stations was used in the air
quality analysis. The SCAQMD operates three air quality-monitoring stations in
Riverside and one in Perris that measure the local air quality on a continuous basis.
L12-15. The air quality analysis for the PVL accounted for all relevant project parameters and
conditions. Where applicable, the analysis was done in compliance with the most up-
to-date local, state, and federal air quality regulations and guidance from the
SCAQMD, CARB, and the USEPA. The diesel locomotives that will be used to
implement the proposed PVL schedule (as well as those currently being used by
SCRRA/Metrolink) are bound by federal air quality regulations and must meet their
emissions criteria. As noted in Table 4.3-12 of the Air Quality section of the Draft
EIR, SCRRA/Metrolink will operate the PVL schedule by using six diesel-electric
locomotives that meet the USEPA stringent Tier 2 emissions standards (Emissions
Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009). By comparison, Tier 2
locomotives restrict pollutant emissions to 90 percent of Tier 1 standards that were
restricted to approximately 60 percent of Tier 0 or uncontrolled locomotive emissions.
By the operating year of the PVL, all new locomotives will be required to meet Tier 3
emissions that require an approximately 50 percent reduction of Tier 2 emissions. As
noted in Table 4.3-12, the expected emissions of the locomotives will be completely
offset by the reduction in emissions from diverted vehicular traffic.
As noted in Table 4.3-12, the expected emissions of the locomotives will be
completely offset by the reduction in emissions from diverted vehicular traffic. It
should also be noted that the existing air quality monitoring stations provide data
from a consistent location over many years. The introduction of new monitoring
locations, or additional data collection, should be coordinated with the SCAQMD to
fall within the regional monitoring and not just one local project.
L12-16. The existing rail ROW has been in use for over 100 years. The regulations
mentioned in the comment are identified in the Draft EIR, Section 4.7.2. These
regulations were established in 1998 and are for the siting of new schools so that
incompatible land uses are identified prior to a school being constructed. These
regulations are not applicable to new projects near existing schools. Therefore, there
are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed. (See also discussion in Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline
Segment Near Highland Elementary School).
L12-17. This comment is not related to the PVL project or the Draft EIR, but it should be
noted that RCTC has an operating agreement with BNSF to operate and maintain
the SJBL ROW.
L12-18. This comment states that the cost/benefit analysis must consider “the lost rents or
fees from RCTC’s failure to charge the private, for profit national corporate freight
company, BNSF, for use the past 17 years.” This comment is incorrect. RCTC did
not have operational or maintenance responsibilities over the ROW before
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-140 July 2011
purchasing it from BNSF. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-19. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The PVL project is a commuter rail
project and would have no significant impact on freight operations. Therefore, no
mitigation measures are required. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-20. Freight trains are not a part of the project and RCTC is not responsible for freight
traffic. If ridership increases in the future, RCTC may build additional stations to meet
this demand. RCTC has committed to conducting additional environmental reviews
for any new stations that would be added in the future. There are no new impacts as
a result of this comment, the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-21. See Master Response #6 – Noise. As provided in the Draft EIR, noise analysis has
predicted that 83 residential units would be impacted by noise from the proposed
PVL project mitigation in the form of noise barriers is proposed. Noise barriers are
recognized by the FTA as an effective mitigation option (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.3).
Sound insulation is proposed for the properties at which noise barriers would not be
fully protected by the noise barriers. All properties selected for sound insulation were
located near grade crossings in the UCR area (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L12-22. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. This comment states that the “2008
Wilbur Smith Associates study is flawed and without use.” This comment supports
this claim by saying that the study failed to contact developers that might want to
utilize freight service in the future. This comment is misleading. Interviewing
developers that might want to utilize freight service in the future is unnecessary
because the PVL project has no significant impact on freight usage. As stated in
Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13, freight operations are dictated by customer demand; in
turn, customer demand is a function of economic conditions. The relationship
between track improvements and increased freight operations is tenuous, at best.
The business decision to provide freight service along the alignment is profit driven.
As long as the customer demand for freight service is low, there is no reason to
assume BNSF would increase operations on the SJBL, regardless of the PVL project
(see Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13).
The 2008 Wilbur Smith Associates study is not flawed. In turn, the Draft EIR, which
utilized the freight study to evaluate potential environmental impacts, is also not
flawed. The analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and
no mitigation is required for this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment
were raised and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-23. This comment is not related to the PVL project or the Draft EIR. BNSF is not required
to make public the materials that are transported via BNSF rail cars. Additionally,
BNSF is only a transportation company, so there is not necessarily a consistent type
or quantity of materials being shipped. As stated previously, the materials being
shipped by freight operations are a result of customer orders only, not rail conditions.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-141 July 2011
No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
L12-24. The UCR Station was not evaluated for impacts in the Draft EIR, see Section 2.2. It
should be noted that consideration of that station was specifically removed from the
project after the IS/MND was circulated. Additionally, the General Plan for the City of
Riverside does identify a station in the UCR neighborhood. RCTC has committed to
a new environmental review should any new stations be proposed in the future.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed. The projected ridership for the UCR Station is assumed to have
transferred to the Hunter Park Station. No new impacts as a result of this comment
were raised and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L12-25. As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 2.2, the UCR Station is not part of the PVL
project. No new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-142 July 2011
Letter 13
Robert Hice
May 24, 2010
L13-1
L13-2
L13-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-143 July 2011
Letter 13 (cont’d)
Robert Hice
May 24, 2010
L13-3 (cont’d)
L13-4
L13-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-144 July 2011
Response to Letter 13
Robert Hice
May 24, 2010
L13-1. This comment is introductory. The specific issues the commenter has with the Draft
EIR are addressed in the following Responses L13-2 through L13-5. Therefore, no
response is necessary here.
L13-2. See Master Responses #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and #3 – Derailment (General). There are several concerns
regarding existing conditions and operations of the current ROW. It should be noted
that the track improvements as part of the proposed PVL project will improve safety
and train noise for both Metrolink and freight trains. The EIR does not identify
significant safety impacts at schools adjacent to the alignment (Highland and Hyatt
Elementary Schools) and thus, by inference at the more distant school (University
Middle School, approximately 0.3 miles away). There are no new impacts as a result
of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L13-3. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones and Master Response #6 – Noise. The
Metrolink trains will be running very early in the morning near the property at 232
East Campus View Drive. As defined by FTA Manual, this is a period of heightened
noise sensitivity for residential uses. As a result, the FTA noise prediction model
takes into consideration these early morning hours by accentuating project noise
levels occurring between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM (FTA Manual, Table 6-4).
The FRA horn rule was taken into account when designing the noise barriers at the
232 East Campus View Drive location. The proposed noise barriers would block the
line-of-sight with the oncoming Metrolink trains.
Concerning noise reflections off the Box Springs Mountain, 232 East Campus View
Drive is located almost 1,000 feet from the foot of the mountain. As the face of the
mountain is not a smooth surface and slopes away from properties in the general
area, reflections of train noise attributable to the PVL trains, though audible, would
be sufficiently dispersed so as not to add significant noise or create significant
impacts.
A principal source of noise near the Box Springs curved area would be wheel squeal.
Therefore as part of the project, wayside applicators are proposed to significantly
reduce the noise from wheel squeal at this and all other tight radius curves along the
entire project alignment (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4).
The mitigation plan proposed for the PVL project was developed based on the
results of the PVL noise and vibration assessment. The noise and vibration
assessment methodology and the subsequent mitigation recommendations were
based on procedures outlined in the FTA Manual, Section 6.8. The selection of
seven homes for sound insulation was based on the fact that these particular homes
would either not be properly protected by noise barriers or the existing terrain would
make the use of noise barriers infeasible. All seven homes are located near grade
crossings. Because these grade crossings naturally create noise barrier discontinuity
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-145 July 2011
(since the barrier cannot traverse the intersection), homes near the crossings are left
either unprotected or under-protected by noise barriers, thus the need for sound
insulation at these properties. The implementation of noise barriers would mitigate
interior noise levels to less than significant (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.4). Noise
barrier locations were based on the location of impacted properties that would be
representative of neighboring properties in terms of their general topography and
existing noise exposure (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1). Calculations based on
formulae contained in section 6.3.2 of the FTA Manual were applied to determine
barrier height requirements that would eliminate the specific impacts. The length of
the noise barriers was based primarily on where the proposed PVL locomotives
would begin blowing their horns (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1), in addition to the
position of the horns on the trains and existing site topography and constraints.
The landscaping of the noise barriers as a way to reduce the potential for graffiti (an
illegal act) along the corridor was considered but rejected because first, there is no
substantial evidence in the record to support that graffiti is reasonably foreseeable
and second, the barrier location makes landscaping infeasible. The barriers are
proposed at the edge of the ROW, closest to the impacted properties to provide the
maximum reduction in noise. With the noise barriers at the edge of the ROW, there is
no way for RCTC to provide irrigation for any landscaping. Any landscaping of the
noise barriers may be provided by the adjacent landowner. It should be noted that
SCRRA is responsible for ROW maintenance. Any graffiti will be removed promptly
by SCRRA personnel. (http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration
Manual.pdf).
L13-4. A vibration assessment based on FTA vibration criteria (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-6)
was performed for the PVL project. The results demonstrated that the proposed PVL
project rail operations would not result in any vibration impacts in the area of East
Campus View Drive (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-12). Existing vibration in this area is
based on freight traffic. Vibration from locomotives is the main determinant for rail
vibration. Each existing freight train contains several older locomotives that include
suspension systems that are generally stiffer than the proposed newer Metrolink
passenger locomotives. Rigid locomotive suspension systems often translate into
higher levels of vibration (FTA Manual, Section 7.2.1). In addition, the proposed
project would also eliminate old rail and use new welded rail and ballast material
along the entire PVL corridor, which would have the added benefit of reducing
vibration from existing freight traffic. Efficient vibration propagation is also not
indicated from the types of soil conditions observed in the geotechnical study (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.6).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L13-5. The rail ROW has been in existence for over 100 years and the City of Riverside and
the County of Riverside developed these parks without considering access across
private property (the SJBL/RCTC ROW). If unauthorized people enter the ROW,
even to “just” cross the tracks to get to the other side, they are trespassing.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-146 July 2011
The PVL project does not include adding additional track in this area or affecting
existing access to parks in any way. The existing track will remain in its current
location. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-147 July 2011
Letter 14
Robert J. Dobry
May 17, 2010
L14-1
L14-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-148 July 2011
Response to Letter 14
Robert J. Dobry
May 17, 2010
L14-1. The Alternative Analysis evaluated a bus alternative but the bus alternative was
rejected because of the existing traffic on the I-215 corridor. Existing traffic volumes
were too high to accommodate buses moving back and forth to HOV lanes, and a
reliable schedule could not be assumed.
L14-2. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones, Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General), Master Response #6 – Noise, and Master Response #7 – Emergency
Planning and Response. This comment states that “The Perris Valley Line is a huge
misallocation of resources. When you add to this the destruction of the environment
from noise and commotion, blockage of roads by trains, and risk of derailment
caused by steep grade and friable roadbed substructure, this system cannot be
justified.” This comment is also incorrect, for the following reasons:
With regard to “noise and commotion”: as stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5,
impacts to ambient noise levels will be mitigated to less than significant levels.
With regard to “blockage of roads by trains”: the PVL project’s trains would be
commuter trains of only a few cars. These trains are too short to block more than a
single crossing. Thus, even in the unanticipated event that a project train stops in the
UCR neighborhood, there would be no significant impact because only one of three
ingress/egress locations would be affected. Additionally, with the implementation of
the PVL project, the corridor will become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and
BNSF under control of SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the operations, it is not
anticipated that trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the
UCR neighborhood) because this would block other trains from passing through.
Instead, trains would stop in the areas where there is a bypass track (between MP
7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR neighborhood.
With regard to “the risks of derailment caused by steep grade and friable roadbed
substructure “: Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) discusses how the PVL
project includes track improvements throughout its length because a commuter train
would be added to the track (see Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1). These track
improvements would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which
would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and
enhanced operational safety. Therefore, not constructing the PVL project poses a
much higher risk of train derailment exposure than constructing the project would.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts
and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to further
clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and no
mitigation measures are required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-149 July 2011
Letter 15
Robert A. Phillips
May 23, 2010
L15-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-150 July 2011
Letter 15 (cont’d)
Robert A. Phillips
May 23, 2010
L15-1 (cont’d)
L15-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-151 July 2011
Letter 15 (cont’d)
Robert A. Phillips
May 23, 2010
L15-3
L15-4
L15-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-152 July 2011
Letter 15 (cont’d)
Robert A. Phillips
May 23, 2010
L15-6
L15-7
L15-8
L15-9
L15-10
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-153 July 2011
Letter 15 (cont’d)
Robert A. Phillips
May 23, 2010
L15-10 (cont’d)
L15-11
L15-12
L15-13
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-154 July 2011
Response to Letter 15
Robert A. Phillips
May 23, 2010
L15-1. The UCR Station was not evaluated for impacts in the Draft EIR (see Section 2.2)
and is not part of the proposed project. It should be noted that consideration of that
station was specifically removed in response to public comments after the initial
IS/MND was circulated. However, the General Plan for the City of Riverside does
identify a station in the UCR neighborhood. RCTC has committed to new
environmental review should the UCR station be proposed in the future. There are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L15-2. This comment states that the Highgrove Station was not included in the PVL project
because “RCTC does not want to spend its money on something that might benefit
another jurisdiction.” This comment is incorrect and speculative. The Draft EIR in
Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station and reasons why it is not
considered as part of the proposed project. These reasons include “projected
ridership and revenue; operational requirements; geographic spacing in relation to
other stations; right of way requirements and availability; local conditions such as
surrounding land use and traffic circulation; and rail configuration” (see Draft EIR,
Section 2.2). The Highgrove Area Station failed to adequately meet these
considerations and therefore was not included as a component of the PVL project.
This comment also implies that the PVL project’s purpose is to “enhance the
movement of freight from the Interstate 215 corridor to the ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach.” This comment is incorrect. As the Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13 and Master
Response #5 – Freight Operations state, the PVL project would have no significant
impact on freight usage. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L15-3. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response and Master
Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations, where roadways go under
or over railroad tracks, require a specific approach distance to maintain appropriate
roadway grades and clearance heights for the tracks. For grade separations to be
possible within the UCR neighborhood many homes would lose vehicle and driveway
access. This comment also expresses concern regarding the fact that freight trains
can block every grade crossing in the UCR neighborhood. The project’s trains would
be commuter trains of only a few cars. These trains are too short to block more than
a single crossing. Thus, even in the unanticipated event that a PVL train stops in the
neighborhood, there would be no significant impact because only one of three
ingress/egress locations would be affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become a
shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of SCRRA. Due to the
shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be allowed to
stop in areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood) because this would
block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas
where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-155 July 2011
neighborhood. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and
the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L15-4. Residents that currently exit the rear of their properties and cross the ROW are
putting themselves at great risk by trespassing on an active rail corridor. There is no
existing right of entry to the ROW from individual properties and with the proposed
project this condition would be maintained.
L15-5. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport, Master Response #5 –
Freight Operations, and Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response.
The Draft EIR discusses freight operations in Section 2.4.13. This comment states
that the Wilbur Smith Associates 2008 study is “useless” and seeks to support this
claim with several examples. This claim and the supporting examples are incorrect.
Interviewing developers that might want to utilize freight service in the future is
unnecessary because the PVL project has no significant impact on freight usage. As
stated in Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13, freight operations are dictated by customer
demand; in turn, customer demand is a function of economic conditions. The
relationship between track improvements and increased freight operations is
tenuous, at best. The business decision to provide freight service along the
alignment is profit driven. As long as the customer demand for freight service is low,
there is no reason to assume BNSF would increase operations on the SJBL,
regardless of the PVL project (see Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13).
Therefore, the Wilbur Smith Associates 2008 study is not flawed. In turn, the Draft
EIR, which utilized the freight study to evaluate potential environmental impacts, is
also not flawed. The analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant
impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. No new impacts as a result of
this comment were raised and the Draft EIR has not been changed. In response to
the request that RCTC “establish an upper limit for freight traffic ...,” this is not
feasible. The freight is delivered by BNSF as part of interstate commerce. This
cannot be constrained on a local level. It should also be noted that freight will not be
shifted to the night because there is time available during the day for freight
deliveries.
L15-6. In the San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (STV
Incorporated, 2004), included as Technical Report A to the Draft EIR, it is described
that the major transportation facilities in the corridor, I-215 and State Route 60 (SR-
60), are currently experiencing unsatisfactory levels of services, a measure based on
factors such as travel times and speed, and evidenced by increasingly poor
volume/capacity (V/C) ratios. As stated in the Alternatives Analysis, between 1997
and 2025 traffic volumes are forecasted to increase up to a 68.8% increase on the
combined segments of I-215; a 91.4% increase on SR-60 (East Junction to Gillman
Springs Road); and an 85.1% increase on I-215 (East Junction to Perris/Romoland)
further increasing congestion on the roadways. Similarly, the V/C ratios are expected
to range from 1.02 to 1.3 on I-215/SR-60, from 1.2 to 1.44 on I-215 and are predicted
to increase by up to 0.59 on some segments of SR-60. V/C ratios are a measure of
traffic demand on a facility (expressed as volume) compared to its traffic-carrying
capacity so that a V/C ratio over 1.0 indicates that a facility is over capacity. These
facilities are forecasted to continue with unsatisfactory levels of service even with
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-156 July 2011
programmed roadway improvements over the coming years, including additional
lanes and the implementation of HOV lanes. With most major highways in the
corridor having limited expansion potential, this study proposes public transit
investments to accommodate, at least in part, current and future mobility needs.
The Draft EIR discusses the No Project Alternative in Section 3.2.1 of the Draft EIR.
However, the No Project Alternative was eliminated from further evaluation as it did
not meet any of the identified project goals and objectives (shown in Section 3.1.2 of
the Draft EIR) and would not provide a different mode of passenger transportation
between Riverside and Perris.
L15-7. Neither the No Project Alternative nor the Express Bus Alternative would reduce
highway congestion in the SJBL/I-215 corridor as automobile and bus modes would
still be tied to the congested roadway network. However, all three commuter rail
alternatives would allow commuters to decrease their travel time in the corridor and
decrease personal vehicles used in the corridor reducing congestion. Therefore, a
commuter rail option was selected to provide mobility through the corridor without
relying on or adding to the congestion of the area highways.
The ridership projections for this study were developed using the forecasting for the
Alternatives Analysis that was performed by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) utilizing the existing and approved SCAG regional travel
demand model. The model was run for different scenarios at different time intervals,
base year, start-up year, and forecast year. The forecast year for the study was
2025. Please refer to Technical Report A (Chapter 4) for a discussion of ridership for
the proposed alternatives. Exhibit 25 in Chapter 4 depicts the boardings by stations
for the Express Bus Alternative and three commuter rail alternatives. The selected
commuter rail option shows a ridership in 2025 (7,472 boardings) which is slightly
more than double the ridership for the Express Bus Alternative (3,705 boardings).
L15-8. The landscaping proposed for the PVL project is in the station areas, none of which
are in the UCR neighborhood. RCTC is not required to conform to local specific
plans because of the potential to limit commerce; RCTC is protected by the Interstate
Commerce Clause, as are all railroads in the United States. This clause allows the
railroads to conduct business throughout the country without having to comply with
the local planning requirements through which the ROW passes. Therefore, there
are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L15-9. The addition of freight train service is not in the scope of the PVL project and is not a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project and thus is not analyzed here.
Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air Quality Technical Report)
outlines the extensive methodologies used to calculate the expected emissions due
to the implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for the PVL
accounted for relevant project parameters and conditions and ensured that the
analysis was done in compliance with the most up-to-date local, state, and federal air
quality regulations and guidance. Tables 4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that
emissions projected for criteria pollutants, local intersections (CO hotspots),
greenhouse gases, mobile source air toxics, construction activities and locomotive
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-157 July 2011
and parking operations fall below local thresholds of significance and state and
federal emissions standards.
More specifically, Table 4.3.9 in the Draft EIR (supported in Appendix C of the Air
Quality Technical Report) outlines the health risk assessment conducted to measure
the impacts of mobile source air toxics (including diesel particulate matter) in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed PVL alignment. As shown in Table 4.3-9, the
Mobile Source Air Toxics emissions from the operation of the proposed PVL would
have less than significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood and along the
corridor.
L15-10. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The Draft EIR discusses freight
operations in Section 2.4.13. As stated in the Draft EIR freight operations are not part
of the PVL project but would benefit from it by improving the rail, ties, and ballast.
Freight operations are tied to local economic conditions and would increase or
decrease as a result of goods shipment, not the PVL project or track condition.
It should also be noted that the City of Riverside, General Plan does not identify an
earthquake fault at the intersection of Watkins Drive and Valencia Hill Drive.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
L15-11. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment). This comment claims that the Draft EIR “fails to mention that
it (the Kinder Morgan pipeline) is immediately adjacent to schools.” This comment is
incorrect; Section 4.7.1 of the Draft EIR states “a portion of the Kinder Morgan
pipeline within the PVL corridor, runs parallel to Highland Elementary School, within
approximately 50 feet to the west.“ Though the existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel line is
located within the RCTC ROW, the PVL project is not planning to relocate or alter the
pipeline as it currently exists. The PVL project will not significantly increase the
safety risks in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School and the Kinder Morgan
pipeline near that school, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment. The
Draft EIR has not been changed.
L15-12. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The PVL project is proposing to
improve track conditions along the project alignment. These improvements would
include tie replacement, welded rail, ballast replenishment where necessary. These
improvements will provide for a safer operating environment for both Metrolink and
freight trains.
L15-13. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones and Master Response #6 – Noise. The
Draft EIR has predicted that 83 residential units would be impacted by noise from the
proposed PVL project. This does represent a reduction in the number of impacted
homes from the previous 2004 study. However, the most recent study includes the
use of more up-to-date noise monitoring data, more detailed engineering revisions in
the proposed train schedule and improvements in the way “wheel squeal” will be
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-158 July 2011
handled at short radius curves (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). The Draft EIR also
proposes sound insulation at more properties than the previous 2004 report.
A detailed noise assessment was conducted for project Metrolink trains at
representative sensitive properties along the entire project rail alignment (FTA
Manual, page 3-10). This includes several locations near 3511 Watkins Drive. Where
impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including noise barriers and sound
insulation were proposed at specific locations (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5) to
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Locations of proposed noise barriers
were based on the project as defined in the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the locations of
grade crossings in the UCR area, and the FRA horn blowing requirement (see Draft
EIR, Section 4.10.1), indicate that horns from PVL trains would not be sounded
between the gap in question between stations 311 and 322. As a result, the
assessment results indicated that predicted future noise levels at 3511 Watkins Drive
would not trigger the requirement for noise barriers.
A vibration assessment based on FTA vibration criteria (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-6)
was also performed for the PVL project. The results demonstrated that the proposed
PVL project rail operations would not result in any vibration impacts in the area of
3511 Watkins Drive (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-12). However, as part of the PVL
project, the tracks along the entire alignment will be improved to all welded rail that
will reduce wheel vibration from both future PVL trains and existing freight traffic.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
With regard to covering the noise barriers with landscape material, a watering
system would be needed which is not available within the RCTC ROW. As the noise
barriers are located at the outer edge of the RCTC ROW, the adjacent property
owners would have the opportunity to landscape the noise barriers as they may or
may not desire. Even without landscaping, there is no substantial evidence of any
potentially significant aesthetic impacts from graffiti. Nonetheless, if any graffiti
appears on the barriers after they are built, SCRRA will have the responsibility of
removing it promptly.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-159 July 2011
Letter 16
Ramona Batista
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-160 July 2011
Letter 16 (cont’d)
Ramona Batista
May 24, 2010
L16-1
L16-2
L16-3
L16-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-161 July 2011
Letter 16 (cont’d)
Ramona Batista
May 24, 2010
L16-4 (cont’d)
L16-5
L16-6
L16-7
L16-8
L16-9
L16-10
L16-12
L16-11
L16-13
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-162 July 2011
Letter 16 (cont’d)
Ramona Batista
May 24, 2010
L16-15
L16-13 (cont’d)
L16-14
L16-16
L16-17
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-163 July 2011
Response to Letter 16
Ramona Batista
May 24, 2010
L16-1. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
L16-2. See Master Response #3 - Derailment and Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings
to better understand RCTC’s response to safety concerns. Additionally, the project
proposes to extend Metrolink commuter rail service into the existing SJBL corridor.
The project does not propose to introduce high-speed trains into the corridor.
L16-3. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
L16-4. See Response L16-2 with regard to high-speed train service.
L16-5. See Master Response #6 – Noise.
L16-6. See Master Response #11 – Recirculate EIR and the CEQA Process. RCTC intends,
as they have from the start of this project, to listen to residents’ concerns and/or
mitigate the identified impacts from the project. RCTC also intends to take action to
approve or deny the project without taking a public vote.
L16-7. See Master Response #6 – Noise. Compensation for sound insulation at all homes
along the corridor is not a feasible option since not all properties would be impacted
by PVL train noise. In addition, the Draft EIR proposed mitigation for noise impacts
through the installation of noise barriers and sound installation at selected properties.
A total of eight properties would be provided sound insulation as mitigation. The
identification of eight properties for sound insulation was based on the fact that these
particular properties would either not be properly or fully protected by noise barriers
or the existing terrain would make the use of noise barriers infeasible (FTA Manual,
page 6-43). This actually represents more than twice the number of properties
recommended for sound insulation in the 2004 EA. All eight properties are located
near grade crossings. Because these grade crossings naturally create noise barrier
discontinuity (since the barrier cannot traverse the intersection), homes nearby the
crossings are often left either unprotected or under-protected, thus the need for
sound insulation at these properties. Where this discontinuity occurs, sound
insulation was recommended.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L16-8. With regard to covering the noise barriers with landscape material, a watering
system would be needed which is not available within the RCTC ROW. As the noise
barriers are located at the outer edge of the RCTC ROW, the adjacent property
owners would have the opportunity to landscape the noise barriers as they may or
may not desire. Even without landscaping, there is no substantial evidence of any
potentially significant aesthetic impacts from graffiti. Nonetheless, if any graffiti
appears on the barriers after they are built, SCRRA will have the responsibility of
removing it promptly.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-164 July 2011
L16-9. The threat of potential brush fires is highest at the urban/wildland interface. These
areas would be in the Islander Park/Box Springs Park area and south to the I-
215/SR-60 interchange. The discussion of protection in these areas is provided in
the Draft EIR on page 4.7-14. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L16-10. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. The PVL project is a
commuter rail project that will not transport hazardous materials along the route.
Hazardous materials will however, continue to be shipped along the RCTC ROW by
freight operations. The frequency and quantity of materials, as with all freight
operations, is completely dependent on customer demand. There are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L16-11. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The PVL project is proposing to
improve track conditions along the project alignment. These improvements include
tie replacement, welded rail and ballast replenishment where necessary. These
improvements will provide for a safer operating environment for both the Metrolink
and freight trains. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
L16-12. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. The PVL project proposes to improve
the grade crossing warnings to provide safety controls for pedestrians and vehicles
and provide for safer passage of commuter trains. There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L16-13. Noise barriers are proposed along the RCTC ROW boundary in the UCR
neighborhood. These noise barriers will be continuous and not allow residents to exit
out the back fence and trespass into the rail ROW. The overall safety of the residents
will be improved by not providing gate access into an active rail corridor. Noise
barriers were specifically proposed to reduce noise impacts to less than significant
levels. They were not provided to address any specific safety issues with respect to
persons accessing or crossing the rail line. Also see Response to Comment L15-4.
L16-14. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential air impacts from the project and presented the
results in Section 4.3. Table 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR shows the results of this
analysis. It should be noted that SCAG determined that the PVL was not a POAQC
(project of air quality concern) with respect to particulate matter. A copy of the TCWG
review form is shown in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix F.
L16-15. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School. The existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel line is located within the
ROW, however, the PVL project is not planning to relocate or alter the pipeline as it
currently exists. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft
EIR has not been changed.
L16-16. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. The UCR Station
was not evaluated for impacts in the Draft EIR, see Section 2.2 and is not part of the
proposed project. It should be noted that consideration of that station was specifically
removed after the IS/MND was circulated. However, the General Plan for the City of
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-165 July 2011
Riverside does identify a station in the UCR neighborhood. RCTC has committed to
new environmental review should the UCR Station be proposed in the future.
This comment also expresses concern that trains can block every grade crossing in
the UCR neighborhood. The project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a few
cars. These trains are too short to block more than a single crossing. Thus, even in
the unanticipated event that a PVL train stops in the neighborhood, there would be
no significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress locations would be
affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become a
shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of SCRRA. Due to the
shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be allowed to
stop in areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood) because this would
block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas
where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR
neighborhood. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and
the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L16-17. This comment is informational. No response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-166 July 2011
Letter 17
Gurumantra S. Khalsa
May 24, 2010
L17-1
L17-2
L17-3
L17-4
L17-5
L17-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-167 July 2011
Response to Letter 17
Gurumantra S. Khalsa
May 24, 2010
L17-1. This comment expresses concern that freight trains can block every grade crossing
in the UCR neighborhood. The project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a
few cars. These trains are too short to block more than a single crossing. Thus, even
in the unlikely event that a PVL train stops in the neighborhood, there would be no
significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress locations would be
affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become a
shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of SCRRA. Due to the
shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be allowed to
stop in areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood) because this would
block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas
where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR
neighborhood. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and
the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L17-2. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master Response #2 - Kinder
Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland Elementary School, and Response to
Comment L17-1. The PVL project is proposing to improve track conditions along the
project alignment. These improvements include tie replacement, welded rail, ballast
replenishment where necessary. These improvements will improve the safety of both
the Metrolink and freight trains. The improved operating conditions are anticipated to
reduce the risk of derailment. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L17-3. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. Currently, the
RCTC ROW is used exclusively by BNSF freight trains. With the implementation of
the PVL project, the corridor will become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and
BNSF under control of SCRRA. Because of the shared nature of the operations, it is
not anticipated that any trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track and
thus block other trains from passing. The added benefit of this is that BNSF trains
would only stop in the areas of bypass track along the I-215 corridor and not in the
UCR neighborhood. Therefore, response by emergency personnel would not be
impeded by the proposed project. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L17-4. See Master Responses #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport and #5 – Freight
Operations. The PVL project is a commuter rail project that will not transport
hazardous materials along the route. However, hazardous materials will continue to
be shipped along the RCTC ROW by freight whether the PVL project moves forward
or not. The frequency and quantity of materials, as with all freight operations, is
completely dependent on customer demand. The track improvements provided as
part of the PVL project would also reduce the noise and vibration from the freight
trains, and improve overall safety along the corridor. Therefore, there are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-168 July 2011
L17-5. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response and Master
Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations, where roadways go under
or over railroad tracks, require a specific approach distance to maintain appropriate
grades and clearance heights for the tracks. For grade separations to be possible
within the UCR neighborhood, many houses would lose vehicle and driveway
access. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
L17-6. See Responses L17-1 through L17-5. Additionally, public safety was analyzed in the
Draft EIR, Section 4.7. As no specific concerns were raised, a more specific
response is not required (Browning-Ferris Industries v. City of San Jose (1986) 1818
Cal. App. 3d 852 [where a general comment is made, a general response is
sufficient]). Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-169 July 2011
Letter 18
Marcia McQuern
May 19, 2010
L18-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-170 July 2011
Response to Letter 18
Marcia McQuern
May 19, 2010
L18-1. The commenter expresses full support for the project and environmental evaluation.
The comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no further
response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-171 July 2011
Letter 19
Kenneth S. Alpern, MD – The Transit Coalition
May 24, 2010
L19-2
L19-1
L19-3
L19-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-172 July 2011
Letter 19 (cont’d)
Kenneth S. Alpern, MD – The Transit Coalition
May 24, 2010
L19-4 (cont’d)
L19-6
L19-7
L19-8
L19-9
L19-10
L19-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-173 July 2011
Letter 19 (cont’d)
Kenneth S. Alpern, MD – The Transit Coalition
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-174 July 2011
Letter 19 (cont’d)
Kenneth S. Alpern, MD – The Transit Coalition
May 24, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-175 July 2011
Response to Letter 19
Kenneth S. Alpern, MD – The Transit Coalition
May 24, 2010
L19-1. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
L19-2. This comment is introductory and generally identifies concerns related to service
levels, stations, and rail feeders. See specific responses to these concerns below in
Responses L19-3 through L19-10.
L19-3. This comment requests that RCTC expand the project and project description to
include rail service between the Inland Empire and Orange County as well as
between San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (a map depicting the proposed
route was included). As explained in Section 2.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed
project is intended to extend community rail service from Downtown Riverside to the
Cities of Perris and Moreno Valley. RCTC does not currently have plans to extend
service to Orange or San Bernardino Counties. The project description will not be
revised in this regard. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
L19-4. The Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station and
reasons why it is not being considered as part of the proposed project. There are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L19-5. The UCR Station was not evaluated for impacts in the Draft EIR, see Section 2.2. It
should be noted that consideration of that station was specifically removed after the
IS/MND was circulated. Additionally, the General Plan for the City of Riverside does
identify a station in the UCR neighborhood. RCTC has committed to new
environmental review should the UCR Station be proposed in the future. There are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L19-6. RCTC is committed to working with RTA to best link the modal systems. A map was
provided to suggest extending the PVL project to Orange County. This attached map
does not raise environmental concerns. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L19-7. RCTC is committed to working with RTA to best transition and link the modal
systems and provide a true intermodal system as envisioned for the station site.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
L19-8. RCTC is committed to working with RTA to best link the modal systems and provide
a true intermodal system as envisioned for the station site. There are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-176 July 2011
L19-9. Any expansion of the PVL system would be based on the identified need in that area.
Should future feasibility studies indicate a need to expand the system to the east, or
south, an environmental review will be initiated to analyze the potential impacts.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
L19-10. See Response L19-9 above.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-177 July 2011
Letter 20
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-1
L20-2
L20-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-178 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-5
L20-4
L20-6
L20-7
L20-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-179 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-8 (cont’d)
L20-9
L20-11
L20-10
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-180 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-11 (cont’d)
L20-12
L20-13
L20-14
L20-15
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-181 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-15 (cont’d)
L20-16
L20-17
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-182 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-18
L20-19
L20-20
L20-21
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-183 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-22
L20-21 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-184 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-22 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-185 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-24
L20-23
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-186 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-24 (cont’d)
L20-25
L20-26
L20-27
L20-28
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-187 July 2011
Letter 20 (cont’d)
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-28 (cont’d)
L20-29
L20-30
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-188 July 2011
Response to Letter 20
Richard E. Block
May 24, 2010
L20-1. See Master Response #11 - Recirculate EIR and the CEQA Process. This comment
claims that the Draft EIR needs to be recirculated after new information is received.
However, this is not the standard for recirculating an EIR. Instead, State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires recirculation when significant new information is
added to the EIR after notice of availability is given but before certification. New
“significant” information within the meaning of the State CEQA Guidelines has not
been presented; therefore, recirculation is not required. There are no new impacts as
a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L20-2. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). This comment appears to mix
freight train data sets. This comment cites a “BNSF freight history of 4.5 million
miles”, which was presented as SCRRA’s 17-year history of freight trains on all
SCRRA lines (which includes both BNSF and Union Pacific operations). This
comment also cites FRA data for 13 BNSF derailments in Riverside County, which
we presume includes switching and yard derailments for a much larger and much
busier segment of the BNSF than the PVL. The commenter continues to compute a
risk of about one derailment in six years for the UCR neighborhood. This is the
“before” condition. The Draft EIR presents of a much reduced derailment condition
using the overall SCRRA data and is a projection based on past experience;
however, it does indicate a factor reduced by about 40, as the commenter implies.
The commenter correctly notes that the BNSF has made some improvements to the
line, possibly in response to their derailment history, and that the PVL project would
make further improvements. The commenter is also correct in concluding that the
area from Mt. Vernon Avenue to the Poarch Road crossing is a higher risk than
some other parts of any rail network due to the sharp curves and steep grades.
However, the SCRRA service territory includes similar territory on the Antelope
Valley line so the comparison is not an unreasonable approximation. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
L20-3. The commenter explains his credentials in this comment and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L20-4. The figure of 11,440 train miles per year was determined using an estimate of about
38 miles per day for 300 days; this is a good representation of one round trip six
days a week over a distance of 16 miles (to where most freight is destined) plus an
occasional trip to Perris (23 miles). BNSF did not provide information regarding
freight traffic on their line to RCTC because this information is rarely made public.
Furthermore, BNSF does not dictate or control the freight traffic; they merely provide
transportation services to the companies that ship or receive goods via trains.
Therefore, even if BNSF did provide information regarding freight traffic, all it would
be able to convey are statistics for past shipments, not estimates for future growth.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-189 July 2011
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
L20-5. The entire length of the rail line that comprises the proposed PVL project would use
welded rail (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4) In addition, for those areas where
vibration impacts were identified as potentially significant, RCTC will install either
ballast mats or resiliently supported ties in order to reduce vibration impacts to less
than significant levels (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5). Whereas the commenter’s
house is located 1,900 feet from the proposed project alignment, no vibration
impacts from PVL trains were predicted to occur.
L20-6. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master Response #4 –
Hazardous Materials Transport. The commenter claims that the derailment risk for
the PVL project is impossible to calculate. This comment is incorrect. It is possible to
estimate the derailment risk based on statistics of past derailments. With regard to
the commenter’s claim that derailment risk will become greater as the track ages,
commenter ignores that the fact that the PVL project would upgrade the existing
physical condition of the rail line, which would result in an improved infrastructure, a
higher level of maintenance, and enhanced safety. In addition, SCRRA will become
responsible for maintenance. Furthermore, as stated in the Draft EIR in Section
4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger only. As such, there would
never be an occasion when hazardous materials would be transported on the
commuter trains.” Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated for this
issue area and no mitigation measures are required. No new impacts were identified
by this comment and no new mitigation measures are required.
L20-7. The commenter provides an excerpt from the Draft EIR regarding the jet fuel
pipeline. The comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore,
no further response is required.
L20-8. The commenter provides an excerpt from the Draft EIR regarding the jet fuel
pipeline. The comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore,
no further response is required.
L20-9. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School. The commenter states that neither the Draft EIR nor the
“Hazards Technical Report” contain a copy of the pipeline alignment maps for Kinder
Morgan’s high pressure petroleum products in the vicinity of the corridor. However,
within Plate 2 of the Technical Report G – Hazardous Materials Corridor Study the
Kinder Morgan pipeline markers are identified.
L20-10. The commenter quotes a website which attacks Kinder Morgan’s safety reputation.
These comments were not made in the context of the PVL project and have no
relation to the project. The comment does not raise specific environmental concerns
about the PVL project and therefore no further response is required.
L20-11. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School. This comment claims that the Draft EIR’s statement regarding
pipeline depth is false. This claim is incorrect. The depth of the pipeline varies. In
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-190 July 2011
some places it is as deep as 10 feet and in other places it is as shallow as 2 feet 4
inches. According to the pothole study conducted by RCTC in early 2010, the depth
to the top of the pipeline in the area of Highland Elementary School ranges to 5’-2”.
The reason for this range of depths is that erosion and weathering slowly remove
topsoil and therefore reduce the overall depth of the line.
As stated previously, although the pipeline was originally installed many years ago
and is located within the RCTC ROW in some areas, and outside the RCTC ROW in
others, the pipeline must still meet current safety requirements established by the
CPUC. These safety requirements evaluate the overall pipeline integrity, including
evaluating for corrosion and joint integrity. Furthermore, since the pipeline is an
existing condition, the engineering and construction activities are expected to
conduct work without impacting it. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L20-12. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School. As stated previously, although the pipeline was originally
installed many years ago and is located within the RCTC ROW in some areas, and
outside the RCTC ROW in others, the pipeline must still meet current safety
requirements. These safety requirements evaluate the overall pipeline integrity,
including evaluating for corrosion and joint integrity. Furthermore, since the pipeline
is an existing condition, the engineering and construction activities are expected to
conduct work without impacting it. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
It should also be noted that there is no mechanism in place to provide a qualified,
independent monitoring and inspection program for this pipeline. The government
oversight by CPUC, which currently takes place, is designed to address safety of
pipelines.
L20-13. See Master Response #6 – Noise. The noise and vibration analysis conducted for
the project followed the current FTA Manual guidance for conducting noise and
vibration analysis. The analysis considered sensitive receptors, projected Metrolink
train noise, and wheel squeal. Wheel squeal will occur because of the tight radius
curves on the alignment regardless of whether it is a freight train or a commuter train.
As part of the PVL project, RCTC will include wayside applicators to all short-radius
curves (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). Additional reduction of wheel squeal impacts
can also be assumed at specific locations by the installation of noise barriers. The
noise barriers are located primarily in the UCR neighborhood area where a large
number of sensitive receptors are located.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L20-14. See Master Response #6 – Noise and Tables 4.10-9 and 4.10-11 of the Draft EIR.
L20-15. Baseline noise levels are discussed in depth in the Draft EIR (see Master
Response #6 - Noise). The commenter’s characterization of Figure 4.10-2 in the
Draft EIR is incorrect. At a 50dB existing noise level, the onset of moderate impact
would occur with a 5dB increase from transit noise while the onset of a severe
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-191 July 2011
impact would occur with a 10dB increase. The other existing noise examples, i.e.
50dB, 65dB & 70dB, would have allowable transit noise increases for severe impacts
of 5dB, 3dB and 2dB, respectively.
L20-16. See Master Response #6 – Noise. With respect to the existing freight train
movements, although the number of freight trains and identified speeds would
occasionally fluctuate up or down, based on field observations and information from
local engineers familiar with the SJBL, the Draft EIR’s characterization of the
average number of freight movements per day and the speeds identified within the
Draft EIR are accurate. However, even if the average number of freight trains was
shown to be as many as four per day (as indicated by the commenter’s estimation of
daily freight train trips, which incorrectly utilizes freight trains from different days
which are separated by a one month time period), it would not change the results of
the noise assessment. Concerning the noise assessment, even if there were 10
freight trains per day, the only relevant fact with respect to existing freight trains
would be the proposed project’s contribution to the baseline existing Ldn noise level
(as the commenter states, these noise levels were collected and presented in the
Draft EIR). In addition, Table 4.10-4 in the Draft EIR presents the number of trains
passing during a particular measurement period; however, for the monitoring sites
(#3 and #4) which experienced eight passing train trips, the number of trains given is
over a 41-hour period. Another noise monitoring site had three train movements over
a 44-hour period. Both instances are in line with the freight train trip estimates
proposed in the Draft EIR which are based on a 24-hour period. Twenty-four hours
represents the reference time period for which baseline noise monitoring data for
residential properties is collected and assessed (FTA Manual, page D-2) and for
which potential noise impacts are predicted (FTA Manual, Table 5-2). The existing
2005 Ldn measurements reported in the Draft EIR were not altered based on an
average number of daily freight trips.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L20-17. See Master Response #6 – Noise and Response to Comment L20-16.
L20-18. See Master Response #6 – Noise and Response to Comment L20-16. In addition,
the commenter states that the noise predictions are “under representative and
inappropriate”. However, if the monitored 24-hour baseline noise levels were actually
higher as the commenter suggests they should be (assuming that an increase in
freight train volume over a 24-hour period would produce a higher Ldn) the facts
actually reveal that such a circumstance would actually lead to less conservative
outcome for noise predictions. As shown in the FTA Manual, Table 3-1, as the
existing noise level; increases, the allowable PVL project noise exposure would also
increase. However the allowable increase in noise exposure above the baseline
noise level decreases. Therefore, assuming the project noise exposure remains the
same, the commenter’s desire to have an increase in the existing noise level would
technically make it less likely that the project would result in an impact.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L20-19. Master Response #6 – Noise and Response to Comment L20-9. Concerning the
change in monitoring location at 518 West Campus View Drive between the 2005
and 2009/2008 monitoring programs, the 2005 monitoring location was on the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-192 July 2011
alignment side of the ROW line and had to be repositioned to a location within the
true boundaries of the residential property. The fact that 2008/2009 noise levels were
lower than the 2005 measurements at a few sites did not lead to the conclusion in
the Draft EIR that existing freight traffic had lessened. Measurement results were
taken for what they were and used appropriately in the noise analyses. The Draft EIR
never states that the 2005 noise measurements are less representative; it simply
characterizes them and explains that they are lower at certain sites when compared
to the 2008/2009 measurements.
L20-20. The number of BNSF trains that use the SJBL depends on the pick-up or drop-off of
goods along the rail corridor. The movement of goods is dependent on economic
activity and is not on a consistent schedule. During the evaluation of the existing
conditions along the alignment, the number of trains was counted as they passed.
Subsequently, although the number of freight trains would occasionally fluctuate up
or down, based on the best information available from RCTC along with field
observations and information from local engineers familiar with the SJBL freight line,
the Draft EIR’s characterization of freight movement along the SJBL is considered
accurate.
There is a separate NEPA document being prepared for the proposed project with
the FTA as the lead agency. The FTA has specific guidelines for analyzing both
noise and vibration impacts as outlined within the FTA Guidance document.
L20-21. Master Response #6 – Noise. Wayside applicators will not eliminate wheel squeal,
but they do act to reduce wheel squeal. The wayside applicators are a project design
feature, not mitigation. The more detailed explanation of wheel squeal in Section
4.10.4 of the Draft EIR accurately describes the impact of wayside applicators (i.e.,
wheel squeal will be effectively reduced). Concerning the proper curve radius to use
as a basis for addressing wheel squeal noise, as the Metrolink locomotive truck
wheelbase is approximately nine feet, the use of a 900-foot curve radius is legitimate
(FTA Manual, page 6-18). The locations of the short radius curves were obtained
from the RCTC PVL Geometry Table Maps W-701 to W-709, (preliminary 30%
design).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L20-22. Master Response #6 – Noise. The commenter has cited several reports within this
comment. None of these reports have made definitive assessments regarding the
effectiveness of wheel squeal mitigation; however, the wheel squeal issue presented
in the Transportation Research Board (TRB) report is based on extensive research.
In addition, although the TRB report is over 13 years old, it is still recognized as one
of the standard references in the noise industry (see the 2006 “Transit Noise and
Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA [FTA Manual], page 6-45). The commenter also
cited that in the “Mitigation of Wheel Squeal and Flanging Noise on the Australian
Rail Network” report, it states that “trials with top of rail friction modifiers were not
successful”, however, the wayside applicators proposed for the PVL project would
also include gage face lubrication (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). As a result, the
comparison is inappropriate because the techniques to be used are not the same
(albeit they have similarities). This same scenario exists when comparing mitigation
for the referenced “Australian Research Project” to the PVL mitigation with wayside
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-193 July 2011
applicators. It should be noted that the wayside applicators proposed for the PVL
project would include gage face lubrication while the Australian research project
would not.
Finally as stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4, the “Citrus Connection curve” was
assessed and impacts were predicted to occur, however, impacts surpassed the FTA
criteria by only one (1) dB. This indicates that even at minimal effectiveness, the
proposed mitigation using wayside applicators would be successful at eliminating
noise impacts from PVL Metrolink trains in this area. This assertion is based on the
dominance of wheel squeal noise at this location when compared to the other
elements of train noise (i.e. horn, engine and wheel noise) at this location. Testing of
wheel squeal noise is not proposed for any segment of the alignment, however, the
FTA Manual shows that wayside applicators are effective at reducing wheel squeal
noise (FTA Manual, Table 6-12).In all other areas with tight radius curves, wheel
squeal would be reduced for Metrolink PVL trains and as an added benefit would
also reduce wheel squeal noise for existing freight trains.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
See also Response to L20-14.
L20-23. Master Response #6 – Noise. The Draft EIR Noise and Vibration Technical Report
and section do not refer to or utilize in any of its calculations noise data from
Chatsworth or Santa Clarita and commenter does not indicate which data he
believes is from Chatsworth or Santa Clarita. The proposed project would eliminate
old rail and use new welded rail along the entire PVL corridor that would have the
added benefit of reducing noise and vibration from existing freight traffic (see Draft
EIR, Section 4.10.4). A detailed noise assessment was conducted for project
Metrolink trains at properties along the entire project rail alignment. Where impacts
were predicted, noise mitigation including sound insulation and noise barriers were
proposed at specific locations to reduce impacts to less than significant levels (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5). The methodology utilized to assess noise impacts comes
directly from the FTA Manual (see Chapter 6). The methodology uses reference
noise levels that are already based on extensive noise testing by the FTA at similar
representative train facilities. Concerning reflections off of the Box Springs Mountain,
since the face of the mountain is not a smooth surface, it is assumed that train noise
reflections although audible, would be sufficiently dispersed so as not to add
significant noise or create significant impacts to future project operations.
Based on the FTA methodology, the running of sample trains for noise testing as
indicated by the commenter is not a requirement when performing an analysis of
train noise. However, the FTA noise prediction methodology utilized for the PVL
project (FTA Manual, Chapter 6) was created so that it could be used effectively in
various rail environments and configurations throughout the country. Conservative
baseline noise emissions developed by the FTA are utilized to represent train horns,
locomotive engines, rail squeal and grade crossing bells (FTA Manual, Section 6.2).
As such, the procedures and criteria produce results that are more conservative than
would be expected with the use of post-monitoring of PVL Metrolink train operations.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-194 July 2011
L20-24. The noise monitor for the 2005 noise measurement in the vicinity of 396 E. Big
Springs Road was located at approximately 90 feet from the alignment. As such, this
measurement was representative of the entire Box Springs Cluster that includes all
of the typical elements of the community noise environment including traffic, trains
and loud animals. Therefore, although distances from house to alignment may differ
within the same cluster, the existing noise level would be seen as representative for
each (FTA Manual, page 3-10). In addition, although the noise measurement was
taken 90 feet from the alignment, the actual property at 396 E. Big Springs Road is
located at approximately 120 feet from the alignment. As a result, this was the
distance used in the actual noise assessment.
Speeds were based on engineering track speed chart estimates. However, for sites
along East Campus View Drive, estimates of locomotive engine noise incorporate a
higher throttle setting to account for the fact that locomotives work harder going up
the incline.
At 396 E. Big Springs Road, the PVL project would not result in a decrease in noise
levels from 62 dBA to 57.3 dBA. In addition, the direct comparison of these two noise
levels by the commenter is incorrect. The 62 dBA noise level represents the overall
existing noise from all sources within the area while the 57.3 dBA noise level is the
estimated future noise contribution from proposed PVL Metrolink trains only. In other
words, with the inclusion of the proposed PVL project, the actual overall noise level
would be greater than 62 dBA. An example of the interaction between an existing
noise level and projected noise level in a typical transit project is depicted in the Draft
EIR (see Table 4.10-2). As shown in the table, the existing noise will not decrease,
as the commenter infers would happen, as a result of the inclusion of a project rail
noise component.
In addition, the proposed noise barriers along E Campus View Drive area are over
1,600 feet from the Box Springs Cluster. This is well beyond the distance where a 9
to 13 foot noise barrier would result in any noise reflections (FTA Manual, page 2-
12). Welded rail will be added along the entire length of the PVL alignment.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L20-25. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
L20-26. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones, Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General), Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response, and Master
Response #8 – Grade Crossings. Concerning the commenter’s request for a grade
separation at Blaine Street, based on the alternative put forward by RCTC, a detailed
noise assessment was conducted for project Metrolink trains at properties along the
project alignment. Where noise impacts were predicted, mitigation including sound
insulation and noise barriers were proposed at specific locations (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Grade separations,
where roadways go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific approach
distance to maintain the appropriate roadway grades and clearance heights for the
tracks. For grade separations to be possible within the UCR neighborhood, many
homes would lose vehicle and driveway access. The approach distance may reach
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-195 July 2011
over 500 feet in which case the cross street intersections with Campus View and
Kentwood would likely require reconfiguration.
L20-27. RCTC, SCRRA and their contractors obey all state and local laws and regulations,
including trespassing laws. The public is encouraged to contact RCTC or SCRRA
officials if they document violation of trespass laws by RCTC or SCRRA employees
or contractors.
L20-28. An evaluation was conducted of all the culverts along the PVL alignment, including
locations mentioned, and there was acknowledgment that the current culverts were
not adequately sized to convey 100-year storm flows. The concern was that if the
culverts were increased in size to convey the higher flow, downstream flooding would
occur. Since the project did not require work on these culverts to initiate service, the
decision to leave in the current condition was agreed to with the City of Riverside.
L20-29. The rail ROW has been in existence for over 100 years and the City of Riverside and
the County of Riverside developed the parks without considering access across
private property (the SJBL/RCTC ROW). If unauthorized people enter the ROW,
even to “just” cross the tracks to get to the other side, they are trespassing. There
are signs in the park area indicating the ROW boundary and that trespassing is
prohibited.
The PVL project does not include adding additional track in this area or affecting
existing access to parks in any way. The existing track will remain in its current
location. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment, no
mitigation is required, and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L20-30. See Response L20-29. The Draft EIR did not identify significant impacts to this issue
area and therefore mitigation measures are not required. Furthermore, the area
requested for a trail is within the MSHCP criteria cells 545, 635, and 721. Criteria
cells are considered sensitive and disturbance in these areas should be limited.
Additionally, these particular cells are identified because of the coastal sage scrub
habitat, which is the known habitat of the federally endangered coastal California
gnatcatcher. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment, no
mitigation is required, and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-196 July 2011
Letter 21
Len Nunney
May 24, 2010
L21-1
L21-2
L21-3
L21-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-197 July 2011
Letter 21 (cont’d)
Len Nunney
May 24, 2010
L21-5
L21-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-198 July 2011
Response to Letter 21
Len Nunney
May 24, 2010
L21-1. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
L21-2. This comment states that Mitigation Measure BR-9 was imposed to mitigate potential
impacts to western spadefoot toad but does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
L21-3. Focused surveys for Western spadefoot toad were conducted by a biologist on
March 9 and April 9, 2010. Areas of the RCTC ROW within Proposed Constrained
Linkage Area 19 and near the San Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel
Bridge were surveyed for the purpose of evaluating the potential presence of
Western spadefoot toad. Surveys were conducted during the known breeding
season for this species. A potentially suitable breeding pond was present under the
bridge near Case Road. On March 9, 2010, the pond measured approximately 0.01
acre (70 feet x 9 feet). Tadpoles for California Chorus Frogs (Pseudacris cadaverina)
were observed in the ponded area. A night survey was performed and numerous
calling California Chorus Frogs were identified. On April 9, 2010, the pond was
considerably smaller but still contained adequate water to support tadpoles. No
Western spadefoot tadpoles were observed on this survey. A query of the CNDDB
did not produce any occurrences of Western spadefoot toad within Proposed
Constrained Linkage Area 19.
RCA was contacted on June 24, 2010 by Kleinfelder to obtain location data of
breeding sites reported by Friends of Riverside’s Hills to RCA, specifically within
RCTC ROW within the MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage Area 7 and Criteria
Cells 545 and 635. RCA conducted a review of 2005 - 2008 data and found no
reported occurrences of Western spadefoot toad within these boundaries. A query of
the CNDDB did not produce any occurrences of the species with the Proposed
Constrained Linkage Area 7. The MSHCP survey guidelines for Criteria Cells 545
and 635 do not require surveys for Amphibian species.
A preconstruction survey for western spadefoot toad (potentially suitable breeding
pools, eggs, tadpoles, and adults) will be conducted within Proposed Linkage Area
19. No construction is planned within Proposed Constrained Linkage Area 7, with the
exception of the replacement of the culvert located at MP 5.30.
L21-4. A survey was conducted for western spadefoot toad near the San Jacinto River
Bridge and the Overflow Channel Bridge in winter and spring of 2010. The survey
was conducted in the appropriate season and no western spadefoot toads were
detected.
Based on the survey results, no western spadefoot toads are anticipated to be
present within the area where the bridge replacement work will occur (the San
Jacinto River channel and its Overflow Channel). However, in the event that western
spadefoot toad migrated into the project site during the time since studies were done
and project commencement, the following plans will be implemented to mitigate
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-199 July 2011
potential impacts: a preconstruction survey shall be conducted within thirty (30) days
prior to site disturbance to determine if western spadefoot toads are present within
the designated construction area; should western spadefoot toads be identified, the
project biologists shall prepare a relocation program that would be approved by RCA
prior to implementation; bridge replacement work shall occur during the dry season
(no water in the River or Overflow Channel); and the project biologist shall monitor
construction activities at a minimum of three days per week throughout the duration
of the project and will be empowered to halt work activity if necessary. With the
implementation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts to western spadefoot
toads will be less than significant and no further mitigation will be required. It should
be noted that the foregoing is not new mitigation. The above explanation merely
clarifies and amplifies the discussion of this mitigation measure as originally
proposed.
L21-5. There are 8 culverts within Criteria Cells 545 and 635. Six culverts will remain with
no modifications planned. One culvert at MP 5.20 will be extended 10 feet to the
east. There will be no impacts to jurisdictional water bodies associated with the
extension of this culvert. One wood box culvert located at MP 5.30 will be replaced
with a concrete box culvert with two openings each measuring 3’6” x 3’6”. Culverts
will be the appropriate size to handle the expected flow of water. The replacement
will not change the current conditions which allow small non-aquatic animals to cross
over the tracks or under the tracks through existing culverts. Currently movement
across the tracks by small animals is assumed to occur (Personal communication
with Stephanie Standerfer, MSHCP, December 5, 2010). There is currently no
corridor for non-aquatic animals to pass under I-215 because the one existing culvert
under the I-215 does not meet the preferred dimensions for use as a wildlife corridor.
The improvements to select culverts are intended to mimic the existing conditions as
closely as possible. The culverts were evaluated for overall condition and ability to
convey the 100-year storm flow. The culvert work identified within the Draft EIR
includes either replacement of a substandard culvert or extension of culverts where
the bypass track is located. If non-aquatic animals are currently using the culverts to
pass underneath the tracks, these animals will continue to be able to do so with the
proposed new culverts in place.
L21-6. This comment provides background on the qualifications of the commenter and does
not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-200 July 2011
Letter 22
Cindy Roth – Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
May 28, 2010
L22-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-201 July 2011
Response to Letter 22
Cindy Roth – Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
May 28, 2010
L22-1. The commenter expresses its full support of the PVL project and does not raise
specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no further response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-202 July 2011
Letter 23
Raymond W. Johnson – Johnson & Sedlack
May 24, 2010
L23-2
L23-3
L23-4
L23-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-203 July 2011
Letter 23 (cont’d)
Raymond W. Johnson – Johnson & Sedlack
May 24, 2010
L23-5
L23-6
L23-7
L23-8
L23-9
L23-10
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-204 July 2011
Response to Letter 23
Raymond W. Johnson – Johnson & Sedlack
May 24, 2010
L23-1. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise environmental concerns.
Therefore, no further response is necessary.
L23-2. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The proposed PVL project is a
commuter train project, not a freight train project. The proposed PVL project would
not increase the amount of goods produced in the area and would increase the
number of freight trains on the SJBL. Freight train frequency is market-driven and
depends entirely on supply and demand of goods. Any increase in use of the SJBL
for freight transportation to and from warehouses in Moreno Valley and March JPA
are not impacts of the PVL passenger commuter rail.
Nevertheless, RCTC commissioned a freight study for the SJBL as described in the
Draft EIR, page 2-47. The freight study surveyed existing businesses along the
corridor in an attempt to quantify any anticipated growth that would require additional
rail traffic. These surveys did not identify any increases in train service related to
local business conditions.
L23-3. See Figure 3.2-2, which depicts the Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL
alternative. The Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL alternative is
described in Section 3.2.3 of the Draft EIR. The evaluation of this alternative is based
upon the ability of this alternative to meet the goals and objectives of this project (see
Draft EIR, Section 3.3). An extensive review of this alternative and its ability to meet
locally defined goals and objectives, along with the consideration of capital and
operating costs, can be found in Technical Report A – San Jacinto Branchline/I-215
Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (STV Incorporated, 2004) which is referenced in
Chapter 3.0 (Project Alternatives) in the Draft EIR and is provided as Technical
Report A to the Draft EIR. Additionally, the RCTC Board will have to consider and
make appropriate findings with regard to all alternatives prior to certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the PVL project (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091).
As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed project has been identified as the
environmentally superior alternative (see Draft EIR, Section 3.3). While the New
Connection to the UP RIL alternative provides direct access to the Riverside
Downtown Station with the shortest travel time, this alternative would have more
significant impacts than the proposed project (see Draft EIR, Section 3.2.3).
Specifically, the New Connection to the UP RIL alternative would have more
significant vibration and displacement impacts than the proposed project. (ld.) In
addition, the New Connection to the UP RIL alternative would require reconstruction
of the RIL alignment and a new Rustin Avenue grade crossing, with signal protection.
(Id.) Therefore, the New Connection to the UP RIL alternative is not the
environmentally superior alternative.
In Section 3.2.3, the Draft EIR indicates that the UP RIL would have higher initial
capital costs as compared to the other commuter rail alternatives because this
alternative would require a reconstruction of the RIL alignment. In the Alternatives
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-205 July 2011
Analysis, the operating and maintenance costs for this alternative (including the other
alternatives evaluated in the Alternatives Analysis) are described along with the
capital costs for construction and upgrade of necessary facilities. In addition, an
average annualized capital cost to build and maintain the infrastructure for each
alternative is provided. For the annualization assumptions, annualization factors,
developed in accordance with FTA practice, were multiplied by total costs resulting in
the cost per year for each alternative.
To determine whether or not the individual alternatives conformed to the project
objectives, the alternatives were evaluated based upon criteria that measured the
ability of the four transit alternatives to satisfy the goals and objectives of the study
as laid out in the Alternatives Analysis. An evaluation matrix for the alternatives was
developed to score each alternative and compare the relative performance of the
alternatives with one another, based upon the following evaluation criteria:
operational issues; railroad access; travel time; property needs; capital costs;
operating costs; ridership; environmental; maximize under-utilized resources; and
improve travel choices in the corridor. The evaluation criteria were used to identify
the best performing alternative given the goals and objectives of the study as
developed in the purpose and need statement. In April 2008, RCTC adopted the
proposed project (Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street
Alternative) as the LPA because this alternative both closely met the goals and
objectives established for the corridor while minimizing the impacts to the
community.
L23-4. See Master Response #6 – Noise. A detailed noise assessment was conducted for
project Metrolink trains at representative sensitive properties along the entire project
rail alignment (see the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA
[FTA Manual], page 3-10). Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation, including
sound insulation and noise barriers, was proposed at specific locations (see Draft
EIR, Section 4.10.5) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
The noise mitigation plan proposed for the PVL project was developed based on the
results of the PVL noise and vibration assessment, which was prepared in
accordance with section 6.8 of the FTA Manual. The identification of seven homes
and one church for sound insulation was based on the fact that these particular
homes would either not be properly protected by noise barriers or the existing terrain
would make the use of noise barriers infeasible. All seven homes and once church
are located near grade crossings. Because these grade crossings naturally create
noise barrier discontinuity (since the barrier cannot traverse the intersection), homes
nearby the grade crossings are often left either unprotected or under-protected, thus,
necessitating the sound insulation at these properties.
The Draft EIR does not state that there are no sensitive receptors that will be
impacted by noise from the proposed project. Instead, the Draft EIR identifies several
sensitive receptors that would be impacted by the proposed project (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.4). According to the Draft EIR, severe impacts are analogous to
significant impacts under CEQA (see Draft EIR, 4.10.1). Potentially significant noise
impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with implementation of
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-206 July 2011
Mitigation Measures NV-1 and NV-2 (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5; FTA Manual,
Section 6.8.4).
Noise barrier locations were based on the locations where noise impacts are
predicted to occur, and at which mitigation would be needed to reduce noise levels,
as determined through the FTA Detailed Assessment methodology (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5). Calculations based on formulae contained in Section 6.3.2 of the
FTA Manual were applied to determine noise barrier height requirements that would
eliminate the specific impacts.
Noise terms, Ldn and Leq were used in their proper context with respect to the
proposed PVL noise assessment. The FTA categorizes noise assessment
descriptors based on land use. The Ldn descriptor is used for residences and other
buildings where people normally sleep and night-time sensitivity is particularly
important. Leq is specifically identified by the FTA as the proper noise evaluation
descriptor for institutional land uses, such as schools, where daytime uses are
prominent (FTA Manual, Table 3-2). The Leq descriptor is also based on noise levels
experienced over a 1-hour time period.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L23-5. Table 4.10-2 explains the allowable transit noise level increases in Ldn and Leq in
dBA. In other words, Table 4.10-2 represents the cumulative allowable noise
increase and not the actual project noise exposure level.
L23-6. Table 4.10-4 provides a summary of noise measurements at twelve monitoring
locations. This table represents conditions in the field. At the time of the readings,
trains were present for and are represented in the Leq measurements for
measurement locations #10 and #11 in Table 4.10-4.
L23-7. The Draft EIR does not rely upon the issuance of variances and exemptions from
relevant municipal codes to mitigate environmental impacts from project operations.
All predicted noise and vibration impacts can and would be mitigated to less than
significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures NV-1 through NV-4
(see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5). Therefore, Mitigation Measures NV-1 through NV-4
are sufficient and no further mitigation is required.
From the construction noise perspective, in the event that the proposed PVL project
would require a variance or exemption from a relevant municipal code procedure
(see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.2), RCTC would only request such a variance or
exemption from the applicable local agency under circumstances where night-time
work would be required. Such a procedure falls within the local police powers of each
local government. The noise codes for Riverside, Moreno Valley and Perris include
procedures for requesting exemptions from the noise provisions of their respective
municipal codes. Variance and exemption procedures are not mechanisms to
change the status of potential noise ordinance violations. Instead, variance and
exemption procedures are designed to give local governments flexibility in land use
regulation to permit reasonable and appropriate deviations from established
regulation when it would be prudent and necessary under the circumstances to do
so. Moreover, when considering a possible variance or exemption, the applicable
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-207 July 2011
local agency would retain full authority to condition the night-time work in a way that
would protect the health, safety, and welfare of the affected community.
The noise analysis does not understate noise impacts. A representative construction
noise assessment determined that construction related noise impacts would not
occur. However, it is important to understand that municipal ordinance noise levels
typically use the Lmax descriptor. Lmax represents the maximum noise level for a
discrete or single event and is not a descriptor that effectively indicates sustained
public annoyance. Conversely, the Leq hourly descriptor is much more representative
of annoyance to humans. Therefore, since different municipalities may have differing
maximum noise level ordinances and because there are no standardized criteria for
assessing construction noise impacts, the FTA construction noise assessment
procedure was used to determine potential impacts from construction. The
assessment results showed that the Leq noise level from project related construction
activities would not surpass the FTA construction noise criteria and thus the impacts
would be less than significant. The FTA identifies this procedure as a reasonable
method to assess construction noise impacts.
Contractors are required to adhere to the local noise code and as a result typically
implement standard construction noise control measures. Examples of these control
measures include temporary construction noise barriers, low-noise emission
equipment and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment.
RCTC will implement applicable standard construction noise control measures
required by the affected local agency.
The 18-month PVL construction period mentioned in the Draft EIR is for the
construction of the entire PVL project and is never referred to in the Draft EIR as a
temporary impact. However, the exposure to noise described in the Draft EIR is
based on individual construction segments that would only experience construction
periods lasting 2 to 3 months (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). This is a unique
element of rail construction due to its linearity. This results in limited exposure time
for discrete noise sensitive locations. The converse of this situation, which would
represent a significant increase in noise exposure to a noise sensitive receptor,
would be a large stationary construction project at which a single noise receptor
would be exposed to construction noise for the entire 18 month period of
construction. Therefore, the comment does not raise any new environmental impacts
and does not require any additional mitigation. The Draft EIR is sufficient in this
regard.
L23-8. Municipal ordinance noise levels typically use the Lmax descriptor. However, Lmax
represents the maximum noise level for a discrete or single event and is not a
descriptor that effectively indicates sustained public annoyance. Conversely, the Leq
hourly, descriptor is much more representative of annoyance to humans. Therefore,
since different municipalities’ ordinances may have differing maximum noise levels
and there are no standardized criteria for assessing construction noise impacts, the
FTA construction noise assessment procedure was used to determine potential
impacts from construction (FTA Manual, Section 12.1). While the Perris noise
ordinance standards were not used in the assessment of PVL construction noise,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-208 July 2011
contractors for the PVL project are bound to adhere to the Perris allowable hours of
operation.
The assessment was based on the examination of potential construction noise
impacts at a representative worst case location. The criteria used for selecting a
representative location included; the proximity of construction activities to noise
sensitive receivers and the extent of construction-related activities in the area. The
location at 228 C Street in the City of Perris was chosen because it is directly
adjacent to the alignment and the proposed Perris Station. Therefore, it represents
the only sensitive cluster location located adjacent to the alignment that would be
exposed to both station- and track-related construction activities. The assessment
showed that a noise impact from construction activities would not occur.
Since impacts were not projected at this location, impacts along other segments of
the alignment that would not include station locations near sensitive noise receptors
would be unlikely. The impact criteria used was from the FTA 2006 Transit Noise and
Vibration Impacts Assessment, (FTA Manual).
A comparison of the predicted construction noise level with the Perris ordinance
noise level was made in the Draft EIR. However, the comparison was provided only
to show that the predicted 1-hr construction noise Leq was below the ordinance Lmax
noise level. This was not meant to imply that the noise ordinance maximum level
represents a significance threshold for construction noise. The construction noise
significant impact determination used in the Draft EIR is only related to the
comparison of the predicted construction noise level to the FTA 1-hour Leq
construction noise criteria (FTA Manual, Section 12.1.3).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L23-9. See Master Response #6 – Noise. A noise barrier is proposed for Highland
Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11). No noise impacts were predicted
to occur at Hyatt Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11); therefore, no
mitigation is necessary. Nevertheless, wheel squeal treatments, in the form of
wayside applicators, are proposed at all short radius curves along the proposed
alignment to significantly reduce the squeal noise, including the curves in the vicinity
of Hyatt Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4).
The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR is insufficient because it fails to discuss
the financial impact of the PVL project on the schools within the project area.
Economic impacts of a project are not significant effects on the environment and are
not required to be a part of an EIR unless they result in physical impacts that would
lead to potentially significant environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines
§ 15131(a)). Here, since there are no economic or social impacts that would lead to
physical impacts, RCTC was not obligated to evaluate potential economic impacts of
the commuter rail line on the schools. Therefore, the Draft EIR is sufficient in this
regard.
L23-10. Potential environmental impacts of the PVL to biological resources are addressed in
Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR. As indicated in the Draft EIR, there is potential for the
Western spadefoot toad to inhabit the San Jacinto River area, near the SJBL (see
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-209 July 2011
Draft EIR, page 4.4-22.) Even though the western spadefoot toad is not included as
a determinant with respect to noise criteria definitions within the FTA Manual,
Chapter 3, the proposed PVL would result in potential impacts to the western
spadefoot toad. (http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration
Manual.pdf)
Focused surveys for western spadefoot toad were conducted by a biologist on March
9, 2010 and April 9, 2010. Areas of the RCTC ROW within Proposed Constrained
Linkage Area 19 and near the San Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel
Bridge were surveyed for the purpose of evaluating the potential presence of western
spadefoot toad. Surveys were conducted during the known breeding season for this
species. A potentially suitable breeding pond was present under the bridge near
Case Road. On March 9, 2010, the pond measured approximately 0.01 acre (70 feet
x 9 feet). On April 9, 2010, the pond was considerably smaller but still contained
adequate water to support tadpoles. No western spadefoot tadpoles were observed
on this survey. A query of the CNDDB did not produce any occurrences of western
spadefoot toad within Proposed Constrained Linkage Area 19.
To reduce the potentially significant impacts to western spadefoot toad to less than
significant levels, the Draft EIR imposed Mitigation Measure BR-9, which requires the
preparation of pre-construction surveys for Western spadefoot toad. According to
Mitigation Measure BR-9, in the event that western spadefoot toad migrated into the
project site between the time that focused surveys were conducted and project site
disturbance, the following plans will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts: a
preconstruction survey shall be conducted within thirty (30) days prior to site
disturbance to determine if western spadefoot toads are present within the
designated construction area; should western spadefoot toads be identified, the
project biologists shall prepare a relocation program that would be approved by RCA
prior to implementation; bridge replacement work shall occur during the dry season
(no water in the River or Overflow Channel); and the project biologist shall monitor
construction activities at a minimum of three days per week throughout the duration
of the project and will be empowered to halt work activity if necessary. With the
implementation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts to western spadefoot
toads will be less than significant and no further mitigation will be required.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-210 July 2011
Letter 24
Highland Elementary School (Multiple Submissions)
May 17, 2010
L24-1
L24-2
L24-3
L24-4
L24-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-211 July 2011
Letter 24 (cont’d)
Highland Elementary School
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-212 July 2011
Letter 24 (cont’d)
Highland Elementary School (Multiple Submissions)
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-213 July 2011
Letter 24 (cont’d)
Highland Elementary School (Multiple Submissions)
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-214 July 2011
Letter 24 (cont’d)
Highland Elementary School (Multiple Submissions)
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-215 July 2011
Letter 24 (cont’d)
Highland Elementary School (Multiple Submissions)
May 17, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-216 July 2011
Response to Letter 24
Highland Elementary School
May 17, 2010
L24-1. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Near Highland Elementary
School, Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport, and Master
Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic).
The proposed PVL schedule provides that the majority of Metrolink trains pass
Highland Elementary School either prior to school in the morning, or after the school
day in the afternoon. Three trains can be expected to pass Highland Elementary
School during the school day. The track improvements proposed by the PVL project
will provide for greater safety for both the commuter trains and the freight trains that
will use the same improved track.
L24-2. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and Master Response #9 – Highland
and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic). Grade crossing
improvements are identified along the PVL corridor in the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.6
and Figure 2.4-28. Two grade crossings, at W. Blaine Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue,
are located near Highland (approximately 950 feet away) and Hyatt Elementary
Schools (approximately 3,960 feet away), respectively. Improvements to these two
grade crossings include pedestrian swing gates, pedestrian warning devices and
gates, pedestrian barricades and metal hand railings, concrete raised medians,
double yellow medians and island noses, warning devices, safety lighting, and signs.
Improvements within the City of Riverside include upgrading existing crossings to
meet the current standards set by the CPUC.
Additionally, with the exception of one of the morning trains and two mid-day trains,
commuter rail movements would occur early in the morning and later in the
afternoon, outside of school operating hours. The morning train would not impact
students arriving at Hyatt Elementary School because the nearest grade crossing, Mt
Vernon Avenue, is over 0.75 miles away. Students arriving at Highland Elementary
School may be required to wait no more than 45 seconds at the grade crossing at W.
Blaine Street. Students leaving both schools in the afternoon would not be
significantly impacted because there are no scheduled trains during that time.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment, no mitigation
measures are required, and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
L24-3. See Master Response #6 – Noise. Train noise in communities with sensitive uses
can be very disturbing. As a result, the FTA has identified methodologies and criteria
in its 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual)
which help to determine whether a future rail project, such as the PVL project would
result in noise impacts to these land uses. Accordingly, grade crossing bells, train
horns and wheel noise were all taken into consideration with respect to the proposed
PVL project train operations (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1).
The majority of project train movements would not occur during normal school hours.
However, a detailed noise study was conducted and impacts were identified at
Highland Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-9). To address these
potential noise impacts, a mitigation measure in the form of a noise barrier is
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
0.3.3.1 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES LETTERS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.1-217 July 2011
proposed to reduce the noise impact to less than significant (see Draft EIR, Table
4.10-16).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
L24-4. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. The
existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel line is located within the RCTC ROW, however, the
PVL project is not planning to relocate or alter the pipeline as it currently exists.
L24-5. Since this comment is a summary of the previous comments already addressed,
please see Responses to L24-1, L24-2, L24-3, and L24-4 above.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-1 July 2011
0.3.3.2 Other Interested Parties Emails
Table 0.3.3.2-1
Response to Other Interested Parties Emails
No. Commenter Date Page No.
1. Dean Bleer 4/6/2010 0.3.3.2-2
2. R.A. Barney Barnett 4/5/2010
4/7/2010 0.3.3.2-3
3. Dorothy Barnekow 5/18/2010 0.3.3.2-5
4. Mahmoud Sadeghi 5/18/2010 0.3.3.2-7
5. Christopher Sanchez 5/24/2010 0.3.3.2-9
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-2 July 2011
Email 1
Dean Roy Bleer
April 6, 2010
Response to Email 1
Dean Bleer
April 6, 2010
E1-1. 1025 John Road is located east of I-215 near the terminus of the D Street
northbound on-ramp. As noted in the email text in which the comments is recorded,
the entire 24 miles of track would be welded rail, which would reduce wheel noise
and vibration from trains to less than significant levels (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10).
Because the PVL project is solely a rail project, it would not impact nor modify the I-
215 ramps nearby John Street.
E1-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-3 July 2011
Email 2
R.A. Barney Barnett
April 5, 2010
April 7, 2010
E2-1
E2-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-4 July 2011
Response to Email 2
Barney Barnett
April 5, 2010
April 7, 2010
E2-1. The Riverside Main Library (3581 Mission Inn Avenue) received a copy of the
complete Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on April 5, 2010. The document
was subsequently located at the library and made available for public review.
However, the Draft EIR was available for public review for the full 49-day review
period provided by RCTC at other publicly available locations as required by CEQA
(including RCTC’s offices, RCTC’s webpage, and several public libraries) (Public
Resource Code § 21091). Accordingly, no prejudice to the public review period
required by CEQA resulted from the library’s temporary misplacement of the Draft
EIR. Moreover, this is confirmed by the fact that RCTC provided a public review
period that was longer than the 45-day minimum established by CEQA (Public
Resource Code § 21091).
E2-2. Initially, complete Draft EIRs were distributed to: the Riverside Main Library (3581
Mission Inn Avenue), Woodcrest Library (16625 Krameria Avenue), Moreno Valley
Public Library (25480 Alessandro Boulevard), and Perris Branch Library (163 East
San Jacinto). Additionally, the document was available at the RCTC Office and on
the RCTC website. After receiving the request to have the Draft EIR available at the
Highgrove Library (690 Center Street), and although not required by CEQA , a
complete Draft EIR was delivered on April 16, 2010 for the convenience of the public.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-5 July 2011
Email 3
Dorothy Barnekow
May 18, 2010
E3-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-6 July 2011
Email 3 (cont’d)
Dorothy Barnekow
May 18, 2010
Response to Email 3
Dorothy Barnekow
May 18, 2010
E3-1. See Master Response #3 - Derailment, Master Response #7 - Emergency Planning
and Response, and Master Response #8 - Grade Crossings. In general the PVL is
required to comply with both federal and state regulations related to rail operations
(both commuter and freight) and the design and operation of grade crossings . In
addition to operating according to the various safety regulations, SCRRA also
provides public education for those that live near commuter rail lines. This public
education program is identified as “Operation Lifesaver” and is discussed in the Draft
EIR in Section 2.4.14.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-7 July 2011
Email 4
Mahmoud Sadeghi
May 18, 2010
E4-1
E4-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-8 July 2011
Email 4 (cont’d)
Mahmoud Sadeghi
May 18, 2010
Response to Email 4
Mahmoud Sadeghi
May 18, 2010
E4-1. The request for the names and addresses of public hearing speakers does not raise
any environmental issues. Accordingly, no response is required (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15088). However, please refer to the transcripts of the public hearings
included in the Final EIR. The transcripts provide the names of the speakers, and to
the extent they chose to provide them, their addresses.
E4-2. With regard to the availability of the Draft EIR on a website – and as explained in Ms.
Harmon’s email – the Draft EIR was made publicly available via the internet.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-9 July 2011
Email 5
Christopher Sanchez
May 24, 2010
E5-1
E5-2
E5-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.2 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES EMAILS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.2-10 July 2011
Response to Email 5
Christopher Sanchez
May 24, 2010
E5-1. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
E5-2. The residence at 2282 Kentwood Drive is approximately 90 feet north of Spruce
Street. The back wall of the house is approximately 145 feet from the nearest rail. A
detailed noise assessment indicated the proposed PVL project would result in noise
impacts to this residence according to the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual), Section 3.1. See the Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to
4.10-10, and Appendix A of the Noise and Vibration Technical Report for graphics
showing each receptor cluster on aerial photographs. Noise barriers, as a noise
mitigation measure, are not deemed feasible for this property as it is located near a
grade crossing (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.4). As a result, the PVL noise assessment
proposes that this property be required to have sound insulation for noise mitigation
instead of a noise barrier (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10).
Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts as
a result of the PVL project. Thresholds of significance may be derived from local
general plans and noise ordinances or applicable standards of other agencies.
According to CEQA, a significant impact from noise or vibration would occur if the
project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state or local policies and
regulations. Accordingly, the FTA impact criteria were used to determine significant
impacts for the PVL project because local criteria are related to general
neighborhood related noise issues and or allowable construction noise levels, not
railway noise (see Master Response #6 – Noise and Draft EIR, Section 4.10-1).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf).
E5-3. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. Full pedestrian treatments shall be
provided at both sidewalks on the north and south sides of the Spruce Street grade
crossing including pedestrian warning devices and gates, new concrete sidewalks,
detectable warning strips, signage, striping, pedestrian swing gates, and railings (see
Draft EIR Section 2.4.6 for additional information). The intersection of Spruce Street
and Watkins Drive shall be signalized with railroad preemption and crosswalks (see
Draft EIR, Section 2.4.6).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-1 July 2011
0.3.3.3 Other Interested Parties Comment Cards
Table 0.3.3.3-1
Response to Other Interested Parties Comment Cards
No. Commenter Date Page No.
1. Denise Allen 5/17/2010 0.3.3.3-2
2. Fonda McGensy 5/17/2010 0.3.3.3-4
3. James R. Pyle, Sr. 5/17/2010 0.3.3.3-6
4. Stephanie Pacheco 5/17/2010 0.3.3.3-8
5. Barbara Gable 5/24/2010 0.3.3.3-9
6. Gerald Jones Undated 0.3.3.3-11
7. Karl Johns 5/17/2010 0.3.3.3-12
8. Dean Bleer Undated 0.3.3.3-14
9. Pat Townsend 5/24/2010 0.3.3.3-16
10. Hung-Jen Huang 5/24/2010 0.3.3.3-18
11. John Chiu 6/2/2010 0.3.3.3-20
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-2 July 2011
Comment Card 1
Denise Allen
May 17, 2010
Response Comment Card 1
Denise Allen
May 17, 2010
CC1-1. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
CC1-2. The residence at 864 Kentwood Drive is approximately 220 feet south of Spruce
Street. The back wall of the house is approximately 80 feet from the nearest rail. A
detailed noise assessment indicated the proposed PVL project would result in noise
impacts to this residence according to the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual, Section 3.1). See the Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to
4.10-10, and Appendix A of the Noise and Vibration Technical Report for graphics
showing each receptor cluster on aerial photographs. A noise barrier will be
constructed as mitigation to attenuate the project -related noise to a level less than
significant (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16).
See Master Response #6 – Noise. Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR discusses the
potential noise and vibration impacts as a result of the PVL project. Thresholds of
significance may be derived from local general plans and noise ordinances or
applicable standards of other agencies. According to CEQA, a significant impact
from noise or vibration would occur if the project exceeded allowable limits defined
by federal, state or local policies and regulations. Accordingly, the FTA impact
criteria were used to determine significant impacts as a result of the PVL project
because local criteria are related to general neighborhood related noise issues
and/or allowable construction noise levels, not railway noise (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.1).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
CC1-3. A detailed noise assessment was conducted for project-related noise impacts to
noise sensitive receptors along the alignment. Where impacts were predicted,
CC1-1
CC1-2
CC1-3
CC1-4
CC1-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-3 July 2011
appropriate noise mitigation measures were identified at the affected locations (see
Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to 4.10-11).
The selection of seven homes and one church for sound insulation was based on the
analysis that showed these particular properties would either not be properly
protected by noise barriers or the existing terrain would make the use of noise
barriers infeasible. All eight properties are located near grade crossings. Because
these grade crossings create barrier discontinuity (since the noise barrier cannot
traverse the intersection), buildings near the crossings could be left either
unprotected or under-protected, thus resulting in the need for sound insulation at
these properties. For the property at 864 Kentwood Drive, a noise barrier is both
feasible and an appropriate mitigation measure as stated in the 2006 “Transit Noise
and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.3). Moreover,
the noise barrier would completely mitigate noise impacts at this property to less than
significant levels. Therefore, no further mitigation is required for this property.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
CC1-4. The vibration assessment for this area of the alignment indicates the proposed PVL
project would result in vibration levels that would surpass the FTA vibration impact
threshold of 80 VdB at fourteen (14) residences in the UCR area south of Spruce
Street and north of Highland Elementary School, along the eastern side of the PVL
alignment. The affected homes range between about 80 and 90 feet from the PVL
alignment (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-12). However, the application of ballast mats
and resiliently supported ties will reduce vibration to a less than significant level (see
Draft EIR, page 4.10.5). The use of ballast mats and resiliently supported ties are
appropriate mitigation measures approved for use by the FTA (see the 2006 “Transit
Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA [FTA Manual, page 11-21]). In
addition, the proposed project would include the removal of old rail and use new
welded rail instead, which would have the added benefit of reducing vibration levels
from existing freight traffic.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
CC1-5. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The PVL project proposes to initiate
commuter rail service from the City of Riverside to south of the City of Perris. As a
commuter rail project, the PVL it would not increase freight traffic along the corridor
(see Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13.).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-4 July 2011
Comment Card 2
Fonda McGensy
May 17, 2010
Response to Comment Card 2
Fonda McGensy
May 17, 2010
CC2-1. The residence at 218 Campus View Drive is approximately 650 feet west of Mount
Vernon Avenue and the back wall of the house is approximately 130 feet from the
closest rail. Based on direct technical guidance from the FTA, the Metrolink horns will
not be as loud as the existing freight train horns. In addition, because noise impacts
are projected for this location (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-9), noise barriers are
proposed as mitigation for this area of Campus View Drive (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-16), and therefore, these noise impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts as
a result of the PVL project. Thresholds of significance may be derived from local
general plans and noise ordinances or applicable standards of other agencies .
According to CEQA, a significant impact from noise or vibration would occur if the
project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state or local policies and
regulations. Accordingly, the FTA impact criteria were used to determine significant
impacts as a result of the PVL project because local criteria are related to general
neighborhood related noise issues and/or allowable construction noise levels, not
railway noise (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1).
CC2-2. Vibration from locomotives is the main determinant for rail vibration. A vibration
assessment based on FTA vibration criteria (FTA Manual, Table 8-1) was performed
for the PVL project (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-6). The results demonstrated the
proposed PVL project rail operations would not result in vibration impacts near East
Campus View Drive (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-12). Existing vibration in this area is
attributable to freight traffic that typically consists of older locomotives that include
CC2-1
CC2-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-5 July 2011
suspension systems that are, in general, more rigid than the newer Metrolink
passenger locomotives. Rigid locomotive suspension systems often translate into
higher levels of vibration (see the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA [FTA Manual, Section 7.2.1]). In addition, the proposed project
would eliminate old rail and use new welded rail, which would have the added benefit
of reducing noise and vibration attributable to the existing freight traffic.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-6 July 2011
Comment Card 3
James R. Pyle, Sr.
May 17, 2010
Response to Comment Card 3
James R. Pyle, Sr.
May 17, 2010
CC3-1. Currently, the RCTC ROW is used exclusively by BNSF freight trains which can be
long enough to block multiple grade crossings when passing through or when
stopped in the area. Because the PVL trains are much shorter, there is no potential
for commuter trains to block all access points into the UCR neighborhood. Moreover,
with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become a shared
corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under the control of SCRRA. It is not
anticipated that any trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track and thus
block other trains from passing. The added benefit of the shared corridor that will
result from the proposed project is that BNSF trains would be required to stop only in
the areas of passing track along the I-215 corridor and not in the UCR neighborhood.
CC3-2. The residence at 865 Huston Drive is more than 900 feet from the PVL alignment . In
addition, a number of existing residences lie between it and the PVL alignment,
thereby providing a level of noise attenuation. Noise was measured at locations
closer to the alignment to determine existing community noise levels. These
measured noise levels include the typical elements of the community’s noise
environment, including traffic, trains, and loud animals (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10 -3
to 4.10-5). A detailed noise assessment predicted project-related noise impacts for
homes along Kentwood Drive, as close as 80 feet from the proposed alignment,
according to the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA (FTA
Manual, Section 3.1). See the Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to 4.10-10, and Appendix A
of the Noise and Vibration Technical Report for graphics showing each receptor
cluster on aerial photographs. Noise barriers are proposed to mitigate these impacts.
Implementation of these noise barriers would reduce predicted noise impacts at
locations along Kentwood Drive to levels less than significant (see Draft EIR, Table
4.10-16). In addition, based on direct technical guidance from the FTA, the Metrolink
CC3-1
CC3-2
CC3-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-7 July 2011
horns will not be as loud as the existing freight train horns. Consequently, noise
impacts from the proposed PVL project would be less than significant for 865 Huston
Drive, which is located farther away from the alignment (in this case, 900 feet).
Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts as
a result of the PVL project. Thresholds of significance may be derived from local
general plans and noise ordinances or applicable standards of other agencies.
According to CEQA, a significant impact from noise or vibration would occur if the
project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state or local policies and
regulations. Accordingly, the FTA impact criteria were used to determine significant
impacts as a result of the PVL project because local criteria are related to general
neighborhood related noise issues and/or allowable construction noise levels, not
railway noise (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1).
CC3-3. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-8 July 2011
Comment Card 4
Stephanie Pacheco
May 17, 2010
Response to Comment Card 4
Stephanie Pacheco
May 17, 2010
CC4-1. The commenter requests a copy of the NEPA Draft Supplemental Environmental
Assessment prepared for the proposed project. The commenter’s name and contact
information was placed on the notification list. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15087(a)).
In addition, Ms. Pacheco was provided the internet link to the document requested.
CC4-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-9 July 2011
Comment Card 5
Barbara Gable
May 24, 2010
Response to Comment Card 5
Barbara Gable
May 24, 2010
CC5-1. A detailed noise and vibration assessment was conducted for the PVL project using
criteria and procedures from the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual). According to the FTA noise screening criteria,
noise impacts would not occur for residences located over 1,600 feet from a
proposed project alignment. With respect to vibration, FTA screening criteria indicate
vibration impacts would not occur for residences located over 200 feet from a
proposed project alignment (FTA Manual, Tables 4-1 and 9-2). As a result, project-
related noise and vibration impacts would not occur for the property at 270 Barret
Road, which is located over 1,900 feet from the PVL alignment. With regard to train
noise, based on Guidance from the FTA, it should be noted that the proposed PVL
project includes Metrolink locomotives with horns that are not as loud as the horns
currently used by the existing freight trains.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
CC5-2. The air quality analysis for the PVL accounted for relevant project parameters and
conditions. Where applicable, the analysis was done in compliance with the most up-
to-date local, state, and federal air quality regulations and guidance from the
SCAQMD, CARB, and the USEPA.
The diesel locomotives that will be used to implement the proposed PVL schedule
(as well as those currently being used by Metrolink) are bound by federal air quality
regulations and must meet their emissions criteria. As noted in Table 4.3-12 on page
4.3-28 of the Draft EIR, Metrolink will operate the PVL schedule by using six diesel-
electric locomotives that meet the USEPA stringent Tier 2 emissions standards.
CC5-1
CC5-2
CC5-3
CC5-4
CC5-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-10 July 2011
(Emissions Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009). By comparison,
Tier 2 locomotives restrict pollutant emissions to 90 percent of Tier 1 standards
which were restricted to approximately 60 percent of Tier 0 or uncontrolled
locomotive emissions. By the operating year of the PVL, all new locomotives will be
required to meet Tier 3 emissions which require an approximately 50 percent
reduction of Tier 2 emissions. As noted in Table 4.3-12, the expected emissions of
the locomotives will be completely offset by the reduction in emissions from diverted
vehicular traffic.
CC5-3. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. The PVL project is a
commuter rail project that will not transport hazardous materials. However, existing
freight operations, including transport of hazardous materials, will continue. The
frequency and quantity of materials, as with all freight operations, is dependent on
customer demand.
CC5-4. See Master Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations, where
roadways go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific approach distance to
maintain appropriate roadway grades and clearance heights for the tr acks. For grade
separations to be possible within the UCR neighborhood, many houses would lose
vehicle and driveway access.
CC5-5. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones. The PVL project is proposing to improve
track conditions along the project alignment. These improvements would include: tie
replacement, welded rail, and ballast replenishment where necessary. In addition,
the bypass track that parallels the I-215 will include new rail, ties, and ballast.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-11 July 2011
Comment Card 6
Gerald Jones
Undated
Response to Comment Card 6
Gerald Jones
Undated
CC6-1. This comment identifies a need for more jobs. If approved, the PVL project is
expected to contribute construction jobs and long term operational jobs to the region.
CC6-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-12 July 2011
Comment Card 7
Karl Johns
May 17, 2010
Response to Comment Card 7
Karl Johns
May 17, 2010
CC7-1. An air quality analysis was prepared for the PVL to evaluate potential air quality and
health risk impacts of the proposed PVL project (see Draft EIR, Section 4.3, and the
accompanying Air Quality Technical Report). The analysis was done in compliance
with the most up-to-date local, state, and federal air quality regulations and guidance
from the SCAQMD, CARB, and the USEPA.
The diesel locomotives that will be used to implement the proposed PVL schedule
(as well as those currently being used by Metrolink) are bound by federal air quality
regulations and must meet their emissions criteria. As noted in Table 4.3-12 on page
4.3-28 of the Draft EIR, Metrolink will operate the PVL schedule by using six diesel-
electric locomotives that meet the USEPA stringent Tier 2 emissions standards.
(Emissions Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009). By comparison,
Tier 2 locomotives restrict pollutant emissions to 90 percent of Tier 1 standards that
were restricted to approximately 60 percent of Tier 0 or uncontrolled locomotive
emissions. By the operating year of the PVL, all new locomotives will be required to
meet Tier 3 emissions that require an approximately 50 percent reduction of Tier 2
emissions. As noted in Table 4.3-12, the expected emissions of the locomotives will
be completely offset by the reduction in emissions from diverted vehicular traffic.
CC7-2. A noise and vibration assessment was performed for the project to identify potential
impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a less
than significant level. Noise mitigation is included as part of the proposed project
(construction of noise barriers and, in some cases, sound insulation, where
CC7-1
CC7-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-13 July 2011
warranted). Implementation of these measures would reduce project-related noise
impacts to a less than significant level. Reconstructing the existing PVL track below
existing ground level is not feasible mitigation for the identified impacts. The required
construction-related mitigation measures for this undertaking would be a significant
burden on the local community as impacts on traffic, air quality, and noise would
increase over those required for the proposed alignment configuration. As a result,
this option is outside the scope of this project.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-14 July 2011
Comment Card 8
Dean Bleer
Undated
Response to Comment Card 8
Dean Bleer
Undated
CC8-1. Welded rail is specified for the entire alignment (see Draft EIR, page 4.10-27).
CC8-2. A detailed noise and vibration assessment was conducted for the PVL project using
criteria and procedures from the FTA Manual. According to the noise and vibration
screening criteria from the FTA, vibration impacts would not occur for residences
located 200 feet from a proposed project alignment (see the 2006 “Transit Noise and
Vibration Impacts Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual, Table 9-2). 1025 Johns Road is
300 feet from the PVL alignment. As such, vibration impacts due to this proposed
project would be less than significant for the property at 1025 Johns Road..
http:www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
CC8-3. No noise impact from the proposed PVL project was predicted in this area of the PVL
alignment (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to 4.10-11 [C Street], and Appendix A [C
Street Cluster] of the Noise and Vibration Technical Report for graphics showing
each receptor cluster on aerial photographs).
CC8-4. Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the supporting Air Quality Technical Report)
outlines the measures used to calculate the expected emissions due to the
implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for the PVL accounted for
all possible project air quality and health risk impacts. The analysis was conducted in
compliance with the most up-to-date local, state, and federal air quality regulations
and guidance from the SCAQMD, CARB, and the USEPA.
CC8-3
CC8-4
CC8-1
CC8-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-15 July 2011
Tables 4.3-7 through 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that emissions projected for
criteria pollutants, local intersections (CO hotspots), greenhouse gases, mobile
source air toxics, construction activities and locomotive and parking operations all fall
below local thresholds of significance and state and federal emissions standards.
Therefore, the proposed PVL project would have less than significant air quality
impacts.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-16 July 2011
Comment Card 9
Pat Townsend
May 24, 2010
Response to Comment Card 9
Pat Townsend
May 24, 2010
CC9-1. A detailed noise and vibration assessment was conducted for the PVL project using
criteria and procedures from the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual). The results of the assessment indicted that noise
impacts would not occur for the residence at 320 West Campus View Drive.
Therefore, mitigation in the form of noise barriers and or sound insulation was not
required.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
CC9-2. The configuration of the proposed noise barriers for other nearby properties would
not affect or block the view from 320 West Campus View Drive, as this location
would not require the placement of a noise barrier directly in front of it; the nearest
noise barrier would be located approximately 150 feet east of this residence (see
Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16).
CC9-3. The comment is editorial; no response is necessary.
CC9-1
CC9-2
CC9-3
CC9-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-17 July 2011
CC9-4. The maximum speed of a train is the engineering calculation for a particular section
of track. The various curves, straightaways, and slope cause the train to vary speeds
throughout its trip along the alignment. Each trip requires consistent speeds so that
the signals are programmed for a particular rate of speed through that crossing.
Moreover, for the PVL project, the reduction in operational speed is not a feasible rail
noise mitigation measure. Restrictions on operations are usually not feasible
because of service demands, and FTA does not pursue restrictions on operations as
a noise reduction measure (see the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA (FTA Manual, page 6-41).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-18 July 2011
Comment Card 10
Hung-Jen Huang
May 24, 2010
Response to Comment Card 10
Hung-Jen Huang
May 24, 2010
CC10-1. The comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
CC10-2. The detailed noise and vibration study performed for residences in the area of 404
West Campus View Drive resulted in no project-related noise or vibration impacts as
defined by the FTA criteria (see the 2006 “Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment,” FTA [FTA Manual, Section 3.1 and Table 8-1]). As a result, noise
mitigation measures are not required for 404 West Campus View Drive.
With respect to the overall noise assessment, because humans are typica lly more
sensitive to noise during hours of sleep, the impact of early morning PVL train
operations was taken into consideration (see Draft EIR, page 4.10-20).
Subsequently, while noise impacts were predicted at certain locations along the PVL
alignment, the noise study conducted for the proposed PVL project found that noise
impacts as defined by the FTA Manual would not occur for residences with the
proposed mitigation measures. These measures include noise barriers at select
locations and sound insulation for specific homes (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to
4.10-10).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf).
CC10-3. See above response to CC10-2.
CC10-4. The commenter is requesting compensation for changing their windows. RCTC is not
obligated to compensate a private homeowner for upgrades to their homes.
CC10-3
CC10-4
CC10-2
CC10-1
CC10-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-19 July 2011
CC10-5. The commenter indicates that she has a sick child that needs rest. To the extent that
the commenter is concerned about noise and/or vibration impacts from the proposed
project, the commenter is referred to the response to comment CC10-2 above.
According to the noise and vibration study, the proposed project would result in less
than significant noise and vibration impacts in the area of 404 West Campus View
Drive (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-9, row for W. Campus View 5).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
0.3.3.3 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENT CARDS
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.3.3-20 July 2011
Comment Card 11
John Chiu
June 2, 2010
Response to Comment Card 11
John Chiu
June 2, 2010
CC11-1. This comment expresses support for the proposed PVL project and does not raise
specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no further response is necessary.
CC11-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-1 July 2011
0.3.4.1 Public Hearing #1 – April 14, 2010
Public Hearing #1 was held on April 14, 2010 at 9:30 AM at the Riverside County Administration
Center (4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92502). A copy of the transcript with bracketed
comment numbers on the right margin is followed by the response as indexed in the transcript.
The speakers are listed in Table 0.3.4.1-1.
Table 0.3.4.1-1
Public Hearing #1 Speakers
Speaker
No. Speaker Date Page No.
1. Barney Barnett 4/14/2010 0.3.4.1-8
2. Dennis Kidd 4/14/2010 0.3.4.1-13
3. Mike Croy 4/14/2010 0.3.4.1-17
4. Austin Sullivan 4/14/2010 0.3.4.1-19
5. Gurumantra Khalsa 4/14/2010 0.3.4.1-22
6. Kevin Dawson 4/14/2010 0.3.4.1-26
7. Jeffrey McConnell 4/14/2010 0.3.4.1-32
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-2 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-3 July 2011
Public Hearing #1 (cont’d)
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-4 July 2011
Public Hearing #1 (cont’d)
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-5 July 2011
Public Hearing #1 (cont’d)
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-6 July 2011
Public Hearing #1 (cont’d)
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-7 July 2011
Public Hearing #1 (cont’d)
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-8 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 1 - Barney Barnett
PH1-S1-1
PH1-S1-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-9 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 1 – Barney Barnett (cont’d)
PH1-S1-2 (cont’d)
PH1-S1-3
PH1-S1-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-10 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 1 – Barney Barnett (cont’d)
PH1-S1-4 (cont’d)
PH1-S1-5
PH1-S1-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-11 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 1 – Barney Barnett (cont’d)
PH1-S1-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-12 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 1 - Barney Barnett
PH1-S1-1. This comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no
response is necessary.
PH1-S1-2. This comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no
response is necessary.
PH1-S1-3. This comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no
response is necessary.
PH1-S1-4. This comment states that “The EIR was not supplied in the Highgrove library . . .”
This comment is incorrect. After receiving the request to have the Draft EIR
available at the Highgrove Library (690 Center Street), a complete Draft EIR was
delivered on April 16, 2010. The complete Draft EIR was initially distributed to
Riverside Main Library (3581 Mission Inn Avenue), Woodcrest Library (16625
Krameria Avenue), Moreno Valley Public Library (25480 Alessandro Boulevard),
and Perris Branch Library (163 East San Jacinto) in accordance with the State
CEQA Guidelines § 15087(g). Additionally, the document was available at the
RCTC Office and the RCTC website. (Id.) Furthermore, according to State CEQA
Guidelines § 15087(a), the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was (1) mailed
to individuals who had requested such notice in writing and (2) given in all the
following ways: (a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation (Press
Enterprise), (b) posting (RCTC website), or (c) direct mailing (electronic mail and
regular mail to all residents within 500 feet of the PVL project). Therefore, RCTC
gave proper notice and made the Draft EIR available for review in accordance
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
PH1-S1-5. This comment indicates that station location is a concern. However, the comment
does not identify which station is of concern or what the environmental concerns
are regarding a station. Therefore, RCTC does not have sufficient information to
respond further.
PH1-S1-6. This comment requests that a train station be built in the Highgrove area. The
Draft EIR, Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station requests,
and the reasons why it is not being considered as part of the proposed PVL
project. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-13 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 2 - Dennis Kidd
PH1-S2-2
PH1-S2-1
PH1-S2-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-14 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 2 – Dennis Kidd (cont’d)
PH1-S2-3 (cont’d)
PH1-S2-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-15 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 2 - Dennis Kidd
PH1-S2-1. This comment states that “The EIR was not supplied in the Highgrove library . . .”
This comment is incorrect. After receiving the request to have the Draft EIR
available at the Highgrove Library (690 Center Street), a complete Draft EIR was
delivered on April 16, 2010. The complete Draft EIR was initially distributed to
Riverside Main Library (3581 Mission Inn Avenue), Woodcrest Library (16625
Krameria Avenue), Moreno Valley Public Library (25480 Alessandro Boulevard),
and Perris Branch Library (163 East San Jacinto) in accordance with the State
CEQA Guidelines § 15087(g). Additionally, the document was available at the
RCTC Office and the RCTC website. (Id.) Furthermore, according to State
CEQA Guidelines § 15087(a), the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was (1)
mailed to individuals who have requested such notice in writing and (2) given in
all the following ways: (a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation (Press
Enterprise), (b) posting (RCTC website), or (c) direct mailing (electronic mail and
regular mail to all residents within 500 feet of the PVL project). Therefore, RCTC
gave proper notice and made the Draft EIR available for review in accordance
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
PH1-S2-2. This comment requests that a train station be built in the Highgrove area. The
Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station requests,
and the reasons why it is not being considered as part of the proposed PVL
project. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
PH1-S2-3. This comment requests that a train station be built in the Highgrove area. The
Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station requests,
and the reasons why it is not being considered as part of the proposed PVL
project. The speaker also identifies a Pigeon Pass Road Widening Project that is
currently in the very preliminary alignment studies stage with the County of
Riverside. The end of the PVL project has not been identified nor has the CEQA
environmental study been initiated at this time. There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH1-S2-4. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response, Master
Response #8 – Grade Crossings, and Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General). The speaker provides a misleading representation of the Los Angeles
Times article (September 27, 2009). The focus of the article is on two grade
crossings; Buena Vista Street in Burbank, and Sunland Boulevard in Sun Valley.
The article discusses recent accidents at those crossings and potential
improvements but does not make any statements regarding Metrolink service
between Riverside and San Bernardino. Additionally, the speaker references the
map that accompanies the referenced article. The map does not provide any
subjective statements about safety of the Metrolink system between Riverside
and San Bernardino but is reporting accidents reported to the FRA database and
relaying that information graphically for the entire Metrolink system. Therefore,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-16 July 2011
the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and no
mitigation is required for this issue (see Draft EIR, Section 2.2 [explaining why
Highgrove Station is not a feasible alternative]). No new impacts as a result of
this comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-17 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 3 - Mike Croy
PH1-S3-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-18 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 3 - Mike Croy
PH1-S3-1. This comment requests that a train station be built in the Highgrove area. The
Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station requests,
and the reasons why it is not being considered as part of t he proposed PVL
project. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-19 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 4 - Austin Sullivan
PH1-S4-1
PH1-S4-2
PH1-S4-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-20 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 4 – Austin Sullivan (cont’d)
PH1-S4-3 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-21 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 4 – Austin Sullivan
PH1-S4-1. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
PH1-S4-2. The mitigation proposed for the PVL project was developed based on the results
of the Noise and Vibration Technical Report. The assessment methodology and
subsequent mitigation recommendations were based on procedures outlined in
the FTA Manual Section 6.8. The identification of seven homes and one church
for sound insulation was based on the analysis that showed these particular
properties would either not be properly protected by noise barriers or the use of
noise barriers at these locations is infeasible based on topography and
engineering constraints. All eight properties are located near grade crossings.
Because these grade crossings create noise barrier discontinuity (since the
barrier cannot traverse the intersection), properties near the crossings are often
left either unprotected or under-protected resulting in the need for sound
insulation. The proper assessment for train noise was conducted using the FTA
Manual, which does not require the identification of a CNEL 65 contour line . In
lieu of contours, specific labeling of noise receptor clusters was included via
maps of impacted properties shown in Appendix A – Noise and Vibration
Technical Report of the Draft EIR. According to the FTA Manual, using
specifically labeled noise receptor clusters is the more accurate method for
displaying impacted properties since developing noise contours is sometimes
difficult due to shielding, terrain features and other propagation anomalies extant
in transportation projects (FTA Manual, page 6-35). The Draft EIR has proposed
mitigation for 83 residential units (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and
4.10-11).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH1-S4-3. The implementation of noise barriers would mitigate interior noise levels to less
than significant (according to Section 6.8.4 of the FTA Manual). Noise barrier
locations were based on the location of impacted properties which would be
representative of neighboring properties in terms of their general topography and
existing noise exposure (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1). Calculations based on
formula contained in Section 6.3.2 of the FTA Manual were applied to determine
noise barrier height requirements that would eliminate the specific impacts. The
lengths of noise barriers were based primarily on where the proposed PVL
locomotives would begin blowing their horns, in addition to the position of the
horns on the trains and existing site topography and constraints. Therefore, the
potentially impacted properties were identified based on the noise analysis and
not on an “eyeball” reaction as stated by the speaker.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-22 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 5 - Gurumantra Khalsa
PH1-S5-1
PH1-S5-2
PH1-S5-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-23 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 5 – Gurumantra Khalsa (cont’d)
PH1-S5-3 (cont’d)
PH1-S5-4
PH1-S5-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-24 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 5 – Gurumantra Khalsa
PH1-S5-1. See Master Response #12 – Grade Separations. As identified in the Master
Response, grade separations are infeasible in the UCR neighborhood. There are
no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH1-S5-2. This comment expresses concern regarding the fact that freight trains can block
every grade crossing in the UCR neighborhood. The PVL project’s trains would
be commuter trains of only a few cars. These trains are too short to block more
than a single crossing, and that is not anticipated during normal operations.
Thus, even in the unlikely event that a PVL project train stops in the
neighborhood, there would be no significant impact because only one of three
ingress/egress locations would be affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will become
a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of SCRRA. Due to
the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be
allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood)
because this would block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would
stop in the areas where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90)
and not in the UCR neighborhood. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH1-S5-3. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. As stated in the
Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger
only. As such, there would never be an occasion when hazardous materials
would be transported on the commuter trains.” Therefore, less than significant
impacts are anticipated for this issue area and no mitigation measures are
required. Since there are no new impacts as a result of this comment, the Draft
EIR has not been changed.
PH1-S5-4. This comment states that “The other issue is this track bisects park access both
city and county park. And there’s nothing proposed about how residents are
going to safely bisect that track either with a grade separation under or some way
to access trail head and county parkways.” The ROW has been in existence for
over 100 years and the City of Riverside and the County of Riverside developed
these parks without considering access across private property (the SJBL/RCTC
right-of-way). If unauthorized people enter the ROW, even to “just” cross the
tracks to get to the other side, they are considered to be trespassing.
The PVL project does not include adding additional track in this area or affecting
existing access to parks in any way. The existing track will remain in its current
location. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-25 July 2011
PH1-S5-5. The Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station
requests, and the reasons why it is not being considered as part of the proposed
PVL project. The speaker does not raise specific objections with regard to the
Draft EIR’s analysis of the Highgrove station. Therefore, RCTC has no further
response to this comment.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-26 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 6 - Kevin Dawson
PH1-S6-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-27 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 6 – Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
PH1-S6-2
PH1-S6-3
PH1-S6-4
PH1-S6-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-28 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 6 – Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
PH1-S6-5 (cont’d)
PH1-S6-6
PH1-S6-7
PH1-S6-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-29 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 6 – Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
PH1-S6-8 (cont’d)
PH1-S6-9
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-30 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 6 – Kevin Dawson
PH1-S6-1. As the Draft EIR states in Section 1.5, “two public hearings will be held on April
14, 2010 at 9:30AM at the Riverside County Administrative Center (4080 Lemon
Street, Riverside, CA 92502), and on April 22, 2010 at 6:00PM in the City of
Perris, City Council Chambers (101 North “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570 – corner
of San Jacinto and Perris Boulevard).” A third public hearing (May 17, 2010) was
added in response to public request. These public hearings were held by RCTC
as a courtesy to the public and were not required by CEQA (State CEQA
Guidelines § 15202(a)). These three public hearings provided members of the
public ample time to read the Draft EIR and provide comments if they desired.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft
EIR has not been changed.
PH1-S6-2. This comment is informational and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
PH1-S6-3. The public review period for the Draft EIR (April 5 through May 24, 2010)
exceeded the 45-day minimum prescribed in Section 21091 of the CEQA
Statutes and Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. There are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH1-S6-4. Section 15202 (a) in the CEQA Guidelines states that formal hearings are not
required at any stage of the environmental review process . However, in a “good
will” effort, RCTC wanted to give the public multiple opportunities to comment.
Originally two public hearings were scheduled. A third public hearing was added
to meet the request stated in this comment, and the requests of other members
of the public. These public hearings were intended to give the public a forum to
express their concerns before the RCTC Commission would be asked to review
and consider the document for approval. Therefore, there are no new impacts as
a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH1-S6-5. Train speed is determined by the local conditions including the track grade, load
being hauled, curves, and overall track conditions. The freight train configurations
were determined from available information and by visual observation at the time
of technical report preparation. It was assumed that the observa tion data would
provide an average number of locomotives traveling through the area for a given
week. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
PH1-S6-6. See Master Response #6 - Noise. To account for existing conditions in the field
(including noise from freight traffic and vehicular traffic), 24-hour noise
measurements were undertaken (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10-1). Although the
number of freight trains and their speeds would occasionally fluctuate up or
down, based on field observations and information from local engineers familiar
with the SJBL freight line, the characterization of freight movements per day and
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-31 July 2011
train speeds are accurate in the Draft EIR. The proposed Metrolink trains would
have travel speeds that typically range between 20 and 60 mph. The proposed
PVL project would include eliminating old rail and using new welded rail in its
place, which would have the added benefit of reducing noise and vibration from
existing freight traffic.
Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air Quality Technical Report)
outlines the extensive measures used to calculate the expected emissions due to
the implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for the PVL
accounted for relevant PVL project parameters and conditions. It also ensured
that the analysis was done in compliance with the most up to date local, state,
and federal air quality regulations and guidance. Table 4.3-10 of the Draft EIR
shows that emissions of greenhouse gases by the locomotives associated with
the PVL would be offset by the reduction in emissions resulting from the
diversion in ridership from private vehicles.
PH1-S6-7. Future PVL Metrolink trains would be traveling at faster speeds, although within
established speed limits set by design engineers taking into account maximum
speeds and reducing those to speed approved by FRA. The PVL trains would be
significantly shorter in length than the existing freight trains. As a result, the
exposure time for noise sensitive properties would be significantly less (trains will
pass by in seconds not minutes) than that of existing freight trains. Contrary to
what speaker stated, the speaker’s residence on Walnut Avenue is not located
500 feet from the rail line but well over a mile and a half away from any point of
the proposed PVL alignment. Therefore, noise impacts to the speaker’s
residence would be less than significant.
PH1-S6-8. The rail right-of-way has been in the same location for over 100 years and
currently passes past the park. The PVL project does not include adding
additional track in this area or affecting existing access to parks in any other way.
The existing track will remain in its current location and only be upgraded. Since
existing access to parks will not affected as a result of the PVL project, this is not
considered a significant issue and does not require mitigation.
The County and City parks are outside the jurisdiction of RCTC. Though not
required as mitigation for the PVL project, RCTC is willing to coordinate with the
City and County regarding future plans for improving the local trail system. RCTC
currently does not have excess PVL project funds to allow for sole funding of any
improvements related to park access. There are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH1-S6-9. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-32 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 7 - Jeffrey McConnell
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-33 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 7 – Jeffrey McConnell (cont’d)
PH1-S7-1
PH1-S7-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-34 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 7 – Jeffrey McConnell (cont’d)
PH1-S7-2 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-35 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
Speaker 7 – Jeffrey McConnell (cont’d)
PH1-S7-2 (cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-36 July 2011
Public Hearing #1
April 14, 2010
Speaker 7 – Jeffrey McConnell
PH1-S7-1. The comments are not germane to the Draft EIR. No response is necessary.
PH1-S7-2. The comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no
response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-37 July 2011
Public Hearing #1 (cont’d)
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.1 PUBLIC HEARING #1
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.1-38 July 2011
Public Hearing #1 (cont’d)
April 14, 2010
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-1 July 2011
0.3.4.2 Public Hearing #2 – April 22, 2010
Public Hearing #2 was held on April 22, 2010 at 6:00 PM at the City of Perris City Council
Chambers (101 North D Street, Perris, CA 92570). A copy of the transcript with bracketed
comment numbers on the right margin is followed by the response as indexed in the transcript.
The speakers are listed in Table 0.3.4.2-1.
Table 0.3.4.2-1
Public Hearing #2 Speakers
Speaker
No. Speaker Date Page No.
1. Janet Dixon 4/22/2010 0.3.4.2-8
2 Austin Sullivan 4/22/2010 0.3.4.2-13
3. Gerardo Sanabria 4/22/2010 0.3.4.2-19
4. Dean Bleer 4/22/2010 0.3.4.2-22
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-2 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
RCTC
Public Hearing
April 22, 2010
Transcribed from digital audio
>> BOB BUSTER: Good evening everyone. I'm Bob Buster, Chairman of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission. And with me is another
commissioner who most of you know here in the city of Perris, Mayor
Daryl Busch. And we'll be taking testimony on Perris Valley Line and
your concerns that you have. So please fill in one of these yellow
slips if you'd want to speak. We already have several. And then the
comment period--the official comment period on the environmental
report is open until May 24th. So we can give you the address to which
any further questions/comments should be sent so that they can be
responded to. We're going to have a general overview of the project.
Edda, is it Rotto? Rosso--Rosso will give us
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-3 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
an overview of the project, the current status of the project, and
then we will take testimony.
>> EDDA ROSSO: Good evening, everyone. Can you hear me? Oh -- just got
to lean forward. Good evening, everyone. We're here today since the
environmental studies for the Perris Valley Line have been released
for public review, and we'd like the hear comments from the public on
the project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report describes the
proposed project, environmental effects anticipated with
implementation of the PVL project, and any proposed mitigation
measures as applicable. Prior to the start of the hearing I'd like to
give a brief history of the Perris Valley Line to review what it is.
And then I'll conclude with what's going on now, and what's next for
the project. The PVL project extends the existing service to more of
Riverside County. These two maps help describe that point. The lighter
map on the left is the current five-county
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-4 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
Metrolink system. The map on the right is the Perris Valley Line
extension. On the map on the left, there's a light blue line that
travels from downtown Los Angeles to Riverside. That's the 91 Line.
The PVL project will extend the 91 Line from downtown Riverside to
Perris.
Let me briefly recap some of the previous actions taken by the
commission that have brought us to this point. The Measure A of 1989
authorized the project and provided partial funding. Tracks were
purchased in 1993. The PVL ad hoc was appointed in 2001. Federal
environmental process was launched in 2004. We received the go ahead
from the Federal Transit Administration in December of '07 for project
development. The locally preferred alternative was revised in April of
2008 (unintelligible) and startup stations were approved in July of
2008. It should also be noted that in January of 2009 an initial study
mitigated negative declaration was prepared and circulated for public
review and comment. After careful consideration and in
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-5 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
response to public comments, the commission decided to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, which provides a greater level of
analysis. As part of the environmental clearance process, we are
required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
conduct a number of studies as shown here on this slide. The result of
the various engineer and environmental studies for the PVL project are
documented in the Draft EIR.
So what now? We currently are in the comment period which opened on
April 5th and will close on May 24th. And this evening is our second
public hearing to receive public testimony on the Draft EIR. We will
continue to accept comments through the end of the comment period. In
addition to the hearing today, we conducted the first public hearing
on April 14th at the commission's regularly scheduled meeting. Action
on the project will not be requested today. Final action is not
anticipated until December of 2010. We will finalize a document to
address
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-6 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the comments and concerns raised during the comment period. All
comments received in writing or given as oral testimony at the public
hearing will be responded to in the final EIR.
The commission will be requested to act on project approval upon
completion of the final environmental document which is projected for
December of 2010. The PVL must also comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Transit Administration is
the lead agency for NEPA and a supplemental environmental assessment
is being prepared and will be available for public review and comment
in June of 2010. Upon FTA's approval and receipt of a finding of no
significant impact, we can then obtain needed federal and state
permits and move to the next phase of the work which is final
engineering, buying of property where the stations will be built, and
construction of the project. Upon completion of final design and
approval from FTA for the Project Construction
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-7 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
Grant Agreement, construction can commence. At this time construction
is projected for the spring of 2011.
I have noted here where the documents can be viewed and where folks
can send written comments should they not wish to speak today.
Additionally, we will accept any written comments the public may wish
to submit today to our clerk of the board. This concludes my
presentation so we can now begin with the testimony from the public.
>> BOB BUSTER: Thanks, Ms. Rosso. Okay. We'll go right to the
audience. Our ordinary comment period is three minutes. Usually people
can get their principal concerns listed and other questions raised
within that time period. So first speaker is Janet Dixon, representing
Riverside Unified School District. And she'll be followed by Austin
Sullivan.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-8 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 1 - Janet Dixon
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> JANET DIXON: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Janet Dixon.
I'm the Director of Planning and Development for Riverside Unified
School District. As I'm sure you're aware, the school district has two
schools that are immediately adjacent to the existing line that is
proposed to be used for the Perris Valley Line. Those would be
Highland Elementary and Hyatt Elementary. We're disappointed that our
concerns do not appear to be addressed in the EIR upon our review.
There is also an indication that in the report the way it is written
that we are in agreement with the mitigation here. If I can quote a
portion of the report in reference to landscape walls, it says that
there are not mitigation for any identified impacts. It goes on to say
in discussions with Riverside Unified and Perris Union school
districts it was mutually agreed that the schools would receive
benefit from a visual barrier and concludes--let's see--that the walls
are a good-neighbor gesture. They are not mitigation. They are
PH2-S1-2
PH2-S1-1
PH2-S1-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-9 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 1 – Janet Dixon (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
neither a noise barrier, nor should they be construed as a safety
feature.
The way this is written it seems to indicate that Riverside
Unified is in agreement with this mitigation or nonmitigation, as
the case may be. And I wanted to make it clear that that is not
the case. That this is not something that the district was in
agreement with. One element that is not addressed adequately is
the risk of derailment. There's a study in there that takes an
average of all of the miles that are traveled by Metrolink and
shows on average that there would be a derailment once every 124
years. It does not even mention that we've had derailments
already at both of these locations--one in 1989 at Highland
Elementary and one in 1990 at Hyatt Elementary. You probably
can't see it from there. But we've got a -- this is from the
Press Enterprise, it shows a picture of the derailment at Hyatt
elementary where you can see that there was a lot of lumber that
spilled. It was about 200
PH2-S1-4
PH2-S1-5
PH2-S1-6
PH2-S1-3
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-10 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 1 – Janet Dixon (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
feet from the playground. It wasn't actually on the playground. It
doesn't take into account that this area may have a higher risk than
other -- than your average Metrolink line and that maybe a derailment
once every 124 years isn't applicable to where our schools are
located. We will be submitting additional written comments prior to
the close of the comment period. Again Riverside Unified is not
opposed to the Perris Valley Line, but our concern has been and
remains the safety of the students at the two schools adjacent to the
line and any additional noise that would be disruptive to the
educational process. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this
evening.
>> BOB BUSTER: Okay. Thanks, Ms. Dixon. Next--go ahead.
>> DARYL BUSCH: Would you like to submit that picture to our staff--
PH2-S1-7
PH2-S1-8
PH2-S1-6
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-11 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 1 – Janet Dixon
PH2-S1-1. This comment is informational. No response is necessary.
PH2-S1-2. This comment is informational. No response is necessary.
PH2-S1-3. A noise barrier is proposed for Highland Elementary School (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-11). This will reduce predicted noise impacts to less than significant
levels. No noise impacts were predicted to occur at Hyatt Elementary School
(see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11), and therefore, no noise mitigation (noise barriers)
is proposed for that location. However, wheel squeal treatments in the form of
wayside applicators, which would significantly reduce the squeal noise, are
proposed at the short-radius curves near Hyatt Elementary School (see Draft
EIR, Section 4.10.4).
PH2-S1-4. The Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the Riverside Unified School District’s
position regarding the landscape walls. The changes to the Draft EIR in
Section 2.4.9 were to clarify this issue, no new impacts as a result of this
comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH2-S1-5. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment). This comment stated that the study in the Draft EIR
regarding derailment risk did “not even mention that we’ve had derailments
already at both of these locations – one in 1989 at Highland Elementary and one
in 1990 at Hyatt Elementary.” The analysis in the Draft EIR and the supplemental
analysis in the Master Responses compared the derailment exposure risk on
SCRRA’s lines to the estimated risk currently experienced by the SJBL. The
analysis was computed with yearly statistics beginning with SCRRA’s first full
year of operation in 1993. Since the derailments referenced in this comment
occurred outside of the 17-year window of SCRRA experience, they were not
included in the analyses. However, even if they were included in the derailment
calculations, they would increase the freight train risk factor, further strengthening
the argument that the PVL project is a benefit to the community.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant
impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed
to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were
raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH2-S1-6. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master
Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport, and Master Response #10 –
Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection
(Derailment). As stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4, “as a commuter rail line,
PVL service is passenger only.” As such, there would never be an occasion
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-12 July 2011
when hazardous materials or lumber would be transported on the commuter
trains.” With regard to train derailments in general, the PVL project would
replenish ballast, and replace ties, and rail next to Hyatt Elementary School,
which would improve the current track condition and subsequently reduce the
risk of derailment.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant
impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed
to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were
raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH2-S1-7. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment). The PVL project will improve overall track conditions so
that both Metrolink and the freight trains can operate safely along the same
alignment. By improving the overall condition of the track the operation would
have a reduced potential for derailment.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant
impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed
to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were
raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH2-S1-8. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near Highland
Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master
Response #9 - Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic),
and Master Response #10 - Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences
Supplemental Protection (Derailment). Also see above response to PH2-S1-3.
Safety is the primary concern of both RCTC and SCRRA (the operators of the
Metrolink service) for implementation and operation of the project. SCRRA will
have operational control of the train service, both freight and commuter, when the
PVL project is operational. Additionally, SCRRA will operate the commuter rail
according to the organization Standard Operating Procedures. The analysis in
the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and no mitigation is
required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No
new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and no mitigation measures
are required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-13 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 2 - Austin Sullivan
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> JANET DIXON: Sure.
>> DARYL BUSCH: --that you brought with you. They would be happy to
take that.
>> JANET DIXON: Okay. I can do that.
>> BOB BUSTER: Next Mr. Sullivan. And he'll be followed by Gerardo
Sanabria.
>> MR. SULLIVAN: Good evening. I appeared before the board at the last
public hearing and at that point another member of the UCR community--
I live on 275 West Campus View Drive near UC Riverside. He requested
that we have another public hearing in our neighborhood, and I would
like to reiterate that request. And I hope that can happen before the
close of the review period. I expected to make a few comments this
evening concerning some of the technical
PH2-S2-2
PH2-S2-3
PH2-S2-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-14 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 2 – Austin Sullivan (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
aspects of the noise portion of the EIR. And in preparation for doing
that, I looked back at comments I had made to the original EA, which
was done six years ago. And much to my surprise what I found was that
the noise analysis done in 2004 was essentially the same one that's
being -- that was done now. What you have is essentially a re -- not
even a reiteration. What you have is -- how shall I say this? If the
commission actually paid somebody to do this as a separate study they
were, I think the nice term is gulled. Let me cite for you nonetheless
some of the problems with that initial study -- incidentally, this is
going to make it easy for me.
All I'm going to have to do is boilerplate my comments from 2004,
resubmit them. It's going to be not very much work at all. But some of
the problems with that are -- number one, they make no effort to
analyze any of the time shifting that might occur with reference to
some of the freight trains being shifted to nighttime because of the
PH2-S2-4
PH2-S2-3
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-15 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 2 – Austin Sullivan (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
trains--the Metrolink trains being running during the day. They use a
metric, namely the Ldn, in order to do the noise analysis. The
California standard is CNEL. If you use CNEL, which would be the
appropriate metric, you would wind up with the greater nose impact
because it weights more the evening noise. They repeatedly use the
term Ldn, dBA. There is no such thing. It's either dBA or Ldn. And the
fact that they make this kind of confusion really probably doesn't
mean a whole lot, you can usually figure out what they mean, but the
fact that they're using the improper terminology raises a question as
to whether the person that's doing the analysis really knows their
stuff very well. We should be provided with a 65 CNEL noise contour.
No such contour is provided.
There is no way to indicate -- to figure out how the seven homes --
and I don't -- that's a ridiculously small number of homes that were
slated for mitigation--were chosen. We really should be dealing with
all the homes
PH2-S2-8
PH2-S2-6
PH2-S2-7
PH2-S2-5
PH2-S2-4
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-16 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 2 – Austin Sullivan (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
within the 65 CNEL and that would be a much larger number. I don't
know about anybody else in my community. I'm not against mass transit.
I'm not even against this project. I just want you guys to do the
right thing. And that means not hand us the bill. Do the proper
mitigation, and you'll get my support.
PH2-S2-9
PH2-S2-8
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-17 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 2 – Austin Sullivan
PH2-S2-1. This comment is informational. No response is necessary.
PH2-S2-2. A third public meeting was held on May 17, 2010 to allow the UCR neighborhood
an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed project. These public
hearings were a courtesy of RCTC and not required by CEQA (CEQA Section
15202(a)).
PH2-S2-3. See Master Response #6 – Noise. The 2004 and 2005 EAs and 2010 Draft EIR
reports represent separate assessments of noise and vibration for the PVL
project. New noise monitoring was conducted for the 2010 Draft EIR to ensure
that the most up to date data was used in the assessment. This assessment
included noise monitoring at additional locations as well as re-measurements at
previously monitored sites, particularly in the UCR neighborhood.. In addition, the
2010 Draft EIR assessment included a new train schedule and volumes, and the
assessment methodology was completely revised for both noise and vibration
based on a specific request from the FTA. While calculated noise levels from the
2004 and 2005 EAs and 2010 Draft EIR assessments were not exactly alike,
they did result in similar requirements for mitigation at some locations.
PH2-S2-4. The speaker states that freight time shifting was not a part of the noise analysis.
The PVL noise study assumes that no time shifting of freight trains to night-time
hours would be required as a result of the PVL project implementation because
the proposed PVL project would only add twelve daily commuter train trips to the
existing line (see Draft EIR, Section 2.4.11 and Table 2.4-2). The addition of
twelve commuter train trips would not interfere with existing BNSF freight train
traffic. Moreover, the PVL project would add a by-pass track on the I-215 side of
the existing SJBL track within the existing RCTC ROW, which would allow
multiple trains to use the PVL line without conflicts (see Draft EIR, Section 2.4.1).
As a result, time shifting is not necessary and is not a component of the PVL
project.
PH2-S2-5. The proper assessment for train noise was conducted using the FTA Manual
which calls for the use of Ldn as the appropriate descriptor for transit-related
noise with respect to residential uses and Leq for daytime land uses (FTA Manual,
Section 2.5.5 and Table 3-2). The Ldn descriptor (as with CNEL) weighs night-
time noise more heavily than daytime noise. The CNEL descriptor, although it
also adds an additional decibel penalty for noise during evening hours, is geared
primarily towards overall community noise, for potential development projects.
Therefore, while the project is located in California where the CNEL descriptor is
used in the assessment of many non-transit based projects, because the PVL
project is related to rail usage, the Ldn and Leq descriptors based on FTA Manual
guidance were used here.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-18 July 2011
PH2-S2-6. Noise terms, Ldn and dBA, were used in their respective contexts for the noise
assessment for the proposed PVL. Ldn is defined as a noise descriptor, while dBA
represents the units of the descriptor.
PH2-S2-7. The proper assessment for train noise was conducted using the FTA Manual,
which does not require the identification of a CNEL 65 contour line. In lieu of
contours, specific labeling of noise receptor clusters was included via maps of
impacted properties shown in Appendix A – Noise and Vibration Technical
Report of the Draft EIR (FTA Manual, page 6-35).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH2-S2-8. See response PH2-S2-7 above. The Draft EIR has proposed noise mitigation for
83 residential units (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11).
Mitigation for impacted properties includes noise barriers and sound insulation for
specific properties. Sound insulation was specifically proposed at eight properties
where noise barriers would not be feasible. Noise mitigation for the balance of
the properties for which potential noise impacts were identified will be in the form
of noise barriers.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH2-S2-9. This comment does not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no
response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-19 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 3 - Gerardo Sanabria
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> BOB BUSTER: Thanks, Mr. Sullivan. Next is Mr. -- did I get this
right? Is it Sanabria?
>> MR. SANABRIA: Yes, you did.
>> BOB BUSTER: And you'll be followed by Dean Blair or Bleer.
>> MR. SANABRIA: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gerardo
Sanabria. I'm a resident of Perris. I'm here to speak in support of
the project. I have been listening to
PH2-S3-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-20 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 3 – Gerardo Sanabria (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
some of the negatives against the project, and I stop and think about
how all projects--especially this one--is funded by public funds and a
few individuals stand up here and demand mitigations for their things.
I see it as a greater good for the entire region not only for a few.
And I hope that this thing gets done and it gets done correctly and it
gets done on a timely timeline. Just speaking in support of the Perris
Valley Line. Thank you.
PH2-S3-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-21 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 3 – Gerardo Sanabria
PH2-S3-1. This comment supports the PVL project and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-22 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 4 - Dean Bleer
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> BOB BUSTER: Thanks.
>> DEAN BLEER: Good evening, Mr. Commissioner. My name is Dean Bleer.
I live at 1025 Johns Road here in Perris, which is adjacent to the
northbound 215 Freeway, which is pretty close to the railroad track.
Let me say I'm not opposed to the rail line. We've lived with that
rail line here -- I've lived there since 1962 and the commercial
traffic that was hauling the potatoes out of her all during
PH2-S4-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-23 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 4 – Dean Bleer (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
that time. So the four or five houses that are affected -- really,
really affected by the traffic and the rail lines in relationship to
vibration and noise we've--like I say, we've lived with that since
1962.
I don't know if the soil that is the original soil for that slope that
comes off of 8th Street down to Perris Boulevard is deteriorating or
breaking down or we're just putting more weight and more traffic on
it, but every time that they repave the 215 and they break the
pavement there at the D Street off-ramp and there's a little roughness
until the surface, even the truck traffic will -- has cracked --
because all those houses are lath and plaster they're on a crawl
space. They're off the floor. They're not on a cement foundation. And
it has cracked the plaster on these five houses. And my house -- every
house and my house has got a hairline crack in it because just the
truck traffic. Now, when the trains go by and they're very, very
limited now because we don't have a lot of train traffic.
PH2-S4-4
PH2-S4-2
PH2-S4-1
(cont’d)
PH2-S4-3
PH2-S4-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-24 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 4 – Dean Bleer (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
The trains now will vibrate the window panes and the pictures on the -
- in my house the pictures that are hanging on the wall. That train
will vibrate them.
In relationship to this on the second page, what is planned, you say
that the project would included a track rehabilitation with welded
rails for a new track for a nine-mile segment parallel to the 215
south of Box Springs Road and north of Nuevo Road. On the back under
noise, you say that the welded rail would mean less noise and
vibration from the rail traffic. There's--the way I read this, and I
did read your -- what do you call this? I'm sorry. The draft IER [sic]
over at the library --
>> BOB BUSTER: Draft EIR. Correct.
>> DEAN BLEER: I looked at every page in the first part of the book. I
didn't understand the technical. And I didn't understand a lot of --
when I looked through the whole first
PH2-S4-5
(cont’d)
PH2-S4-6
PH2-S4-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-25 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 4 – Dean Bleer (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
book. I read everything on the noise and everything on the vibration
and everything on the pollution according to the draft. I understood
about 90%.
>> BOB BUSTER: That's better than most of us.
>> DEAN BLEER: So my -- and what I couldn't find over there -- because
I basically went to read the draft because it seams like you're going
to stop the welded rail at Nuevo Road. All these houses are from Nuevo
Road to the D Street off-ramp. And they're approximately -- you'd
think that the rail would be far enough that it would be not affected.
But the rail traffic on there now is affecting these five houses on --
that are relation to Metz and Johns Road. Now, when you get up because
the road is this in a V, it pushes the rail further and further away
from their houses and they don't get -- they're not as affected by the
vibration as bad as we are. So I would ask the commission, if they
PH2-S4-9
PH2-S4-8
PH2-S4-7
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-26 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 4 – Dean Bleer (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
haven't done so already, because I don't know what you guys are doing
or not doing -- I didn't understand it -- is to put welded rail at
least all the way to San Jacinto Avenue. I don't know if a sound wall
-- and this gentleman says the sound walls that's proposed in that
draft are not really sound walls. I don't know if that would help or
not help. I don't know if the vibration is because of the soil that
exists and existed there from day one. Maybe you guys could look into
that and see if you can reduce the vibration on these houses on Johns
Road.
>> BOB BUSTER: These are all really good points you raise. And the
whole idea is to as much as possible translate what the experts
experience is into layman's terms so you can make your own judgments.
And I know in these initial reports often you get bogged down with a
lot of acronyms and a lot of insider or technical language so that's
something we should look at. And we'll specifically
PH2-S4-10
PH2-S4-9
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-27 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 4 – Dean Bleer (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
respond to your points that you raised which I think are very, very
good points, and the other ones that the other speaker raises.
>> DEAN BLEER: The -- if I have a few minutes -- the other thing that
I didn't quite understand is --
>> BOB BUSTER: I don't want to give you too much time because I have
to cut everybody out at three. If you have another couple points go
ahead.
>> DEAN BLEER: Just one point-- the pollution, because I didn't
understand that and I read that environmental as to how much ozone,
smog, or whatever you want to call it that would be raised from the
locomotives--
>> Right. Right. Air emissions.
PH2-S4-11
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-28 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
Speaker 4 – Dean Bleer (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> --I don't know you say the air quality control whatever that board
is they set the guidelines of how much emissions they can produce. So
I think it's -- anyway I want you to kind of know those are lath and
plaster houses on crawl spaces which are hardwood floors and they
vibrate, and we need to minimize that as much as possible. Thank you
very much.
>> BOB BUSTER: Thanks for you testimony. Appreciate it. Is there
anyone else here this evening that wishes to make any comments
whatsoever about the Perris Valley Line? All right. If you do come up
with further comments please take one of these forms it gives you Ms.
Rosso's name and all the contact information for the commission and
deadlines and so forth which are in this case is May 24th. Everything
submitted before May 24th will receive a written response in the
environmental impact report. Is that correct Ms. Rosso? Okay good. So
that really helps you
PH2-S4-12
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-29 July 2011
Public Hearing #2
April 22, 2010
Speaker 4 – Dean Bleer
PH2-S4-1. This comment is informational. No response is necessary.
PH2-S4-2. A detailed noise and vibration assessment was conducted for the PVL project
using criteria and procedures from the FTA Manual. The assessment identified
noise sensitive properties most likely to be affected by the proposed PVL project
(see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10, and 4.10-11). The assessment did not
identify any noise or vibration impacts near the speaker’s residence at 1025
Johns Road.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH2-S4-3. The SJBL runs on the west side of the I-215; 1025 Johns Road is located east of
I-215. The soil and pavement conditions on and near the I-215 are not a result of
the rail corridor usage but related to the freeway traffic.
PH2-S4-4. The comment relates potential vibration damage from freeway traffic and not
from rail operations.
PH2-S4-5. According to the vibration screening criteria from the FTA, vibration impacts
would not occur for residences located 200 feet from a proposed project
alignment according to the FTA Manual, Table 9-2. As such, vibration impacts
due to this proposed project would not occur for residences in the vicinity of the
property at 1025 Johns Road, which is located over 300 feet from the proposed
PVL alignment.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH2-S4-6. The proposed project would include eliminating old rail and using new welded rail
in its place for the entire length of the proposed project (see Draft EIR,
Section 2.4.1). The new welded rail would have the added benefit of reducing
noise from existing freight traffic.
PH2-S4-7. This comment is informational. No response is necessary.
PH2-S4-8. The proposed project would use welded rail throughout, thereby reducing
existing vibration. See Response PH2-S4-6 above.
PH2-S4-9. Existing soil conditions are a factor when considering potential vibration impacts
from rail. However, homes along Johns Road are approximately 300 feet from
the proposed alignment and according to the conservative FTA vibration
screening criteria in the FTA Manual, Table 9-2, would not be impacted by PVL
project train operations. As indicated in the Draft EIR, vibration impacts from
properties located more than 200 feet from the proposed rail alignment would be
less than significant (FTA Manual, Table 9-2).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH2-S4-10. Noise barriers were proposed for specific locations (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-30 July 2011
See response to PH2-S4-9 above. Moreover, noise barriers were not proposed
as mitigation for vibration impacts. Instead, where vibration impacts were
identified, the Draft EIR proposed the use of either ballast mats or resiliently
supported ties to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH2-S4-11. The air quality analysis for the PVL accounted for all potential air quality impacts.
The analysis was conducted in compliance with the most up to date local, state,
and federal air quality regulations and guidance. The manufacturers of the
locomotive equipment (as well as the transportation agency using them,
Metrolink) are also bound by federal air quality regulations and must meet
established emissions criteria. As noted in the Draft EIR, Table 4.3-12 in the Air
Quality section, Metrolink would operate the PVL schedule by using 6 diesel-
electric locomotives that meet established USEPA stringent Tier 2 emissions
standards for locomotives. By comparison, Tier 2 locomotives restrict pollutant
emissions to 90% of Tier 1 standards that were restricted to approximately 60%
of Tier 0 or uncontrolled locomotive emissions. By the operating year of the PVL,
all new locomotives would be required to meet Tier 3 emissions which require an
approximately 50% reduction of Tier 2 emissions. As noted in Table 4.3-12, the
expected emissions of the locomotives would be offset by the reduction in
emissions from diverted vehicular traffic.
PH2-S4-12. CARB and SCAQMD operate an ambient air quality monitoring network
throughout the state that monitors air pollutants. This network encompasses
every county in the state (including Riverside County where the proposed PVL
would operate) and the most current and relevant data from these monitoring
stations was used in the air quality analysis. The SCAQMD operates three air
quality monitoring stations in the City of Riverside and one in Perris that measure
the local air quality on a continuous basis. The air quality analysis for the PVL
accounted for all relevant project parameters and conditions and ensured that the
analysis was done in compliance with the most up to date local, state, and
federal air quality regulations and guidance. The manufacturers of the locomotive
equipment (as well as the transportation agency using them, Metrolink) are also
bound by federal air quality regulations and must meet the emissions criteria. As
noted in Table 4.3-12 in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR, Metrolink would
operate the PVL schedule by using 6 diesel-electric locomotives that meet the
USEPA stringent Tier 2 emissions standards for locomotives. By comparison,
Tier 2 locomotives restrict pollutant emissions to 90% of Tier 1 standards that
were restricted to approximately 60% of Tier 0 or uncontrolled locomotive
emissions. By the operating year of the PVL, all new locomotives would be
required to meet Tier 3 emissions which require an approximately 50% reduction
of Tier 2 emissions. As noted in Table 4.3-12, the expected emissions of the
locomotives would be completely offset by the reduction in emissions from
diverted vehicular traffic.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-31 July 2011
Homes along Johns Road are approximately 300 feet from the proposed
alignment and according to the vibration screening criteria in the FTA Manual,
would not be impacted by PVL project train operations.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-32 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
get a kind of back and forth and then the commission can read that.
That's what I often go to first so see where the controversial areas
are and what the response is, and then we can gauge in a better idea
of whether the proposed mitigations are sufficient and so forth. So
that's our job. We're happy to do it. Since we got started here
Supervisor
Marion Ashley is also a commissioner represents this area along with
Mayor Busch here in the Perris area has arrived. Oh, and our director,
Anne Mayer, who ranges far and wide. And we're happy she's been doing
a good job getting funding, federally primarily, for this expansion.
And she also keeps us up to date with all the safety improvements. One
thing I might say that with the several severe train accidents on the
Metrolink lines elsewhere in the system, there will be upgraded safety
features for the Perris Valley Line. And Mr. Bleer already mentioned
one of them, which is the separate -- completely separate track to
separate freight and passenger movements here on the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-33 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
Perris Plain area. But there will be others as well. Supervisor
Ashley, do you want to make a few comments? Then Ms. Mayer is there
anything you want to add?
>> MARION ASHLEY: It's good to see everybody come out. I'm sorry I'm
late getting back. I spent the whole day in Orange County as master of
ceremonies at a water conference in a matter of Santa Ana watershed. I
just got back and come down here. So I'm sorry I'm late. But it's very
important that you all came out. We need to know all your comments.
Every one of them will be addressed in the EIR, and the answers will
be there. So they'll address them, and then they'll say--Here's what's
done about it. Like, for example, Dean Bleer's comment about the
welded tracks. No doubt it's got welded tracks all the way through.
But it wasn't clear in that, and they'll have to point that out if
it's not that way. Then they'll have to address that. So all these
concerns whether it's about the adequacy of a
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-34 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
sound berm or a berm or sound wall in front of a school or whatever.
They all have to be addressed.
And at the end of this, if we do this, we'll have a better project,
and there will be more acceptance of it. This could be a wonderful
thing for the area. Because--they're talking about how many riders a
day? Starts at close to 5,000 a day right off the bat. And you
translate that into cars, and you figure that's less smog. So it's a
lot better. Also it's really great when you'll be able to get on here
in Perris or South Perris near Menifee and be able to ride all the way
to Los Angeles or to Orange County if you want to. And that's good
because some folks can drive -- or they can't drive. Some would rather
drive--they'd rather not drive, read a book, take a nap. Listen to
your iPod and relax on the way in and at the same time take all those
cars off the road. It's important to get as many cars as we can off
the road. Because we know whether -- no matter what we do. If we put
the natural growth out
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-35 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
here--here going to grow because people are having babies. They're not
coming out of the air. It's just natural growth. We're going to--
>> BOB BUSTER: I thought that's where they came from.
>> MARION ASHLEY: So we need projects like this to help mitigate that.
And -- it's important -- one comment who --
>> BOB BUSTER: The stork.
>> MARION ASHLEY: On the South Perris Line, the end of the line is by
Highway 74, 215, and that's the end of the line. That's probably going
to be the busiest spot because you have a catchment area. If you go 15
minutes, which isn't far, every direction people from Elsinore,
Murrieta, Temecula, San Jacinto Valley, all will be able to come in
and ride that in. And I think it's really important. This
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-36 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
a -- if this is done right--and we're going to do it right--this is
going to be a great. Not just a great facility for the area, but it's
going to be a great amenity as well.
>> BOB BUSTER: It's almost.--at least from Perris to the whole region.
And may soon be even Perris to the whole nation.
>> MARION ASHLEY: That's right. All Metrolink lines end in Perris, end
of the line right there.
>> BOB BUSTER: Mayor Busch, do you want to-- Mayor or Director, do you
want to say anything? Mayor Busch--I'm going to leave him the
concluding comments. He's the mayor. He gets to put the cap on the
meeting.
>> MARION ASHLEY: Last word.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-37 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> ANNE MAYER: Okay. I would just like to thank those who
participating tonight for your comments and also let you know that we
do have a number of staff in the room here. So, if you have additional
questions after the hearing is over, we're happy to stay after and
answer any questions you have this evening. Also, if you think of
additional questions, we're available by phone. We can set up other
discussions with you so that you can make sure that you understand the
content of the documents that we have, and we can answer your
questions. So we are available as well as we have the comment cards
and we also have Edda's contact information available for you as well.
So thank you for you comments.
>> BOB BUSTER: Mayor Busch.
>> DARYL BUSCH: Yeah. Anne mentioned we're available by phone. If you
want to make a comment though, comments have
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-38 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
to be in writing. Okay. So it's important you call the staff and say--
I told them. That's really nice, but they have to have it in writing.
We have to have a writing document for this process here. The law
requires it. So it's very important that, if you do want something
entered on this, is to submit a written statement--whatever form. And
it doesn't have to be in a specific form--just as long as they give it
to them. Address it and give it to them, that's what's important. We
thank everyone for coming this evening. This is actually going to be
great for the region in--just an example of -- those of you that
haven't seen in the letter, but we already have our transit station
90% completed here in Perris. And it's operational and--that is the
buses are using it now---and we're just waiting for a train to show up
and then the rest of it will be completed. It's over on C Street. It's
just a block over.
And, if you haven't seen it, I recommend you go over and see it. It's
really, really nice. It set the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-39 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
standards of what we're going to have here in Riverside County at the
other stations also. And so I invite you to go over and look at it and
see it. It's something unique. We have some Disney art displayed
there. Disney was kind enough to our request to allow us to display
some of their art there. So that is on display also there. We -- the
safety measures--they're taking a lot of extra precaution because of
safety measures in (unintelligible) double tracking. Down from
basically from the 60 almost all the way to Nuevo Road it will be
double tracked. What that means is that they will -- there is freight
use out there at this time. But when the Metrolink comes, they're
going to build their own track so the freight and the Metrolink will
not be running on the same track. And so try to avoid any type of
scenarios that they had in Chatsworth where they had two trains on the
same track. So they're doing that as a precaution. We could have ran
without it.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-40 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
They do it in other areas, but the extra money should be spent for
safetywise. And then also part of the Metrolink is in the--Metrolink
is in the process of putting a system in place called Positive Train
Control (PTC). That's like a $200 million project. It's for all the
lines that you've seen on the drawing a while ago. And that is the,
basically, a satellite system that hooks to the trains while the
train's in the region and it basically--like the airplanes use today
so two planes don't run into each other. Well, this keeps two trains
from running into each other. It automatically shuts the trains down.
It stops them so we don't have those kind of situations where we have
the collisions. On the other thing, the safety record of Metrolink is
very good. The one lady mentioned that an accident in--I can only say
that some of that may have occurred due to the fact that these rail
lines in this area are substandard, to put it the least -- they
restricted the use of speed in the lines right now because of the
rails
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-41 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
have not been upgraded to current standards. So that will also, I
think, happen on those lines during this process and make those lines
safer, and then, of course, we'll have the brand new lines for the
Metrolink to run on also.
So they're doing everything they can to make it safe and then, like I
said, Metrolink is in the process of getting the Positive Train
Control. They expect to have it in operation by 2012. That's their
objective anyhow. It's mandated by Congress that this system be
implemented nationwide by 2015, but Metrolink has set a date for 2012
to have it in place for their system. So everything is done to make it
safe also besides just for the people riding it. And again thank you
for coming to Perris. And go see our transit site. I think you'll be
impressed. Mr. Buster.
>> BOB BUSTER: Thanks everyone for coming. Give us any more comments
you have. And we stand adjourned.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.2 PUBLIC HEARING #2
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.2-42 July 2011
Public Hearing #2 (cont’d)
April 22, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
[END OF RECORDING]
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-1 July 2011
0.3.4.3 Public Hearing #3 – May 17, 2010
Public Hearing #3 was held on May 17, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the University of California,
Riverside (UCR) Extension, Room C (1200 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507). A
copy of the transcript with bracketed comment numbers on the right margin is followed
by the response as indexed in the transcript. The speakers are listed in Table 0.3.4.3-1.
Table 0.3.4.3-1
Public Hearing #3 Speakers
Speaker
No. Speaker Date Page No.
1. Chuck Beaty 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-13
2. Stephanie Pacheco 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-19
3. Kyle Patrick 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-23
4. Corinne Jorgensen 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-26
5. Michael Huber 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-28
6. Mark Hansen 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-32
7. Austin Sullivan 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-38
8. Raul Ayala 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-41
9. Kirk Lewis 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-49
10. Lia Boucher 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-55
11. Fonda McGensy 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-66
12. Denise Allen (& Students) 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-70
13. Tom Allen 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-77
14. Daryl Salmon 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-82
15. Robert Phillips 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-87
16. Richard Block 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-92
17. Barbara Effinger 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-98
18. Robert Dobry 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-101
19. Barney Barnett 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-106
20. Elizabeth Lawlor 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-111
21. Roger Turner 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-118
22. Regina Salazar 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-124
23. Kevin Dawson 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-127
24. Elizabeth Broeker 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-135
25. Ken Wilkizen 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-141
26. Dee Andrée 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-144
27. Karen Doris Wright 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-148
28. Mahmoud Sadeghi 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-155
29. Judy Conn 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-160
30. Arlinda Argeris 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-166
31. Gurumantra Khalsa 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-169
32. Allen Brunlinger 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-174
33. Dave Roddy 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-179
34. Jens Christian 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-187
35. Abdurrahman Koksal 5/17/2010 0.3.4.3-190
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-2 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
RCTC
Public Hearing
May 2010
Transcribed from cassette tapes
>> Several residents asked for a meeting at a convenient time
when people are not at work here in the greater University area
of the city of Riverside on the Perris Valley Line. And the
commission and our staff delivered. So this is actually an
elective hearing. It's an additional hearing we've already had
which number at least well, there's been many over the years but
more recently two. So we’re happy to take testimony from any and
all. I would just urge everybody be sure to fill out your slips
and try to be concise so we can hear from everyone. You will get
a response to all your questions and concerns. Am I not correct
in that? Is there still time, Ms. Rosso?
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-3 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Yeah, because it's open until May 24th.
>> Public hearing and we don't normally allot three minutes. If
you have some good reason while you have to offer more testimony,
let us know but we’d like to cover everyone. And please, you
know, if you agree with previous speakers and just want to add
your, you know, go forth and your, you know, you want to support
what's previously been said, please don't hesitate to mention
that. What else can I say? Oh, let me introduce our staff. Our
director, Anne Mayor, Ann and the project chairmen for this Ms.
Edda Rosso who many of you know. And we have some slips already.
Oh, yeah, we have name tags. Supervisor Marion Ashley on my
right-hand side represents the greater Perris area, of course,
and here in Moreno Valley. Myself, I represent the area within
the city at the county level where the Line is planned. Our vice-
chairmen Greg Pettis who come from Coachella Valley. Greg, you
want to add anything to that?
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-4 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
He's been on your commission for a number of years. And new
councilmember this morning --
>> Mayor.
>> Mayor Bonnie Flickinger, long-time elected official from the
city of Moreno Valley. All right, let's get started so we can
hear from everybody on the (unintelligible) in the order in which
I receive them.
>> We have a quick presentation by Edda first.
>> Oh, Edda, you want to give an overview? Ms. Rosso will give
an overview on a project and then we'll go to the speakers. And
joining us now is Mary Creighton. Here I lose track of Mayors or
council members from the city -- councilmember from the city of
Canyon Lake. So you have some people who have been around the
block here and have seen a lot of projects and know the county
pretty well and have a fair context in which to evaluate this
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-5 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
transportation project. Many -- some of you may not know what the
Riverside County Transportation Commission is. It is set up over
state law to oversee transportation generally inner county
transportation also major intra-county transportation. Its
principle source of funding is a measuring sales tax which has
been approved now twice with a reasonable recently a 30-year
extension by better than two-thirds vote which, of course, you
know, funds major -- major component of the funding for major
freeway improvements, a lot of other transportation needs as well
commuter rail needs. This commission has been expanded out to
include representatives of all of the -- what are we?
>> 26.
>> We have two new cities so that makes 27 --
>> 26.
>> 26.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-6 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> 26? All right. I lose track when I get above more than on my
fingers and toes. But 26 cities with more on the way and all five
board supervisor members as well as a representative from Cal-
Trans local district number 8 which includes Riverside and San
Bernardino County. So it's a good forum in which to look at
things from a general perspective of each of these
transportation. And what we've been seeing here recently, of
course, is a ski drop-off in sales tax. And so we’re really happy
to retrench, concentrate on the most significant projects, try to
optimize or maximize matching funds or grant funds and the like.
And so this project, for instance, is -- we're depending on to a
large extent on federal transportation funds. And, Ms. Rosso,
maybe you can mention that. So you're always welcome to any
public meeting which just about every meeting is of our
transportation commission or even our ad-hoc committees that look
over our more specialized issues like this one. You're always
welcome to
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-7 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
come and we can give you the schedule for those meetings. Or
you're welcome to write us comments to the commission. And all
your comments if you send it to the transportation commission to
me or to the staff there will be copied and sent out to the
bullet members. So, Ms. Rosso, an overview of the Perris Valley
Line.
>> Thank you. Good evening, everyone. We're here today to send
some environmental studies for the Perris Valley Line, copy and
release for public review and we’d like to hear comments from the
public on the project. The draft Environmental Impact Report
describes the proposed project, the environmental effects
participated with implementation of the Perris Valley Line
project, find any proposed engaged measures as applicable. Okay,
prior to the start of the hearing I'd like to give a brief
history of the Perris Valley Line to review what it is and then
I’ll conclude with what's going on now and what's next for the
project. The PVL project extends the existing service to
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-8 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
more of Riverside County. These two maps helps describe our form.
The lighter map on the left is the current bitron (phonetic)
Metrolink system. The map on the right is the Perris Valley Line
extension. On the map on the left there is a light blue line that
travels from downtown Los Angeles to Riverside. That’s the 91
line. The PVL project extends the 91 line from downtown Riverside
to the city of Perris. Let me briefly recap some of the previous
actions taken by the commission that have brought us to this
point. Measure A of 1989 authorized this project and provided
partial funding. Tracks were purchased in '93. The PVL ad-hoc was
appointed in 2001. The federal environmental project was launched
in 2004. We received the go-ahead from the Federal Transit
Administration in December of 2007 for project development. The
locally preferred alternative was revised in April of 2008 to the
B.N.S.F. And the startup stations were approved in July of 2008.
It should also be noted that in January of 2009 an
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-9 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
initial study mitigated negative declaration was prepared and
circulated for public review and comment. After careful
consideration and a response to the public comments, the
commission decided to declare an EIR -- Environmental Impact
Report which provides a greater level of analysis. As part of the
environmental -- as part of the environmental clearance process
we are required under the California Environmental Quality Act --
CEQA -- to conduct a number of studies as shown here on this
slide. The results of the various engineering and environmental
studies for the PVL project are documented in the draft EIR. So
what now? An open 45 days of review and comment period open on
April 5th and it will close on May 24th -- next Monday. This
evening is our third public hearing to receive public testimony
on the draft Environmental Impact Report. We will continue to
accept comments through the end of the comment period. You know,
they showed up to the hearing today. We conducted the first
public hearing on
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-10 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
April 14th of the commissions regularly scheduled meeting and the
second public hearing on the evening of April 22nd of the City of
Perris Council chambers. Final action is not up to
(unintelligible) until December of 2010. We will finalize the
document to address the comments and concerns raised during the
comment period. All comments received in writing or given as oral
testimony of the public hearings will be responded to in the
final Environmental Impact Report. The commission will be
requested to act on the project upon completion of the final
environmental document projected for December of 2010. The Perris
Valley Line must also comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act -- NEPA. The Federal Environmental Administration NEPA
and a supplemental environmental assessment is being prepared and
will be available for public review and comment in June of 2010.
Upon FDA -- Federal Drug Administration's approval have received
over finding of those significant impact, we can then obtain the
needed federal and state
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-11 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
permits and move to the final phase of the work which will be the
final engineering. Buying property where the stations will be
built and constructing the project. When will the construction
begin? Upon completion of the federal Design and approval from
the Federal Government Administration agreement construction can
commence. At this time it is projected for the spring of 2011. I
have noted in here where the document can be viewed and where
both can send written comment should they not wish to speak this
evening. Additionally, we will accept any written comments the
public may wish to submit today to the clerk of the board. And
there's comment cards that -- are they on the back of cards?
>> Yeah, on the --
>> If you wish to speak just fill out this form and leave it
behind. This concludes my presentation and we can now begin with
testimony from the public.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-12 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> All right, I see we’ve got some standing members. If you're
sitting next to an empty seat, can you raise your hands so we can
then -- as many sitting down as possible?
>> This one here.
>> This one.
>> Yeah, we're going to try to get a few more chairs. Let me
introduce let's see councilmember Andy Melendez who is a
representative of this area and Ward 2 of the City of Riverside.
Thanks for coming, Andy. Andy is not up here because he's not the
city (unintelligible) to the transportation commission. That
person is councilmember Steve Adams. Yeah, he just got married so
he's probably -- let me just take you out of order really -- Dr.
Chuck Beaty, former city councilmember of the Ward 1 here in the
city of Riverside, longtime resident and longtime school official
and for some years now time flies. Chuck get on
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-13 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 1 - Chuck Beaty
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the Riverside Unified school board. So let me recognize you,
Chuck, so you can talk. Come on up.
>> Oh, really.
>> Yeah, yeah, I'll let you. It something you should get for all
your hard work.
>> Thank you. Nice to know that you're the chairmen and, of
course, Marion and I see Bonnie's wife. I served with about the
same time. Thank you for inviting us here this evening. I see
that we have more than a passing amount of interest. Obviously
I'm here representing two of our schools because I don’t know if
we have some parents or students here from Hyatt and/or Highland
Elementary schools. Raise your hands. Oh, thank you. Thank you.
Oh, I have prepared remarks. Our thanks for offering an
opportunity for us to register our concerns regarding the Perris
Valley Line. I am Chuck Beaty, member of the Riverside Unified
School District Board of Education.
PH3-S1-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-14 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 1 - Chuck Beaty (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
Tonight representing our board is meeting without me. Even at a
time of budgetary crisis and laying off people this issue is of
great importance not only to me but to our entire board. As I was
inside and I was looking around the room and I was probably one
of the very few that has actually ridden this Line. If you
remember back I think Bonnie must have taken during the days of
Orange Blossom festival. We traversed this line very slowly but
we traversed this Line in my experience. I'm here tonight to
reinforce the priority our board places on the safety and welfare
of over a 1,000 students as well as our teachers and a support
staff at Highland and Hyatt Elementary school. We are indeed
talking about children and adult lives. Please let the record
show that the Riverside Unified Board of Trustees continues to be
unanimous in their belief at the existing draft EIR does not
mitigate the concerns communicated over and over the past five
years. As a board we cannot allow railroad expansion to
PH3-S1-2
PH3-S1-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-15 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 1 - Chuck Beaty (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
force a relocation of another school. If you'll recall that
happened in 19 -- 2006 in which we lost Parkering (phonetic)
school because of the traffic they moved. And the noise -- and
the noise alone in that case or impair the education of our
students. In some ways this land is expanded or includes to
inflict regular passenger traffic. That EIR must reflect
mitigation measures the lives of children and adults at Hyatt and
Highland Elementary school. At a minimum this must include the
encasing of the gas line to prevent puncture, eliminating train
noise of the school campuses, shielding high playgrounds and
buildings from derailed cars. And I know that many of you have
seen this picture in which how close this was when this one in
1990 came off the tracks and tumbled with its limber load down
that side. And lastly to provide protection and grate crossings
which I know you already planned it. We know the commission will
join the board -- our board -- as well as the children, teachers,
staff and
PH3-S1-3
(cont’d)
PH3-S1-4
PH3-S1-5
PH3-S1-6
PH3-S1-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-16 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 1 - Chuck Beaty (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
parents of Hyatt and Highland in addressing these concerns and
providing maximum protections for the safety and welfare. On
behalf of the RUSD board of trustees we thank you for the support
and should note that we have an official response I believe it's
dated the 14th from our attorneys that I've prepared some 15
pages of our concerns about the draft EIR. Again, thank you for
your time and we look forward to working together and not at
odds.
>> Thanks a lot, Dr. Beaty. We appreciate you coming down.
>> May I ask a question? We have quite a number of people that
are still waiting out in the highway and there's not enough room.
>> There's extra seats here.
>> Well, tell them to come sit down.
>> Well, what possibility -- I checked the room next door is
completely vacant and this door slides. If we pause the
PH3-S1-7
(cont’d)
PH3-S1-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-17 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 1 – Chuck Beaty
PH3-S1-1. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
PH3-S1-2. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
PH3-S1-3. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General), Master Response #6 – Noise, Master Response #9 – Highland
and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic), and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences
Supplemental Protection (Derailment). RCTC does not have jurisdiction
over local land use zoning or planning designations like a city or county.
RCTC purchased the rail ROW from BNSF with the intention of providing
commuter rail service along the corridor. The ROW has had freight
operations along the corridor for over 100 years. When both Highland
Elementary School and Hyatt Elementary School were initially built, the
railroad had been in operation for over 50 years. Current state law, as
stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.2, would limit the construction of a
new school within 1,500 feet of an existing rail ROW, but does not impose
any restrictions on the operation of existing rail lines near existing
schools.
Unfortunately, train noise cannot be eliminated at Highland Elementary
School and Hyatt Elementary School. The Draft EIR presents analyses
pertinent to determining whether the proposed PVL project would result in
noise and vibration impacts to sensitive community properties as defined
by the FTA Manual. Where impacts were predicted, mitigation was
proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant. A noise barrier is
proposed for the boundary between Highland Elementary School and the
ROW (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11). This would reduce predicted
impacts to less than significant levels. No noise impacts were predicted to
occur at Hyatt Elementary School and, therefore, no noise barriers are
proposed there. However, wheel squeal treatments, in the form of
wayside applicators that would significantly reduce the squeal noise, are
proposed at the curves near Hyatt Elementary School (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.4). This project does not “force a relocation” of any schools
because no significant impacts were identified.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S1-4. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General), and Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and
Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment). The analysis
in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and no
mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to further
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-18 July 2011
clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised
and no mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S1-5. See Response to Comment PH3-S1-3.
PH3-S1-6. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master Response #4 –
Hazardous Materials Transport, and Master Response #10 – Hyatt
Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection
(Derailment). The PVL project would replenish ballast, and replace ties,
and rail next to Highland Elementary School and Hyatt Elementary
School, which would improve the current track condition and
subsequently reduce the risk of derailment.
The analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts
and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to
further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were
raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S1-7. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and Master Response #10
– Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment). Grade crossing improvements are identified
along the PVL corridor in the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.6 and Figure 2.4-28.
Two grade crossings, at W. Blaine Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue, are
located near Highland (approximately 950 feet away) and Hyatt
Elementary Schools (approximately 3,960 feet away), respectively.
Improvements to these two grade crossings include pedestrian swing
gates, pedestrian warning devices and gates, pedestrian barricades and
metal hand railings, concrete raised medians, double yellow medians and
island noses, warning devices, safety lighting, and signs. Improvements
within the City of Riverside also include upgrading existing crossings to
meet the current standards set by the CPUC.
Additionally, with the exception of one of the morning trains and two mid-
day trains, commuter rail movements would occur early in the morning
and later in the afternoon, outside of school operating hours. The morning
train would not impact students arriving at Hyatt Elementary School
because the nearest grade crossing, Mt Vernon Avenue, is over 0.75
miles away. Students arriving at Highland Elementary School may be
required to wait no more than 45 seconds at the grade crossing at W.
Blaine Street. Students leaving both schools in the afternoon would not
be significantly impacted because there are no scheduled trains during
that time. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S1-8. A comment letter from the Gresham & Savage law firm representing the
school district has been received. Responses to this letter are provided in
the Agency Letters Section 0.3.2.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-19 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 2 - Stephanie Pacheco
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
breather. I'll call out the first speaker I had mentioned the
next speaker and so the next speaker and so the next speaker can
get ready after the -- so don't take a long transition period
between speakers. First, is Stephanie Pacheco and then she'll be
followed by Kyle Patrick.
>> My name is Stephanie Pacheco. I live at 255 W Campus --
>> You can pull the mic closer and then --
>> Is that better?
>> That's better and then you can be recorded better.
>> My name is Stephanie Pacheco. I live at 255 West Campus U
Drive. I'd like to reiterate this is for the normal event report
does not provide adequate mitigate for our children as attending
Hyatt and Highland Elementary School. In the draft Environmental
Impact Report we've got some proposed noise barriers to protect
our homes from the noise. But the draft Environmental Impact
Report does not
PH3-S2-1
PH3-S2-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-20 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 2 – Stephanie Pacheco (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
address rebound noise. We've got direct noise. We've got it
mitigated but you haven't addressed anything about how that noise
is going to be received as it bounces off its noise barriers and
how that may be more severely impacting homes away from the rail
line. And another point I'd like to make is quiet zones have the
potential to fully mitigate noise vibration impacts to our
neighborhood. The RCTC has stated that they are not responsible
for this mitigation. That city or owners in the road should apply
for a branch create the zone. Has the RCTC ever thought about
working responsibly with local governments towards establishing
quiet zones? This is not uncommon. The regional transportation
district of Denver adopted in 2007 a responsible rail amendment.
It includes provision in calling for this district to work with
railroads and local communities to address the noise concerns of
residents located within relevant transportation corridors. This
amendment includes assisting communities in the quiet zones
PH3-S2-2
(cont’d)
PH3-S2-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-21 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 2 – Stephanie Pacheco (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
application process. And finding all responsible funding sources
to cover costs associated with many of quiet zone. The average
cost of quiet zone may range from $300 to $500,000 per zone. This
district has set aside $300,000 per quiet zone and then helped to
ensure that additional funding is available. Might `this be a
cheaper cost to the commission for -- in bearing costs of
possible litigation and project delays? Thank you.
>> Thanks a lot. If you keep the applause or any boos -- I'm sure
there won't be many boos, we’ll get through this without anybody
feeling intimidated or too encouraged actually. Next is Mr.
Patrick and he'll be followed by Corinne Jorgensen.
>> I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this
evening. I'd like to thank and join in the comments of Dr. Beaty
and Ms. Pacheco who had a prepared speech. And I'm sure are going
to sound far more eloquent than
PH3-S2-3
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-22 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 2 – Stephanie Pacheco
PH3-S2-1. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master Response #9 –
Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic), and
Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby
Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment). A noise barrier is
proposed for Highland Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11).
This would reduce predicted impacts to less than significant levels. The
FTA recognizes noise barriers as an effective and legitimate noise
mitigation option (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.3). No noise impacts were
predicted to occur at Hyatt Elementary School and, therefore, no noise
barriers are proposed for this location. However, wheel squeal treatments
in the form of wayside applicators that would significantly reduce the
squeal noise, are proposed at the curves near Hyatt Elementary School
(see Draft EIR, Section 4.10-4).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S2-2. See Master Response #6 – Noise. For projects where sound off noise
barriers is of concern, sound absorptive materials are often proposed for
use on noise barriers. However, here it is not expected that reflections off
noise barriers would result in any significant increases in noise levels
since the Metrolink alignment would not be very close to any of the
proposed noise barriers (FTA Manual, page 2-12). In this section of the
alignment near 255 West Campus View Drive, barriers would be located
at least 100 feet from the alignment.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S2-3. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones. There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-23 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 3 - Kyle Patrick
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
application process. And finding all responsible funding sources
to cover costs associated with many of quiet zone. The average
cost of quiet zone may range from $300 to $500,000 per zone. This
district has set aside $300,000 per quiet zone and then helped to
ensure that additional funding is available. Might `this be a
cheaper cost to the commission for -- in bearing costs of
possible litigation and project delays? Thank you.
>> Thanks a lot. If you keep the applause or any boos -- I'm sure
there won't be many boos, we’ll get through this without anybody
feeling intimidated or too encouraged actually. Next is Mr.
Patrick and he'll be followed by Corinne Jorgensen.
>> I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this
evening. I'd like to thank and join in the comments of Dr. Beaty
and Ms. Pacheco who had a prepared speech. And I'm sure are going
to sound far more eloquent than
PH3-S3-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-24 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 3 - Kyle Patrick (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
myself. I live in the area near St. George Episcopal Church which
noted in the draft EIR as a severe noise vibration impact area.
And I did note that the mitigation measures proposed by the RCTC
did include a sound wall and other methods to reduce vibration.
However, those methods are based on the anticipated current usage
of the rail system. And if -- if the districts taught us anything
it's that the Riverside County's a very fast growing county. It's
an inland empire itself and it's a very fast-growing area. And
that the anticipated traffic on that Line will likely increase
over the next several decades. I'm sure that the those who put in
the original Line that is there now didn't anticipate the use of
that Line by, for example, high speed rails. So my only concern
is that the RCTC take into consideration the potential impact or
increase in traffic on that Line and be prepared for it in
advance rather than trying in the future to mitigate it then.
Thank you.
PH3-S3-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-25 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 3 – Kyle Patrick
PH3-S3-1. See Master Response #6 – Noise. The noise impact at St. George’s
Episcopal Church will be mitigated with sound insulation (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-11). The noise and vibration assessment of the proposed PVL
project takes into consideration the 2012 operational year, including the
proposed project’s impacts, thus it is not limited to only the current usage.
No additional increase in PVL Metrolink rail traffic is proposed, nor is any
reasonably foreseeable (see Master Response #5 – Freight Operations).
Finally, the PVL project is a commuter rail project and not, as the speaker
asserts, a high-speed rail project.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-26 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 4 - Corinne Jorgensen
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Thank you. Ms. Jorgenson and she’ll be followed by Michael
Hubert.
>> I'd like to thank the committee for all their hard work in
getting this Line into Perris. I represent many homeowners in
Hemet. And we are very happy to have this Line come into Perris.
This will be another option for us to get to LAX which is always
a difficult trek. Currently I have to use curling stations to do
this. And a senior can make the trip to LAX with Metrolink and
highway bus for $20. So it's an excellent value. So thank you for
bringing this excellent service to Perris.
>> Thank you, Ms. Jorgenson. Next, Mr. Hubert and you'll be
followed by Mark -- is it Johnson?
>> Hansen.
>> Oh, thank you.
>> Hansen.
PH3-S4-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-27 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 4 – Corinne Jorgensen
PH3-S4-1. This comment expresses support for the project and does not raise
specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no further response is
necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-28 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 5 - Michael Huber
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> I’ll keep some photographs. I went there earlier just I'm
talking about smaller -- well, my name is Michael Hubert. I live
at 116 East Campus View Drive. That's at the corner of Mount
Vernon the red drill across come Mount Vernon. You see the
picture there. Our house is very, very close. Our whole street is
close compared to many of the others like Nisbet that already has
a wall. And they talked about furnishing a continuation. We'd
been in this house for 35 years now and, you know, it was quite a
novelty at first but now it's become more frequent with the
trains -- both night and day. And you still -- it's one engine.
Now it's at least three engines. And we're right at the crossing.
So we hear all the noise. We get the vibration. We get the flow.
So we are concerned about noise as well as all the people along
this campus. We're all a lot closer than many of the others, in
fact, I think we’re a lot closer to the tracks than just about
anyone on the Line thereabout. Our -- the back of our property is
50
PH3-S5-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-29 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 5 – Michael Huber (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
feet from the center of the rail and the back of our house is 150
feet. Puncture wall on Nisbet is 100 feet from the tracks. Not
saying they don't need anything but we could surely use
something. We get a lot of vibration also and a noise wall is not
going to affect us very much right there in the corner because I
don't think they're going to build it out around the corner
because we live in the back of the house. So we get a lot of
noise there. The other thing that concerns us a lot is the
substantial number of senior citizens in our neighborhood. In the
past trains have been known to block all three entrances into the
neighborhood and we’d like to know how you plan on address this
fact in the future. Are we going to get a separation or what are
you going to do? Because I know we've had trains parked at our
crossing guard for as long as an hour at times in the past. So
again we're concerned about that as well as the noise situation.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johannsen?
PH3-S5-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S5-2
PH3-S5-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-30 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 5 – Michael Huber
PH3-S5-1. A noise barrier is proposed for mitigation in this area. However, because
the barrier is near a grade crossing, its effect on noise generated near
116 East Campus View Drive will be limited. As a result, additional
mitigation in the form of sound insulation is proposed for 116 East
Campus View Drive (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-9 and Section 4.10.4).
With this mitigation, impacts will be less than significant.
PH3-S5-2. A vibration assessment based on FTA vibration criteria (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-6) was performed for the PVL project. Vibration from
locomotives is the main determinant for rail vibration. The results
demonstrated that the proposed PVL rail operations would not result in
any vibration impacts near East Campus View Drive (see Draft EIR, Table
4.10-12). Existing vibration in this area is associated with freight traffic
that typically consists of older locomotives that include suspension
systems, which are in general stiffer than the newer Metrolink passenger
locomotives. Rigid locomotive suspension systems often translate into
higher levels of vibration (FTA Manual, Section 7.2.1). This stiffer
suspension in turn causes more vibration. In addition, the rail will be
continuously welded throughout the length of the project alignment which
will reduce vibration from both freight and commuter trains. See
Response to Comment PH3-S5-1.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S5-3. This comment expresses concern regarding the fact that freight trains can
block every grade crossing in the UCR neighborhood. The project’s trains
would be commuter trains of only a few cars. These trains are too short to
block more than a single crossing. Thus, even in the unanticipated event
that a PVL train stops in the neighborhood, there would be no significant
impact because only one of three ingress/egress locations would be
affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will
become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of
SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated
that trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the
UCR neighborhood) because this would block other trains from passing
through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas where there is a bypass
track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR neighborhood.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
See Master Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations,
where roadways go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific
approach distance to maintain appropriate roadway grades and clearance
heights for the tracks. As described in the Master Response, for grade
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-31 July 2011
separations to be possible within the UCR neighborhood, many homes
would lose vehicle and driveway access.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-32 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 6 - Mark Hansen
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Close, wrong country. Hansen.
>> Oh, Hansen. All right. I'm sorry. It looked like a "J" here.
Mr. Hansen and he'll be followed by Austin Sullivan.
>> My name is Mark Hansen. I'm a UCR professor emeritus. I am --
I wrote this afternoon and addressing it to my UCR neighbors and
RCTC commission. I should point out that I live -- my back fence
is about 35 feet from the center of the tracks. Are we at risk
from the toxic cargo that passes along Watkins Drive that fronts
two public schools, UCR's child development centers, UCR's
student dorms and several hundred homes just north of the tracks?
Certainly, the Press Enterprise think we are at risk so it has
sounded the alarm in the series of toxic cargo articles headlined
quote "Rails carry a Growing Risk." And in my notes I have cited
the URL in the internet where you can find that. We have deadly
pressurized liquid chlorine gas, ammonia, and
PH3-S6-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-33 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 6 – Mark Hansen (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
other poisonous or fallible hazardous materials passing through
our neighborhood in tanker cars built in the 1970's. If a
chlorine tank ruptures it forms a greenish cloud that can kill
within minutes. When the new Perris Valley Line tracks are laid
down, we assume that a lot more freight will rumble through our
neighborhood as the economy picks up. After discussing a close
call of a derailment of tanker cars in San Bernardino, the Press
Enterprise article poses a simple question we should all ask: are
we ready for a real disaster? Authorities on such disasters
point out that making sure that the railroad leadership, train
crews and first responders such as police, medic evacuation
teams, fire and rescue units, hospitals as well as schooling,
university personnel and neighborhood residents must know what to
do and how to do it. My family has lived more than 30 years
approximately 40 feet from the tracks in question and not one has
anyone from any institution raised the issue of what to do in
case of an accident or
PH3-S6-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S6-3
PH3-S6-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-34 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 6 – Mark Hansen (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
derailment. Parenthetically, I point out that on two occasions I
recently expressed concern to the RCTC about rail spikes laying
on the ground and broken rail ties. On both occasions I was
advised that inspections were routinely undertaken and no safety
problems exist. In the light of the disaster now going on in the
Gulf the quote "Everything is okay" response end quote rings
rightfully hollow. My recommendation is that a coordinated
disaster plan be developed and rehearsed by both the responders
and those of us at risk in the neighborhood. The RCTC needs to
exercise serious leadership in developing such a plan as it
relates to the dangers of hazardous cargos along the Perris
Valley Line. I have read the EIR -- not all of it, most of it. I
could not find in any place whether there is a detailed
coordinated disaster plan. And it seems to me that this is
essential for such a change in an institution -- institutions,
university, school district, hundreds if not thousands of
residents immediately around the tracks
PH3-S6-4
PH3-S6-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-35 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 6 – Mark Hansen (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
and the people like yourself have to get together and produce
such a plan. Overall at risk with our minds closed. I’ll leave
you with a copy of my notes, with a copy of the article -- the
Press Enterprise article. It was very good but very detailed work
they did. And thank you very much.
>> Thanks for coming in. There are at least two empty seats that
I can see here in the front row so please come up and fill them.
Is there anyone left out in the hallway? It would be helpful if
they could come in.
>> Leave offer.
>> Yeah, but is there anybody else sitting next to an empty seat?
>> Here's one.
>> Here's another here.
>> There's another one here.
PH3-S6-6
PH3-S6-5
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-36 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 6 – Mark Hansen
PH3-S6-1. See Master Response #3 – Derailments (General) and #4 – Hazardous
Materials Transport. As stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a
commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger only. As such, there would
never be an occasion when hazardous materials would be transported on
the commuter trains.” With regards to train derailments in general, the
PVL project would replenish ballast, and replace ties, and rail next to
Hyatt Elementary School, which would improve the current track condition
and subsequently reduce the risk of derailment.Therefore, the analysis in
the Draft EIR is correct - there are no impacts and no mitigation is
required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this
issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and no
mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S6-2. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The speaker’s
“assumption” is not based on any substantial evidence. As shown in the
2008 freight assessment, freight trips do not increase simply because a
track is improved. Instead, freight trips are based on market demand and
there is no evidence showing that this demand is tied to the PVL project.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S6-3. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. If an
emergency were to occur near the PVL corridor, the Riverside County
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and/or the City of Riverside
Emergency Management Office would be activated and trained
professionals would be in place to manage and coordinate the
appropriate Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). There are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S6-4. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations and Master Response #7
– Emergency Planning and Response. RCTC does not currently have
operation or maintenance responsibilities for the ROW. BNSF currently,
under agreement with RCTC, has a responsibility for operation and
maintenance for the ROW. If the PVL project is initiated, SCRRA will have
operation and maintenance responsibilities for the ROW. Furthermore,
the ROW is a controlled industrial area where debris can be inadvertently
left behind after maintenance. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S6-5. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. If an
emergency were to occur near the PVL corridor, the Riverside County
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and/or the City of Riverside
Emergency Management Office would be activated and trained
professionals would be in place to manage and coordinate the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-37 July 2011
appropriate Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed. Finally, the PVL project will actually improve the rail’s condition
by replacing ties and ballast and welding the rail, thus lessening any
existing safety concerns.
PH3-S6-6. This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. The notes and Press Enterprise article that the
speaker refers to can be found as Letter 7 in Section 0.3.3.1 Other
Interested Parties Letters. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-38 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 7 - Austin Sullivan
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> There's another one on the right-hand side. So please come on
in. Okay, Mr. Austin Sullivan.
>> I'm right here.
>> You'll be followed by Raul Ayala.
>> I'm Austin Sullivan. I live at 275 W Campus View Drive. A
couple comments one is that I've been following this project for
a number of years now. And in an earlier version of this proposal
in 2004 an environmental assessment which is a federal document
was done. And at that time the proposal included only eight train
passages a day. And in that earlier EA the document which was
produced by the RCTC indicated that 111 homes were impacted by
the project. Now we have a proposal that has 12 trench passages a
day and they're proposing an insulation of seven homes. Somebody
please explain this to me.
>> Yeah.
PH3-S7-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-39 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 7 – Austin Sullivan (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Actually I think the figure of 111 would have been low with the
eight train passages but I won't worry you with the details as to why.
The second thing is that in the paper today there's an interesting
juxtaposition of two articles. One is the announcement of this hearing
which includes a map. The other is an article which talks about the
proposal for a high-speed train. And if you take a look and overlay
these maps one on the other, it's very clear that one of the proposals
for the high-speed train assumes that the right away that is being
proposed for the Metrolink line would be used for that high-speed
train. Now that may or may not come to pass but it's certainly
something -- you get the clear sense that what we're talking about
here is the camel’s nose under the tent. And that we’re looking at is
something more onerous in the future. But at the same time the folks
that are here if that high-speed train does come through will not have
to worry about it. Because in order for such a train to make it up the
Box Springs grade they're going to have to tear up the whole
neighborhood.
PH3-S7-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S7-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-40 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 7 – Austin Sullivan
PH3-S7-1. See Master Response #6 – Noise. The Draft EIR predicted that 83
residential units would be impacted by noise from the proposed PVL
project. This does represent a reduction in the number of impacted
homes from the previous 2004 Environmental Assessment. However, the
most recent study (Draft EIR) includes the use of more up to date noise
monitoring data, revisions in the proposed train schedule, and
improvements in the way “wheel squeal” would be handled at short radius
curves (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). Proposed noise barriers would
reduce noise levels to less than significant levels. The Draft EIR also
proposes sound insulation at more properties than the previous 2004
report.
PH3-S7-2. RCTC is proposing to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to south of
the City of Perris. This would be the extension of the existing 91 line from
downtown Los Angeles. RCTC is not proposing high-speed train service
along this corridor. If another agency is proposing high-speed train
service along the PVL corridor then they will have to have approval from
RCTC, the landowner. As no specific concerns were raised, a more
specific response is not required (Browning-Ferris Industries v. City of
San Jose (1986) 1818 Cal. App. 3d 852 [where a general comment is
made, a general response is sufficient]). Therefore, there are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-41 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 8 - Raul Ayala
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Mr. Ayala. Mr. Ayala would be followed by Kurt Lewis who is
also representing the Riverside Unified School District.
>> Good evening, members of the commission. Raul Ayala, my
introduction here. I serve as a principal at Hyatt Elementary
School. I'm honored to serve that community and my concern lies
in the safety of our students primarily. I'm expected to achieve
outcomes with our school as it relates to learning and I'm most
concerned also about the noise. In the report it's indicated that
one of the Metros will be placed along the fence line is
basically an aesthetic wall that serves no other purpose. Still,
I'm concerned about that noise. If we're going to put something
in place there needs to be some kind of noise barrier. The park
will not where the playground sits you
PH3-S8-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-42 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 8 – Raul Ayala (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
can look directly up. Aesthetically, you would look at that wall
but you would still physically see because of the elevation the
trains going by. As I sit in my office I hear those trains go by
now and you hear them squeaking and the wheels just very, very
slowly because of that curve that's there. History tells us that
a derailment is absolutely possible. I'm entrusted with the lives
of our students. Our parents of this community send them to our
school. They expect to get them back in the same manner in which
they sent them to us. So I would just encourage you to look at
that seriously, to put some measures in a place that makes sense
for the protection of our students, for the protection of the
community. I live here in Riverside. I can tell you that trying
to be a productive citizen and trying to get around town with
trains and the wait that is there it's just -- it's been quite a
challenge. And I'm glad to see the progress that's been occurring
with underpasses and what not. And again I just kind of echo
PH3-S8-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S8-2
PH3-S8-3
PH3-S8-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-43 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 8 – Raul Ayala (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
some of previous comments is that we must ensure the safety of
our students. I would be the first responder in the case of a
disaster here at in the anywhere closer to school site. We need
that disaster plan. I think the gentleman before me was very,
very correct. I need knowledge of what to do. You know, how to
identify those tanker cars so that I could ensure the safety of
our students. Thank you for your time.
>> Do you mind -- Principal Ayala, do any of your students have
to cross the tracks going to and from school?
>> No, not necessarily. Probably the only thing that I would note
Math Field is a street directly adjacent to the school site and
we get through traffic on that street. There is no barrier to
prevent any kind of through traffic that would just ride up --
drive up -- ride up until where the track is. So that's probably
another area that also needs to be looked at.
PH3-S8-4
(cont’d)
PH3-S8-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-44 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 8 – Raul Ayala (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> You're right alongside the tracks. When we were kids we used
to tag along the tracks. We used to, you know, back in the old
days -- do you see kids out there going along the tracks?
>> Every now and then we do see them. I see more of just
transient people that will, you know, set up tents along our
fence line near the tracks or just traffic, in particular, just
back in that area.
>> Okay, and you mentioned squeaking. What's it like now? Are
there a lot of squealing noise? Is it a minor -- do you get like
brake noise?
>> Not necessarily do I bridge from where I'm at but the
squealing you definitely hear. You just hear those engines and
you hear the squealing.
>> Does it rise above the classroom? I mean, does it enter the
classrooms? Can you --
PH3-S8-6
PH3-S8-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-45 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 8 – Raul Ayala (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> It does enter classrooms. You know, the other measure I think
that the commission needs to take a look at is the sound
insulation. It tides in older schools built in 1964 so we will
hear that noise. Students will hear that noise.
>> Both ask a good question. I was talking about this morning
with my wife. They were both built in the 60's. So that was
actually previous to all these environmental laws which require,
you know, a serious consideration and all environmental impacts
and, of course, looking at sites and so forth. So in those days
when the RUSD cited schools it was completely different matter I
take it.
>> Yeah, I'm not a building expert. I think Dr. Kurt Lewis is
here. Certainly he can kind of school us on that.
>> And maybe Dr. Lewis will be able to give us history on that.
>> But, yeah, just from, you know, single pane windows --
PH3-S8-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-46 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 8 – Raul Ayala (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Right.
>> Most of the school sites. We’ll hear that noise. And again the
last thing that I will say we hold that morning time very, very
sacred for instructions. That's where we target our English
language Arts instruction, our Mathematics instructions. And I
know that based on the timeline that's been provided we will both
see and hear those Metrolinks going by apart from whatever kind
of other federal type of railroad -- other tankers or rail
traffic.
>> Thanks a lot --
>> Thank you.
>> For coming in.
>> Students do have to cross that track going to Hyatt.
>> We'll take all your testimony whenever you'd like.
PH3-S8-9
PH3-S8-10
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-47 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 8 – Raul Ayala
PH3-S8-1. See Master Response #6 – Noise. No noise impacts were predicted to
occur at Hyatt Elementary School and, therefore, no noise barriers or
sound insulation were proposed for this location. However, wheel squeal
treatments, in the form of wayside applicators that would significantly
reduce the squeal noise, are proposed at all short radius curves along the
alignment including the curves near Hyatt Elementary School (see Draft
EIR, Section 4.10.4).
PH3-S8-2. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master
Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences
Supplemental Protection (Derailment). Safety is a primary concern of both
RCTC and SCRRA (the operators of the Metrolink service) for
implementation and operation of the project. SCRRA will have operational
control of the train service, both freight and commuter, when the PVL
project is operational. Additionally, SCRRA will operate the commuter rail
according to the organization’s Standard Operating Procedures. The
analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and
no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to
further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were
raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S8-3. See Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools
(Increased Train Traffic) and Master Response #12 – Grade Separations.
As stated in the Draft EIR in Section 6.3, “30 seconds prior to the arrival
of a train at each crossing, the lights would begin to flash and the bells
would commence ringing for a period of three to five seconds before the
gates come down. The gates would then descend for a period of 12-15
seconds and reach the fully horizontal position anywhere from 15-20
seconds after the lights begin to flash. The gates would remain horizontal
for a period of 10-15 seconds prior to the train entering the crossing, and
once the train leaves the crossing, the gates would remain down for an
additional five seconds before ascending to its upright position.” As the
Draft EIR stated, this wait time will not result in a significant impact. There
are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not
been changed.
PH3-S8-4. See Master Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. This
comment states that “we need that disaster plan.” General state and local
emergency operations plans are in place that specify first responders and
their responsibilities in any emergency, including fires, floods, and
manmade disasters. First responders are trained uniformly across the
region for all emergencies, and are an official designation for individuals
who have received appropriate OSHA training. If an emergency were to
occur near the PVL corridor, the Riverside County Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) and/or the City of Riverside Emergency Management
Office would be activated and trained professionals would be in place to
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-48 July 2011
manage and coordinate the appropriate Emergency Operations Plan
(EOP). Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S8-5. The speaker appears to be concerned about access to the SJBL/RCTC
ROW from Mansfield Street. Mansfield is a public street that ends at the
ROW. As part of the PVL project, fencing would be added to the end of
Mansfield Street to block access to the ROW. The ROW is private, and
any access into the ROW is viewed as trespassing whether there is
exclusionary fencing or not. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S8-6. This comment is general in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
PH3-S8-7. See Response to Comment PH3-S8-1.
PH3-S8-8. See Response to Comment PH3-S8-1. Additionally, with the exception of
one of the morning trains and two mid-day trains, commuter rail
movements would occur early in the morning and later in the afternoon,
outside of school operating hours. The morning train would not impact
students arriving at Hyatt Elementary School because the nearest grade
crossing, Mt Vernon Avenue, is over 0.75 miles away. Students arriving at
Highland Elementary School may be required to wait no more than 45
seconds at the grade crossing at W. Blaine Street. Students leaving both
schools in the afternoon would not be significantly impacted because
there are no scheduled trains during that time. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S8-9. See Response to Comment PH3-S8-1.
PH3-S8-10. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and Master Response #9 –
Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic). This
comment states that, “students do have to cross that track going to
Hyatt.” This comment is misleading. Hyatt Elementary School is located
west of the tracks, while the land east of the tracks in this area is part of
Box Springs Reserve. There are no residential areas in Box Springs
Reserve and thus no reason for children to cross over the tracks in this
location. Additionally, the nearest grade crossing is at Mt Vernon Street,
which is approximately 0.75 miles north of Hyatt Elementary School.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-49 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 9 - Kirk Lewis
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Okay, thank you. Thank you. My (unintelligible) well rested.
>> Need backup here. Okay, and Dr. Lewis and he’ll be followed by
Liam Ouster (phonetic).
>> Commissioners, my name is Kurt Lewis. I'm assistant
superintendant of operations with Riverside Unified School
District. I'm going to thank you for this opportunity to allow me
to share our concerns relative to the proposal Perris Valley Line
Project. We’ve been tracking this project since 2005 when at the
very beginning we weren't even recognized as a sensitive receptor
in the initial federal environmental assessment. After a lot of
discussion with RCTC we were put on distribution list that we
could be involved with future public hearings and meanings. And
to the credit of Ann Mere (phonetic) we've had a number of good
substantial conversations concerning the Line and the litigation
efforts that we feel are
PH3-S9-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-50 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 9 – Kirk Lewis (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
necessary to keep our children safe in our schools. In short the
draft EIR is not only inadequate but likely inadequate and
effective from a legal perspective. Specifically, the sixth sense
jet fuel line in the right of ridges of the Highland Elementary
School is mentioned in the draft EIR without any assessment of
risk. The pipeline is the shallowest -- two feet, four inches.
The draft EIR does not address potential for rupture due to heavy
construction and also potential derailment. Needless to say
protection of children should be addressed should a breach occur.
This is not addressed in the report. The draft EIR also fails to
acknowledge the likely increase in trips of both commuter and
freight train traffic as the population and industrial uses
increase them on the 215 corridor. Ignoring this future impact is
a glaring defect in the draft EIR. Landscape laws -- they're
described as a good neighbor gesture and referred to as a visual
screen. These laws are not described nor of engineering
explaining
PH3-S9-3
PH3-S9-2
PH3-S9-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-51 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 9 – Kirk Lewis (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the draft EIR. In fact, it was noted in the draft EIR that
Riverside Unified had a community draft the landscape laws and
had believed that they were appropriate. We did not have those
kind of conversations with RCTC. The landscape laws were later
described to us as the same as a small wall at nine feet based on
our wall. However, how does a nine foot wall provide any type of
visual screen to a train and rail track that's 15 feet above
grade? It was also described as a possible way of securing
distilled cargo from a derailment. However, there was specific
and clear language saying that the landscape walls were not meant
for that type of function. A detailed comment of our letter to
RCTC will be sent to them very shortly and will be forthcoming.
Lastly, I think everyone recognizes the value of public commuter
rail. Let's be sure that it’s done correctly and that the
mitigation measures are included to ensure the safety of our
children. Thank you.
PH3-S9-5
PH3-S9-6
PH3-S9-7
PH3-S9-8
PH3-S9-9
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-52 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 9 – Kirk Lewis (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Dr. Lewis, do you know when those schools were built? One was
built in '64. When was the other? I don't know when that is.
>> Both those schools were built in the '60's.
>> Highland was built in '58.
>> Oh, '50's.
>> Matter of fact most of the schools in Riverside Unified were
built in the '50's and '60's as the baby boom are affected in
population to become more.
>> It takes cares of fully amortize their investment.
>> I would think so.
>> Yeah and then some.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. All right, next is it Boucher?
PH3-S9-10
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-53 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 9 – Kirk Lewis
PH3-S9-1. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
PH3-S9-2. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School. Additionally, RCTC does not have
jurisdiction over local land use zoning or planning designations like a city
or county. RCTC purchased the rail ROW from BNSF with the intention of
providing commuter rail service along the corridor. The ROW has had
freight operations along the corridor for over 100 years. When both
Highland Elementary School and Hyatt Elementary School were initially
built, the railroad had already been in operation for over 50 years. Current
state law, as stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7, would restrict the
construction of a new school within 1,500 feet of an existing rail ROW, but
does not impose any restrictions on new projects nearby existing schools.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S9-3. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. RCTC is proposing to
extend Metrolink service from Riverside to south of the City of Perris. The
project does not evaluate freight operations, instead it indicates how
freight operations are dependent on local economic conditions. In the
future, should the PVL project become successful and need to
accommodate additional growth by adding new stations, RCTC has
committed to conducting an additional environmental review at that time.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S9-4. Landscape walls are described in the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.9. The
landscape wall at Highland Elementary School is anticipated to provide a
continuous barrier between the specific noise barrier sections. These
walls are not mitigation but will provide a physical barrier between the
schools and the ROW. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct -
there are no impacts and no mitigation is required. The Draft EIR was
changed to further clarify this issue. No additional analysis was required
and no additional mitigation measures were added.
PH3-S9-5. The height of the landscape wall at Highland Elementary School was
determined by matching the heights between the noise barriers on each
side of the school. In this way, it would be a consistent height along that
section of the ROW. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this
issue. No additional analysis was required and no additional mitigation
measures were added.
PH3-S9-6. See Response to PH3-S9-4. The landscape walls have been integrated
into the project plans as project design features. The landscape wall at
Highland Elementary School will provide a continuous barrier between
specific noise barriers. It will be constructed of the small concrete block
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-54 July 2011
material to provide for what will look like a continuous barrier in this area.
In the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary School, the concrete block wall will be
constructed near the outer limit of the RCTC/SJBL ROW. The elevation
difference between the top of the wall and existing ground will be
approximately eight feet. Paralleling the wall will be an excavated ditch
on the railway side of the wall. The ditch spoils will be used to create an
earthern berm against the concrete wall. The objective of this wall is to
minimize the risk of rail cargo and debris reaching the playground in the
event of a train derailment.
PH3-S9-7. Under CEQA, mitigation is only required when there is a potentially
significant impact in order to reduce the significance of the impact. No
impacts were identified and therefore no mitigation was proposed. The
landscape walls are not mitigation.
PH3-S9-8. This comment is general in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
PH3-S9-9. This comment acknowledges the importance of commuter rail but does
not raise specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no further response
is necessary.
PH3-S9-10. This comment is general in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-55 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 10 - Lia Boucher
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Boucher.
>> Boucher, all right. I failed my French.
>> It's okay. I'm used to my name being butchered.
>> She’ll be followed by Fonda McGuinso (phonetic).
>> McGuinso.
>> Okay.
>> Good Evening. My name is Lia Boucher, the principal at
Highland Elementary School. I came here tonight to share my
concerns as well regarding the improvements to the train track
that runs right by my school. I know the tracks were there before
the school was built but up until now the distractions caused by
the proximity of the trains that run along it have been minimal.
There are just a few trains that we hear each day and they're
slow -- very slow moving to be sure sometimes stopped. In fact,
our children have become great waving friends with conductors.
It's cute to
PH3-S10-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-56 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 10 - Lia Boucher (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
see them all lined up against the fence and waving to the
conductors and, you know, as kids will do it’s great fun to watch
the trains go by. However, the proposed improvements to the track
will mean an entirely different type of train traffic to us which
will not be nearly so friendly. Once the tracks are improved the
trains can move much faster, will become more frequent and will
have the potential to cause great danger to our students. The
Metrolink is one thing but will track improvements also mean
heavier freight traffic. Some of my concerns that have been
stated previously is the track is very near our school and
multipurpose room and the noise from the trains is easily heard
within the classrooms as you asked Mr. Ayala. This is not so much
a concern as the trains go by as frequently as we hear them. But
in looking at that schedule for the Metrolink to go by 12 times a
day, we’re going to hear more noise in the classrooms and cause
more disruptions. As Dr. Lewis stated we saw in the report that
we agreed to the
PH3-S10-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S10-2
PH3-S10-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-57 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 10 - Lia Boucher (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
landscape laws as the mitigation and that is not adequate and
will not provide lessening of the noise and air pollution that
the heavier train traffic will impose on the school. As well the
high pressure fuel line that runs along the track is a major
concern. Only a couple feet under the surface in some places. So
the prospect of this construction project and heavy equipment
working on the track creates worries about the fuel line being
accidentally hit. I don't even want to imagine the major disaster
we could be facing should this line be severed during the
construction on those tracks and certainly during the school day.
And we also would hope that the line will be encased in concrete
or otherwise be made less vulnerable to damage and accidents. And
regardless of how many times we've had the train safety
assemblies, children and families -- and it's not just children -
- still walk along the track as a matter of convenience. Just
this morning I saw an older woman and what was possibly her
PH3-S10-3
(cont’d)
PH3-S10-4
PH3-S10-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-58 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 10 - Lia Boucher (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
grandchild no more than three years old walking along the tracks
by our school. At school we're constantly stopping students who
are hopping over the fence because the apartments and homes are
on the other side. And it's quicker to come across the tracks and
over the fences than to go down to the crossings. I've even
watched parents bring their entire family and put them over the
fence from the railroad tracks. In curbing the crossings with
pedestrian barriers is one thing but understand children and
adults already scale high fences in order to cut down on their
walking time and very likely will continue to do so. Last year my
sixth grade students on their way to University Heights Middle
School to get an orientation witnessed a woman crossing the
tracks in front of the train and being killed by the impact.
Landscape walls will certainly not stop this and protect our
children from that. Finally, the heavier train traffic is going
to create safety and attendance problems for us. We’re already
being
PH3-S10-5
(cont’d)
PH3-S10-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-59 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 10 - Lia Boucher (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
affected by trains that just seem to stop and park. At times this
blocks all intersections through which cars travel to get through
school. When these two intersections are blocked by emergency
vehicles, we don't have a fire station on the school side of the
tracks. What would happen to our children if there were a
derailment or chemical spill? The worst case scenario would be
that emergency vehicles could not even reach us until those
intersections were cleared. When those intersections are blocked,
parents and students also have no access to school. And there's
no way around the tracks because we’re blocked in by mountains.
We’re -- at Highland, I know, we're a very environmentally school
community. Many staff and parents are supportive of public
transportation. So we believe the expansion of the Metrolink
service is a good thing. However, we do ask that you be aware of
the safety and protection of our children both in the
construction and
PH3-S10-6
(cont’d)
PH3-S10-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-60 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 10 - Lia Boucher (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
in the use of those who proved tracks. Thank you for your time
and consideration.
>> Ms. Boucher, just a question.
>> Yes.
>> Regular school hours -- well, when people get there and
starting to assemble teachers and everybody else are from when to
when?
>> This year about 8:00 you'll see staff and students arriving.
We have an earlier start time next year so 7:30. And we also have
an after school program. So my students about 200 of them stay
every day until about 6:10. Many times late 6:30.
>> Around Saturday events? Would kids and their parents?
>> Sometimes. Not necessarily.
PH3-S10-7
(cont’d)
PH3-S10-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-61 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 10 - Lia Boucher (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> What about school year is that changed over in the same
months?
>> We're a traditional school year.
>> Traditional school year.
>> Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
>> Okay, thanks very much for coming down and making this vivid.
Fonda -- and she’ll be followed by Denise Allen and students from
Highland Elementary School.
PH3-S10-8
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-62 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 10 – Lia Boucher
PH3-S10-1. As described in Master Response #5 – Freight Operations, freight traffic
is dependent on economic conditions not on the condition of the tracks
themselves. The PVL project will improve overall track conditions so that
both Metrolink and freight trains can operate safely along the same
alignment. The improved track conditions are not, in themselves,
expected to increase freight traffic within the corridor.
PH3-S10-2. See Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools
(Increased Train Traffic). The assessment for Highland Elementary
School took into account the distance between the school and the
corridor. Also, during school hours, a maximum of one train would pass
by the school during any 1-hour period. This is important since
institutional land uses such as schools are assessed during for the peak
project noise producing hour. The subsequent analyses resulted in a
noise barrier being proposed for Highland Elementary School (see Draft
EIR, Table 4.10-11). As defined by the rail noise criteria contained in the
FTA Manual, the noise barrier proposed for Highland Elementary School
would result in a less than significant noise impact (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-16).(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and
Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S10-3. Landscape walls are described in the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.9 and
Section 4.1.4.
Under CEQA, mitigation is only required when there is an impact in order
to reduce the significance of the impact. As stated in the Draft EIR,
Section 4.3.5, implementation of the PVL project would not result in
significant impacts with regard to air quality. As stated in the Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5, the proposed noise barrier for Highland Elementary
School would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. There
are no other significant impacts and no further mitigation is required.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct. The Draft EIR was
changed to further clarify this issue. No additional analysis was required
and no additional mitigation measures were added.
PH3-S10-4. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General), and Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and
Nearby Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment). This comment
states that the pipeline is “only a couple feet under the surface in some
places.” This comment is incorrect. The pothole study conducted by
RCTC in early 2010 found that the depth to the top of the pipeline ranges
to 5’2” in the area adjacent to the school.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-63 July 2011
No engineering or construction activities are expected to impact the
pipeline during construction. In areas where utilities are such as Kinder
Morgan are involved, the utility owner typically would require advanced
notification of the planned work. During the design stage, plans will be
forwarded to the utility owner for consideration of any precautionary
measures needed to protect the utility during construction. The utility
owner also evaluates if a representative is to be present at the time of
construction.
Kinder Morgan has specific requirements that must be met if construction
is conducted within their easement. These requirements are outlined in
Kinder Morgan Guidelines for Design and Construction near Kinder
Morgan Hazardous Liquid Operated Facilities (November, 2007), which
includes (but is not limited to) the following:
Design:
Kinder Morgan shall be provided sufficient notice of planned activities
involving excavation, blasting, or any types of construction on Kinder
Morgan ROWs to determine and resolve any location, grade,
encroachment problems and provide protection of Kinder Morgan
facilities and the public before the actual work takes place.
Encroaching entity shall provide Kinder Morgan with a set of drawings
for review and a set of final construction drawings shall show all
aspects of the proposed facilities in the vicinity of Kinder Morgan’s
ROW. The encroaching entity shall also provide a set of as-built
drawings showing the proposed facilities in the vicinity of Kinder
Morgan’s ROW.
These Guidelines continue to address specific design issues, as well as
construction issues, including (but not limited to) the following:
Construction:
Contractors shall be advised of Kinder Morgan‘s requirements and
shall be contractually obligated to comply.
The continued integrity of Kinder Morgan’s pipelines and the safety of
all individuals in the area of proposed work near Kinder Morgan’s
facilities are of the utmost importance. Therefore, contractor must
meet with Kinder Morgan representatives prior to construction to
provide and receive notification listings for appropriate area
operations and emergency personnel. Kinder Morgan’s on-site
representative will require discontinuation of any work that, in his
opinion, endangers the operations or safety of personnel, pipelines or
facilities. The Contractor must expose all Kinder Morgan pipelines
prior to crossing to determine the exact alignment and depth of the
lines. A Kinder Morgan representative must be present. In the event of
parallel lines, only one pipeline can be exposed at a time.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-64 July 2011
A Kinder Morgan representative shall be on-site to observe any
construction activities within 25 feet of a Kinder Morgan pipeline or
aboveground appurtenance. The contractor shall not work within this
distance without a Kinder Morgan representative being on site. Only
hand excavation shall be permitted within two feet of Kinder Morgan
pipelines, valves and fittings unless State requirements are more
stringent, however, proceed with extreme caution when within three
feet of the pipe.
A Kinder Morgan representative will monitor construction activity within 25
feet of Kinder Morgan facilities during and after the activities to verify the
integrity of the pipeline and to ensure the scope and conditions agreed to
have not changed. Monitoring means to conduct site inspections on a
pre-determined frequency based on items such as: scope of work,
duration of expected excavator work, type of equipment, potential impact
on pipeline, complexity of work and/or number of excavators involved.
Because construction for the PVL project would comply with all applicable
Kinder Morgan construction requirements, the project would not have
significant impacts for construction work around the pipeline and no
mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no impacts
and no mitigation is required. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify
this issue. No additional analysis was required and no additional
mitigation measures were added.
PH3-S10-5. If unauthorized people enter the ROW, they are considered to be
trespassing. This is true if people are “just” crossing the tracks, or if they
are walking along the tracks. To increase the awareness of trains and
increase safety Metrolink provides “Operation Lifesaver,” a safety
education program. Operation Lifesaver provides age appropriate
programs for communities and schools within the Metrolink service area.
For additional information regarding the program, see the Draft EIR in
Section 2.4.14. Please note that Operation Lifesaver is not required as
mitigation but is simply a gesture of “good will” by RCTC to provide an
additional safety measure.
The Draft EIR found no significant, unmitigable impacts as a result of the
PVL project. The project does not increase safety risks. Instead, the PVL
project would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which
would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance,
and enhanced safety.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no impacts
and no mitigation is required. Additionally, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S10-6. See Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools
(Increased Train Traffic). This comment expresses concern regarding the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-65 July 2011
fact that additional trains as a result of the project would block every
grade crossing in the area near Highland Elementary School. This
comment is incorrect. The PVL project’s trains would be commuter trains
of only a few cars. These trains are too short to block more than a single
crossing. Thus, even in the unanticipated event that a project train stops
in the neighborhood, there would be no significant impact because only
one of three ingress/egress locations would be affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will
become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of
SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated
that trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the
UCR neighborhood) because this would block other trains from passing
through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas where there is a bypass
track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR neighborhood.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S10-7. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General), Master Response #4 –
Hazardous Materials Transport, and PH3-S10-6.As stated in the Draft
EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger
only. As such, there would never be an occasion when hazardous
materials would be transported on the commuter trains.” Therefore, less
than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area and no
mitigation measures are required.
This comment also states that “The worst case scenario would be that
emergency vehicles could not even reach us until those intersections
were cleared. When those intersections are blocked, parents and
students also have no access to school.” This comment is incorrect. As
discussed in PH3-S10-6, all three grade crossings near Highland
Elementary School would not be blocked simultaneously and therefore
access to the area would not be significantly impacted. Therefore, the
analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and
no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to
further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were
raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S10-8. See Master Response #9 – Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools
(Increased Train Traffic). As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5, the
proposed noise barrier for Highland Elementary School would reduce
noise impacts to less than significant levels. The analysis in the Draft EIR
is correct - there are no impacts and no mitigation is required. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-66 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 11 - Fonda McGensy
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Hi, my name is Fonda McGuinso and I live at 218 E Campus View
Drive. And I came to this meeting tonight because I was woken up
at 4:30 last night by a horn. It seems that my house is located
right at the point where they start to announce they're coming
across the crossing. And some nights it's two or three times a
night. You know, an hour apart just when I get back to sleep.
They're always come through (inaudible) litigation on the east of
Campus View.
PH3-S11-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-67 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 11 – Fonda McGensy (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
I live on kind of like a hill. So I'm looking down on the train
but I'm also 50 feet away from the train. So I don’t know. I'm
thinking that maybe I have to move. And I have a great house.
It's affordable but I'm thinking that might be a possibility.
>> Thanks for the testimony. You know, the freight train horns I
know the difference between freight train horns, Metrolink horns
and Amtrak horns and I live 1.7 miles from the train tracks. How
far do you live?
>> From the crossing itself I live maybe four or five houses
away.
>> Okay.
>> From the train track 50 feet.
>> And do the freight trains come by at all hours?
PH3-S11-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S11-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-68 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 11 – Fonda McGensy (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> They come by at all hours. They shake my house. My house
vibrates, the windows rattle. It makes it seem like the house is
not stable -- just really (inaudible).
PH3-S11-2
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-69 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 11 – Fonda McGensy
PH3-S11-1. Based on technical guidance from the FTA, Metrolink horns that would be
used as part of the proposed PVL project would not be as loud as the
existing freight train horns that presently sound. In addition, because
noise impacts are projected for this location (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-9),
noise barriers have been proposed as mitigation for this area of East
Campus View Drive (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-16).
PH3-S11-2. A vibration assessment based on FTA vibration criteria (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-6) was performed for the PVL project. Vibration from
locomotives is the main determinant for rail vibration. The results
demonstrated the proposed PVL operations would not result in any
vibration impacts near East Campus View Drive (see Draft EIR, Table
4.10-12). Existing vibration in this area is associated with freight traffic
that typically consists of older locomotives that include suspension
systems, which are in general stiffer than the newer Metrolink passenger
locomotives. In addition, the proposed project would also eliminate old rail
and use new welded rail in its place along the entire length of the
alignment, which would result in the added benefit of reducing noise from
existing freight traffic.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-70 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 12 - Denise Allen (& Students)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Thanks for coming to that. We have a group presentation here.
It's great. Ms. Allen, why don't you introduce everybody?
>> My name is Denise Allen and I'm a fifth grade teacher at
Highland Elementary School. These are some of my students. And I
just want to remind the superintendent that we did this during
classroom hours because it was the persuasive genre. So --
>> Dear Gentleman and Ladies, how would you like it if a
Metrolink or a freight train zoomed by your school 12 times each
day? Highland Elementary students believe that the swift
Metrolink trains should be as safe as possible. We think the
dangerous crossings should be safer, the noisy trains should be
quieter and we should be protected from
PH3-S12-1
PH3-S12-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-71 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 12 – Denise Allen (& Students) (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
dangerous materials. To begin with the railroad crossings should
be safer. New safety arms should be constructed at Spruce Street
and Broom Street. Bright flashing lights should installed at all
crossings. Speedy Metrolinks trains should decelerate when
passing through street crossings. And crossing guards should be
hired to keep children safe from the trains.
>> Certainly, Metrolink trains should be silent near schools and
neighborhoods. There should be no annoying bells distracting
students from their education. Definitely train whistles could
disturb students during testing. The trains should not have
earsplitting horns that interrupt learning. We do not want to
listen to screeching wheels on a rickety track. Equally important
is to protect students from dangerous materials. You should cover
the jet fuel pipeline with tough concrete and bury it 10 feet
under the ground. Trains should have state-break
PH3-S12-3
PH3-S12-5
PH3-S12-6
PH3-S12-7
PH3-S12-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-72 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 12 – Denise Allen (& Students) (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
(phonetic) containers which are airtight that can't leak or
explode.
>> Are there any bars down?
>> Should limit how much deadly smoke and exhaust it exits the
engine. There should be a limit on how much dangerous freight
train pass by our school each day with hazardous material
onboard.
>> In conclusion the Metrolink trains should be as safe as
possible. Railroad crossings should be safer, trains should be
quieter, and we should be protected from harmful substances. If
you don't make sure that trains are safe, student's lives could
be seriously endangered. Thank you.
>> (inaudible) Young, Parker Williams, and whoops -- sorry, which
one do you have?
>> Great job, children. You did a great job -- lot of poise. You
can, I mean, we need you here in the county
PH3-S12-7
(cont’d)
PH3-S12-8
PH3-S12-9
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-73 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 12 – Denise Allen (& Students) (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
offices to help on a lot of difficult pieces. Such a good job.
People listen when you speak. So next is Mr. Tom Allen. And he’ll
be followed by Gerald Salmon or Salmon.
PH3-S12-9
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-74 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 12 – Denise Allen (& Students)
PH3-S12-1. This comment asks, “how would you like it if a Metrolink or a freight train
zoomed by your school 12 times each day?” This comment is incorrect,
and the expected scheduling is discussed in Master Response #9 –
Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools (Increased Train Traffic).
Additionally, the PVL project will improve overall track conditions so that
both Metrolink and freight trains can operate safely along the same
alignment (see Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1). These track improvements
would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which would
result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and
enhanced operational safety. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S12-2. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport and Master
Response #8 – Grade Crossings. Grade crossing improvements that will
enhance safety include pedestrian swing gates, pedestrian warning
devices and gates, pedestrian barricades and metal hand railings,
concrete raised medians, double yellow medians and island noses,
warning devices, safety lighting, and signs. Overall rail corridor safety at
grade crossings would also be enhanced by implementation of “Operation
Lifesaver,” a safety education program for schools and communities near
tracks operated by SCRRA/Metrolink (see Draft EIR, Section 2.4.14).
Please note that Operation Lifesaver is not required as mitigation but is
simply a gesture of “good will” by RCTC to provide an additional safety
measure. The Draft EIR was not changed because the PVL project would
not result in significant impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
Based on technical guidance from the FTA, the proposed PVL project
includes Metrolink locomotives with horns that are not as loud as the
horns currently used by the existing freight trains. The analyses in the
Draft EIR were used to determine if the proposed PVL project would
result in noise and vibration impacts to sensitive community properties as
defined by the FTA Manual. Where impacts were predicted, mitigation
was proposed so that impacts would be less than significant.
Unfortunately, train noise cannot be eliminated at Highland Elementary
School. However, a noise barrier is proposed for Highland Elementary
School (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11). This would reduce predicted
impacts to less than significant levels at this location.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct – there are no
significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. There are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S12-3. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. The PVL project is
proposing to upgrade safety-warning devices at grade crossings as
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-75 July 2011
project improvements. These have been approved by the CPUC and are
intended for the entire alignment. No significant impacts to grade crossing
safety were identified and no mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S12-4. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings and response PH3-S12-3.
The PVL project is in full compliance with CPUC regulations regarding
grade crossings and safety. No significant impacts to grade crossing
safety were identified and no mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S12-5. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones. The sounding of bells at grade
crossings is required by the FRA and described in the FRA’s Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Based on technical guidance
from the FTA, the proposed PVL project includes Metrolink locomotives
with horns that are not as loud as the horns currently used by existing
freight trains. Unfortunately, train noise from existing freight and future
Metrolink trains cannot be eliminated at Hyatt Elementary School and
Highland Elementary School. The analyses in the Draft EIR were used to
determine if the proposed PVL project would result in noise and vibration
impacts to sensitive community properties as defined by the FTA Manual.
Where impacts were predicted, mitigation was proposed to reduce
impacts to less than significant levels. A noise barrier is proposed for
Highland Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11). This would
reduce predicted impacts to less than significant levels at this location. No
noise impacts were predicted to occur at Hyatt Elementary School and,
therefore, no noise barriers are proposed for this location. However,
wheel squeal treatments, in the form of wayside applicators that would
significantly reduce the squeal noise, are proposed at all short radius
curves along the proposed alignment including the curves near Hyatt
Elementary School (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct – there are no
significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. There are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S12-6. The PVL project is proposing to improve track conditions along the project
alignment. These improvements would be implemented along the entire
length of the project and would include; tie replacement, welded rail, and
ballast replenishment where necessary. These improvements will reduce
wheel noise for both existing freight trains and future Metrolink trains.
As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5, mitigation measures will
reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the
analysis in the Draft EIR is correct – there are no significant impacts with
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-76 July 2011
mitigation incorporated. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S12-7. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School, Master Response #3 – Derailment
(General), Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport, and
Master Response #10 –Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences
Supplemental Protection (Derailment). The existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel
line is located within the ROW, however, the PVL project is not planning
to relocate or alter the pipeline as it currently exists. The analysis in the
Draft EIR is correct, there are no new impacts as a result of this
comment, and therefore the Draft EIR has not been changed.
As stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL
service is passenger only. As such, there would never be an occasion
when hazardous materials would be transported on the commuter trains.”
Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area
and no mitigation measures are required. Since there are no new impacts
as a result of this comment, the Draft EIR has not been changed.
As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.3.5, “implementation of the PVL
project would not result in significant impacts with regard to air quality. No
mitigation measures are required.”. Ultimately, the speaker’s concerns
appear to center around existing freight operations rather than the
impacts of this project. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of
this comment, the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S12-8. See Responses PH3-S12-2 through PH3-S12-7. The PVL project will
improve overall track conditions so that both Metrolink and freight trains
can operate safely along the same alignment. There are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S12-9. This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-77 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 13 - Tom Allen
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> My name's Tom Allen. I live at 864 Kenwood Drive. That's three
houses away from the intersection of Spruce Street and Kentwood.
My house backs right up to the train track. I can look over my
fence at the Saint George's Episcopal Church. The EIR speaks to
mitigating noise with a sound wall. Usually you solve one problem
and you create another. And the problem that this creates that
I'm concerned with is the height of a sound wall behind my home
that would now create a visual experience that doesn't seem very
appealing to me. So I'm very interested in other mitigations
besides a sound wall that would rise up any number of feet --
three to five feet above the existing fence -- and would be
interested in what other mitigation measures could be used to
mitigate this sound from the increased traffic of the moving
trains. There's 1,440
PH3-S13-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-78 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 13 – Tom Allen (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
minutes in a day. I expect the Metrolink trains would come by
less than 10 minutes in the experience of the 60 feet on my
property. That leaves 1,430 minutes for the rest of my day to
look at a very large sound wall behind my property. I think you
can understand the new problem that creates and why that might be
problematic for me. Secondly, I would support an upper limit for
rail traffic especially if you look forward to the potential of
increased rail traffic on that line. Thirdly, I would support
quiet zones in the street crossings in our neighborhood. And then
lastly, perhaps contrary to many of my neighbors here I think it
was a mistake of the transportation commission to eliminate the
kissing ride drop-off zone near the University. It seems to me
there's no other public benefit -- greater public benefit to mass
transit than to create a drop-
PH3-S13-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S13-2
PH3-S13-3
PH3-S13-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-79 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 13 – Tom Allen (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
off point near a place like that's a major employment center or
major school institution. So I would ask the commission to
consider in the future creating just that kind of a drop-off
point for the University. Many of my friends as I told them about
my coming here tonight, the first thing they asked me from
different people in the city is "I can't believe the
transportation commission eliminated a place for students and
others to get off and walk across the street."
>> That possibility is not foreclosed by the current plan. Isn't
that right, Ms. Rosso?
>> The current --
>> The possibility of having a future -- so-called -- I mean, we
want to encourage as much kissing as possible for this
proposition does not foreclose by the current proposal. We're
starting out with four stations and they'll open simultaneously.
But one that will be open from the beginning will be the station
-- proposed station at Columbia Avenue tracks. So it's nearby.
PH3-S13-4
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-80 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 13 – Tom Allen (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> So I'm just voicing my support for that being added at a later
time. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much. Mr. -- was it Salmon?
>> Salmon.
>> Salmon, okay.
>> I think it depends on what part of the country you're from.
I'm from the (inaudible). Thank you for allowing me to speak this
evening. My name is Earl Salmon. I live at 2294 Kentwood Drive
just a few houses away from the last speaker. I unfortunately am
on the other side of Spruce though the side that for some reason
they decided not to have any sound wall, not to have any quiet
zone crossing. And, you know, the quiet zone crossing would just
eliminate so many problems.
>> You're northerly on Spruce?
PH3-S13-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-81 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 13 – Tom Allen
PH3-S13-1. 864 Kenwood Drive is located southeast of the intersection of Spruce
Street and the RCTC ROW. There are no aesthetic resources identified to
the west of this address and therefore the noise barrier does not create a
visual impact at this address.
See Master Response #6 - Noise. The FTA recognizes noise barriers as
an effective and legitimate noise mitigation option (FTA Manual, Section
6.8.3) and, as such, they are proposed in this area of the alignment as the
most feasible mitigation option. Calculations based on formulae contained
in Section 6.3.2 of the FTA Manual were applied to determine noise
barrier height requirements that would reduce the specific impacts to less
than significant. Also, where the construction of noise barriers would not
be feasible, sound insulation is proposed for noise sensitive locations that
would be impacted by the PVL project.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S13-2. Please see Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. The PVL project is
expected to have 12 train trips per day (six in each direction) on the
alignment. Freight trains are not a part of the project and RCTC is not
responsible for freight traffic. If ridership increases in the future, RCTC
may build additional stations to meet this demand. RCTC has committed
to do additional environmental reviews for any new stations that would be
added in the future. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment, the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S13-3. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones. There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment; the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S13-4. The UCR Station was specifically removed after the IS/MND was
circulated (see Draft EIR, Section 2.2). The General Plan for the City of
Riverside does identify a station in the UCR neighborhood. RCTC has
committed to a new environmental review should the UCR station be
proposed in the future. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment; the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S13-5. This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-82 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 14 - Daryl Salmon
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> So I'm just voicing my support for that being added at a later
time. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much. Mr. -- was it Salmon?
>> Salmon.
>> Salmon, okay.
>> I think it depends on what part of the country you're from.
I'm from the (inaudible). Thank you for allowing me to speak this
evening. My name is Earl Salmon. I live at 2294 Kentwood Drive
just a few houses away from the last speaker. I unfortunately am
on the other side of Spruce though the side that for some reason
they decided not to have any sound wall, not to have any quiet
zone crossing. And, you know, the quiet zone crossing would just
eliminate so many problems.
>> You're northerly on Spruce?
PH3-S14-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-83 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 14 – Daryl Salmon (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Right, yeah. And, you know, I don’t know what the -- well,
again, I agree with the last speaker, too. I'm not so crazy about
sound walls for the all the problems that they bring along. My
big -- I'm a big proponent of the quiet zone. And there's some
jurisdictional bickering about that. But, you know, you guys are
the community leaders we’ve elected. You're our future planning.
You -- every community wants to grow, wants to see more business,
more tax money come in. And it's working. The Riverside County's
growing. You know, the 215 corridor's expanding. The businesses -
- well, right now every business is having a hard time but, you
know, once this recession is over all of that's going to pick up.
There's going to be more freight. And when's that freight going
to run if we've got 12 passenger carlines going during the day?
So we're going to have more freight at night. And that noise is
really going to be something whether we put the sound wall up or
not. Somebody was talking about reverberation of sound
PH3-S14-2
PH3-S14-4
PH3-S14-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-84 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 14 – Daryl Salmon (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
bouncing off the wall. You've got to make it a green wall or
you're going to have a graffiti paradise out there. So you -- the
quiet zones really need to be taken care of. Anyway with all this
increase of -- there's also another thing that nobody's brought
up yet and that's the grade separations. I mean, safety is an
issue. And it's a fact. I’ll chime in with the others that have
said at times all three of the major entrances to our
neighborhood have been blocked by a train. Now imagine if a train
is going by carrying something like chlorine. It has an accident.
It's stuck immobilized across all three tracks and you've got
some chlorine cloud, you know, and emergency vehicles can't even
get into the neighborhood. And the neighborhood can't get out of
the neighborhood. That kind of safety issue is just really
something you've got to consider. Actually, I'm not going to bore
you with anymore. My big thing is the sound and safety. And I
think the quiet zones -- you really got to go with that. Thank
you.
PH3-S14-5
PH3-S14-6
PH3-S14-7
PH3-S14-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-85 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 14 – Daryl Salmon
PH3-S14-1. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones. 2294 Kentwood Drive is located
at the northeast corner of Spruce Street and Kentwood Drive that is
between Kentwood Drive and the ROW. Noise barriers were not deemed
feasible for the property as it is located near a grade crossing. As a result,
the PVL noise assessment proposed that this property be required to
have sound insulation for noise mitigation. The analysis in the Draft EIR is
correct – mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant
levels. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S14-2. This comment is general in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
PH3-S14-3.See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones and Master
Response #5 – Freight Operations. The PVL project is a commuter rail
project and has no impact on freight traffic. The proposed project will not
shift freight train traffic to night-time house because given the limited
number of freight trips per day, they can be scheduled for times when
commuter trains are not running. The proposed PVL project is related to
commuter rail. Consequently, any introduction of night-time freight
operations would not be part of the proposed project. In addition, the
study assumes no time shifting of freight trains would be required as a
result of implementation of the PVL project. Therefore, such conditions
are not considered in the noise analysis.
PH3-S14-4. The degree to which sound reflections are problematic on rail corridors is
largely dependent upon the height of the noise barrier and the source to
barrier distance. For projects where sound reflections off noise barriers
are of concern, sound absorptive materials are often proposed for use on
noise barriers. However, it is not expected that reflections off noise
barriers would result in significant increases in noise levels since the PVL
alignment would not be very close (within approximately 20 feet) to the
proposed noise barriers (FTA Manual, page 2-12) and the point at which
the sound wave is reflected is over 150 feet from a sensitive receiver on
the opposite side of the track. This 150 foot distance between the
reflected sound wave and the sensitive receiver on the opposite side of
the PVL alignment would effectively attenuate the strength of the reflected
sound wave. In this section of the alignment near 2294 Kentwood Drive,
only sound insulation is proposed.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S14-5. RCTC understands the request to have a wall covering; however, there is
no water available within the RCTC ROW to sustain any vegetation.
Additionally, there are no provisions within the RCTC agreement with
SCRRA outlining landscape maintenance requirements other than at the
stations.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-86 July 2011
Graffiti is illegal activity and any person caught creating graffiti will be
punished according to the appropriate laws. Graffiti is not a significant
impact as a result of the PVL project because there is no substantial
evidence to suggest graffiti will result from the proposed project and
graffiti is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the PVL project.
Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Nonetheless, if graffiti were to
occur on walls along the PVL corridor, SCRRA would be obligated to
clean up the graffiti promptly. In addition, as a good will measure, RCTC
is working with the City for ways to deter illegal actions, such as graffiti.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
PH3-S14-6. See Response to Comment PH3-S14-3.
PH3-S14-7. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport and Master
Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations, where roadways
go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific approach distance to
maintain appropriate roadway grades and clearance heights of the tracks.
For grade separations to be possible within the UCR neighborhoods,
many homes would lose vehicle and driveway access.
This comment asks what would happen if a train carrying chlorine
derailed, blocked every grade crossing in the neighborhood, and thus
blocked all points of access for emergency response. First of all, as
stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL
service is passenger only. As such, there would never be an occasion
when hazardous materials would be transported on the commuter trains.”
Secondly, the PVL project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a few
cars. These trains are too short to block more than a single crossing.
Thus, even in the unanticipated event that a project train stops in the
neighborhood, there would be no significant impact because only one of
three ingress/egress locations would be affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will
become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of
SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated
that trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the
UCR neighborhood) because this would block other trains from passing
through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas where there is a bypass
track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR neighborhood.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S14-8. See Response to Comment PH3-S14-3.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-87 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 15 - Robert Phillips
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Okay, thanks, Mr. Salmon.
>> My name is Robert Phillips. I live at 3511 Watkins Drive at
the corner of Watkins and Valencia Hill Drive. My house is
directly across the street from the tracks. And at that location
the tracks are very close to the street. So I'm not far from the
tracks at all. Every night I am awakened by ridiculously loud
train whistles and the rattling of my windows as the freight
trains pass. As shown in figure 4.106 noise barrier locations
there is no noise barrier between the tracks and my home.
Immediately west of my home according to table 4. --
>> No noise barriers on either side of the tracks for
approximately 1,100 feet along Watkins Drive between
PH3-S15-1
PH3-S15-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-88 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 15 - Robert Phillips (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
stations 311 and 322. In this area the tracks are within a few
yards of the rear yards of homes. There is no explanation in the
DEIR for the gap in the noise barriers. The train would certainly
not prevent the installation of noise barriers in this location,
so why aren't they being proposed? The only explanation I can
figure is that RCTC does not want to install barriers because it
is still seriously considering building a UCR station on Watkins
Drive at some point in the future, as people have spoken of.
During the previous environmental review, neighborhood residents
presented more than enough reasons why the proposed UCR station
was undesirable, unnecessary, and dangerous. These included the
facts that the latest morning train would release passengers one
and a half hours before the campus opened. The fact that the
station would be located at the extreme northeast corner of the
campus next to a maintenance yard, athletic fields, and
dormitories and at least one mile from the academic core of
PH3-S15-2
(cont’d)
PH3-S15-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-89 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 15 - Robert Phillips (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the campus. The fact that pedestrians disembarking the station
would have to cross Watkins Drive, a crowded and dangerous
roadway, resulting in serious traffic accidents. The fact that
the idling, breaking, and accelerating trains would generate
excessive noise and pollution immediately next to homes and the
UCR Child Development Center. The fact that this station would
generate additional vehicular traffic on Watkins Drive, which is
already heavily congested at peak hours. And the fact that UCR
could send shuttles to pick up and deliver students at a station
located elsewhere, such as Highgrove or Hunter Park, which is a
short distance from the campus. These shuttles could then deliver
the students to the campus's academic core, rather than the
maintenance yard. RCTC needs to give up once and for all the idea
of a UCR station. Then it needs to install vine-covered noise
barriers along the entire portion of Watkins Drive that is
adjacent to the tracks. In addition, all residences within 200
feet of the tracks
PH3-S15-3
(cont’d)
PH3-S15-5
PH3-S15-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-90 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 15 - Robert Phillips (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
need to be provided with upgraded windows and insulation to
reduce the noise from freight trains whose number will certainly
increase when the economy turns around and industrial development
resumes in earnest along the I-215 corridor. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Mr. (Unintelligible). Following Mr. Block will be
Barbara Effinger.
PH3-S15-5
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-91 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 15 – Robert Phillips
PH3-S15-1. The detailed noise assessment conducted for the project using the FTA
Manual indicated that 3511 Watkins Drive would not be impacted by the
proposed project operations. However, noise from the proposed project
would be reduced at this property from the noise barrier along Nisbet
Drive. The existing noise levels are due to existing freight operations and
other sounds within the neighborhood.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S15-2. Based on the locations of grade crossings in the UCR area, and the FRA
horn blowing requirement (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1), the noise
assessment indicated that horns from PVL trains would not be sounded
between the gap in question between Stations 311 and 322. As a result,
noise barrier mitigation was not required in this area.
PH3-S15-3. The UCR Station is not part of the proposed PVL project. The UCR
Station was removed from the project based on public comments
received on the IS/MND document (see Draft EIR, Section 2.2).
PH3-S15-4. A detailed noise assessment was conducted for the proposed Metrolink
trains in terms of noise sensitive properties along the entire project rail
alignment. Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including
sound insulation and noise barriers were proposed at specific locations
(see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to 4.10-11). The noise assessment did not
predict impacts at any properties along Watkins Drive.
PH3-S15-5. The noise assessment for the PVL project was related to potential
impacts from future Metrolink trains. No change in freight train operations
is assumed in the assessment. RCTC is not required under CEQA to
mitigate for existing conditions in the existing environment.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-92 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 16 - Richard Block
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Good evening. I'm Richard Block. I live at 424 Two Trees Road
in Riverside. I've lived there for 40 years, and this is about
2,000 feet northeasterly of the huge curve -- the sharp curve
that the trains go around. It's roughly between mile 3.0 and 3.5
as listed in the DEIR. And this section is very dangerous. I
remember a derailment at the south end of that near the end of
Big Springs Road in the year 2001. A number of freight cars --
fortunately they weren't carrying chlorine -- they were carrying
corn, but the corn spilled all over the place, and
PH3-S16-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-93 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 16 – Richard Block (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the RCTC does not supervise the BNSF operations very well because
what they did -- I was out of the country at the time so I
couldn't protest -- what they did was they took the freight cars
and lifted them over the tracks and dumped them on my private
property. And then later --
>> (unintelligible).
>> It was nice. I was in the Galapagos. It was a long way away.
And they have -- there's talk about people walking -- crossing on
trails that have been in existence for scores of years. I'm sure
there's a prescriptive easement for recreational use of those
trails crossing the tracks. We've been told, "Oh those people are
trespassing." Well, RCTC or their tenant, BNSF, is one that has
frequently trespassed on my land. But I want to talk about that
curve because as I read the DEIR, you're proposing new rail and
concrete ties substantial improvement of the tracks for safety
reasons, perhaps for improved noise attenuation to
PH3-S16-2
PH3-S16-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S16-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-94 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 16 – Richard Block (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the west and to the south of the there, but then around this
large curve the only proposed improvement to the tracks that I
can see in the DEIR is to replace some wooden ties presumably
with other wooden ties. And those ties -- I can tell you they're
in terrible condition. This is a dangerous -- you've got a grade.
You've got a very sharp curve. You've got huge amounts of
squealing noise. I don't know how to -- squeaking, squealing
noise as the trains, freight trains -- presumably the passenger
trains would be going even faster so you would have even more of
that noise and, of course, vibration as those trains go around
that curve. That is the portion that most needs to have
improvements done to the track, and yet apparently all they're
going to do is replace some really bad wooden ties with other
wooden ties. That's totally inadequate. So those are some of the
concerns and, by the way, that noise -- because those tracks
around that curve are on a raised embankment -- that noise
carries over throughout the whole
PH3-S16-4
PH3-S16-3
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-95 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 16 – Richard Block (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
neighborhood. And I've had people living many blocks away tell me
that really annoys them as those trains go around there.
>> Thanks, Mr. Block. Next Ms. Effinger?
>> Effinger, yes.
>> And she'll be followed by Robert Dobry.
PH3-S16-4
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-96 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 16 – Richard Block
PH3-S16-1. This comment states that “RCTC does not supervise the BNSF
operations very well…” This comment is fundamentally incorrect. RCTC is
not currently responsible for operation and maintenance of the ROW and
was not responsible in 2001 when the derailment occurred. BNSF is
currently responsible for the operation and maintenance of the ROW and
SCRRA will become responsible once the PVL project is initiated.
Additionally, as stated in the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter
rail line, PVL service is passenger only. As such, there would never be an
occasion when hazardous materials would be transported on the
commuter trains.” Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated
for this issue area and no mitigation measures are required. The Draft
EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result
of this comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S16-2. This comment states “And they have – there’s talk about people walking –
crossing on trails that have been in existence for scores of years. I’m sure
there’s a prescriptive easement for recreational use of those trails
crossing the tracks.” This comment is incorrect. The ROW has been in
existence for over 100 years and the City of Riverside and the County of
Riverside developed these parks without physically blocking access
across private property (the SJBL/RCTC ROW). If unauthorized people
enter the ROW, even to “just” cross the tracks to get to the other side,
they are considered to be trespassing.
The PVL project does not include adding additional track in this area or
affecting existing access to parks in any way. The existing track will
remain in its current location. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S16-3. The principal source of noise near the curved area would be wheel
squeal. Therefore, as part of the project, wayside applicators are
proposed to significantly reduce the noise from wheel squeal at all tight
radius curves along the entire project alignment (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.4). A vibration assessment based on FTA vibration criteria
(see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-6) was performed for the PVL project. The
results demonstrated that the proposed PVL project rail operations would
not result in any vibration impacts in the area of the curve (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-12). As part of the PVL project, the track would be improved to
all welded rail that would reduce wheel noise and vibration for both
existing freight trains and future Metrolink trains.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
It should also be noted that with the proposed ballast, tie and rail
improvements, the overall safety of the rail operations is expected to
improve. The initial improvements with improved maintenance operations
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-97 July 2011
required for commuter rail operations, will provide for improved safety of
the BNSF freight operations as stated in Master Response #3 -
Derailment.
PH3-S16-4. See Response to Comment PH3-S16-3.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-98 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 17 - Barbara Effinger
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Hi, my name is Barbara Effinger. My husband and I live in the
270 West Campus View Drive in Riverside, and we've been there
since 1977. And the trains hardly bothered us, but now just like
many people have said, but the noise, the windows rattling and
most of my concerns is -- I mean been presented excellently. But
I just want to reiterate on one thing and my neighbor brought it
up about the insulation of the houses. They said 7 houses, and it
should be 111. And that's one of my concerns. And also I'm
concerned about the safety of our children and the community with
the high-
PH3-S17-1
PH3-S17-2
PH3-S17-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-99 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 17 – Barbara Effinger (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
speed trains coming by. And at this moment I cannot say that I'm
happy about the high-speed trains coming in my backyard
(unintelligible). Thank you.
>> Thanks for coming Ms. Effinger and giving those comments.
Following Mr. Dobry will be R.A. Barney Barnett.
PH3-S17-3
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-100 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 17 – Barbara Effinger
PH3-S17-1. The proposed project would include new welded along the alignment,
which would have the added benefit of reducing noise and vibration from
existing freight traffic.
PH3-S17-2. See Master Response #6 – Noise. For the 83 residences at which noise
impacts were predicted in the Draft EIR, mitigation in the form of noise
barriers is proposed. Noise barriers are recognized by the FTA as a
legitimate mitigation option (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.3). Sound insulation
was proposed for the properties at which noise barriers would not be
feasible. All properties selected for insulation were located near grade
crossings in the UCR area (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5). Although the
Draft EIR proposes sound insulation at only seven homes and one
church, this represents a notable increase in the number of properties
recommended for sound insulation as compared to the 2005 EA.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
PH3-S17-3. RCTC is proposing to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to south of
the City of Perris. This would be the extension of the existing 91 line from
downtown Los Angeles. RCTC is not proposing high-speed train service
along this corridor. If another agency is proposing high-speed train
service along the PVL corridor then they will have to have approval from
RCTC, the landowner. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed. It should be noted
that the California High Speed Rail Commission is analyzing various
routes to connect Los Angeles to San Diego. A route has not been
identified or selected but various alternative routes have been proposed,
one of them being the existing SJBL alignment.
Overall rail corridor safety would also be enhanced by implementation of
“Operation Lifesaver,” a safety education program for schools and
communities near tracks operated by SCRRA/Metrolink (see Draft EIR,
Section 1.4.14). Please note that Operation Lifesaver is not required as
mitigation but is simply a gesture of “good will” by RCTC to provide an
additional safety measure. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-101 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 18 - Robert Dobry
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Thanks for coming Ms. Effinger and giving those comments.
Following Mr. Dobry will be R.A. Barney Barnett.
>> I'm Bob Dobry. I live at 3624 Valencia Hill Drive, right
across the campus. I've been a resident of Riverside for 36
years. My profession is assistant engineer, which qualifies me to
generate the functions, requirements, and architectures for
transportation systems. The world reached the peak oil plateau in
2004 and (unintelligible) in 2005. We are now about 15%
(unintelligible) and every four months that pass adds another 1%.
This has resulted in strong rises in energy prices with negative
consequences to our economies. When we fall off the peak oil
plateau in the not too distant future, fuel prices compared to
individual
PH3-S18-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-102 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 18 – Robert Dobry (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
purchasing power parity will rise far higher than today with
devastating consequences to international, national, state, and
local economies. A large segment of our population will lose
their personal mobility. They will no longer have the income to
own a car or to purchase the fuel to drive one. Yet today
American society has been designed so that the individual's
services and enterprises are highly distributed physically. This
situation will require that the government provide transportation
that is equally distributed and flexible to fill this need. Only
innovative bus systems using hybrid and electric vehicles of
various sizes can do this. In the present distributed
environment, trains for passenger mobility will prove to be
highly inflexible, non cost effective, and of very limited
utility compared to the need. Plus, there will simply not be the
resources of money or time to build such systems out. The Perris
Valley Line is a huge misallocation of resources. When you add to
this the destruction of the
PH3-S18-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S18-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-103 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 18 – Robert Dobry (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
environment from noise and commotion, blockage of roads by
trains, and the risks of derailment caused by steep grade and
friable roadbed substructure, this system cannot be justified.
And so I am absolutely opposed to it. Thank you.
>> Following Mr. Barnett will be Elizabeth Lawlor.
PH3-S18-2
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-104 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 18 – Robert Dobry
PH3-S18-1. An express bus alternative was considered in the Draft EIR, Section
3.2.2. However, it was found that this bus alternative would not
adequately meet a majority of the four established project goals and their
respective objectives. This option does not reduce highway congestion in
the corridor and would have to travel through highly congested mixed-flow
lanes to use the planned HOV lanes between new stations. Additionally,
the seven new stations that were proposed for this alternative (the
greatest number of stations compared to the other alternatives) would
require more ROW acquisition, which would increase the land use impact.
Though the “innovative bus systems using hybrid and electric vehicles of
various sizes”, as the speaker suggests, would have fewer air quality
impacts than the express bus alternative that was analyzed in the Draft
EIR, any bus alternative would have greater land use, traffic, and travel
time impacts. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR remains correct.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
PH3-S18-2. This comment, “in the present distributed environment, trains for
passenger mobility will prove to be highly inflexible, non-cost effective,
and of very limited utility compared to the need” is speculative and
incorrect. The Draft EIR, Section 3.0, evaluated a variety of alternatives
(bus and rail) that could meet the identified needs of the project, namely
to reduce roadway congestion, provide transit travel options to growing
population and employment centers, coordinate transportation planning
and community development, and improve use of underutilized
transportation resources. The Commuter Rail with New Connection to
BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative (“Citrus Connection”) was selected as
both the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and the environmentally
superior alternative for a number of reasons. It would meet the goals and
objectives of the project, minimize the impacts to the community by
reducing business relocation, reduce air quality impacts, and decrease
the amount of acquisitions without the need for displacements (see Draft
EIR, Section 3.3). Therefore, when taking into consideration flexibility,
cost-effectiveness and available monetary resources, utility, and
environmental impacts, the PVL project was identified as the best option.
There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
This comment also states that “The Perris Valley Line is a huge
misallocation of resources. When you add to this the destruction of the
environment from noise and commotion, blockage of roads by trains, and
the risks of derailment caused by steep grade and friable roadbed
substructure, this system cannot be justified.” This comment is also
incorrect, for the following reasons:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-105 July 2011
With regard to “noise and commotion”: as stated in the Draft EIR, Section
4.10.5, impacts to ambient noise levels will be mitigated to less than
significant levels.
With regard to “blockage of roads by trains”: the PVL project’s trains
would be commuter trains of only a few cars. These trains are too short to
block more than a single crossing. Thus, even in the unanticipated event
that a project train stops in the UCR neighborhood, there would be no
significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress locations
would be affected. Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL
project, the corridor will become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and
BNSF under control of SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the
operations, it is not anticipated that trains would be allowed to stop in
areas of single track (including the UCR neighborhood) because this
would block other trains from passing through. Instead, trains would stop
in the areas where there is a bypass track (between MP 7.50 to MP
16.90) and not in the UCR neighborhood.
In regards to “the risks of derailment caused by steep grade and friable
roadbed substructure,“ Master Response #3 – Derailment (General)
discusses how the PVL project includes track improvements throughout
its length because a commuter train would be added to the track (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1). These track improvements would upgrade the
existing physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger
infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced operational
safety. Therefore, not constructing the PVL project poses a much higher
risk of train derailment exposure than constructing the project would.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant
impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was
changed to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this
comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-106 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 19 - Barney Barnett
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> My name is R.A. Barnett. I go by Barney. And I'm here to talk
about something that we have been talking about for eight and a
half years, and that is station location. For the last eight and
a half years the entire surrounding area of Highgrove has
supported and suggested a station stop to use the existing trains
that go right through their neighborhood -- our neighborhood.
This particular location happens to be the same property that is
needed to connect the two railroads, the BNSF tracks to the
Perris Valley Line tracks. And our suggestion is -- and has been
for the last eight and a half years -- to put a station stop on
the
PH3-S19-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-107 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 19 – Barney Barnett (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
west side of this curve where there are existing commuter trains.
Where RCTC is designing and wants to build a station is only half
a mile away. But that half mile is really a big difference
because they have different location destinations. The half mile
difference between Highgrove and Palmyrita, for instance, the
existing trains don't need any improvements -- no track
improvements, no new coaches, no engines, or anything. They are
already in place between San Bernardino and Riverside. The one at
Palmyrita, Marlborough, or Columbia is a dead-end track. There is
no connection at the other end. It's 38 miles of dead-end track.
And, in addition, when the Colton flyover is approved -- and I'm
sure that it will be eventually -- that makes the Highgrove
location even more valuable. Because when the Colton flyover is
approved, it will give additional slots for Metro Link trains.
Those Metro Link train additions including the same ones that we
have now could transport regional people to their destinations.
PH3-S19-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-108 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 19 – Barney Barnett (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
With the Perris Valley Line station at any of the three locations
at either Marlborough, Palmyrita, or Columbia, even if they had
10 more trains passing through Highgrove, it would not affect any
of the transportation needs that should be addressed by the
region. I have some maps here -- I will pass these out if anyone
would like to see them and it shows the difference. It shows the
two station locations, one where the people want it for the last
eight and a half years and the one where RCTC has demanded that
it be put. This is become a political decision instead of
addressing the common sense transportation needs for the region.
Now, we realize that we're close to the county line and one of
the complaints that have been made in the past is that if they
build a station in Highgrove the people from San Bernardino
County would be riding those trains and I'm saying -- Well, yes
they would. That's where the regional transportation portion of
it comes in. You need to address not just locations in Riverside
County
PH3-S19-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-109 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 19 – Barney Barnett (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
that will head towards the county line and turn back to Perris
just before they get there. We need to put a station in Highgrove
and stop this political nonsense and use some common sense.
Please if you have any desire the see these maps I'd be more than
happy to pass them around. I know that some of the RCTC people
have already seen them many times. So with that one final request
you need to build a station in Highgrove where the trains already
exist and don't put it on a dead-end track where there are no
trains. Even after you would build a station Palmyrita,
Marlborough, or Columbia there is no plan to stop any of the
existing trains or future trains in Highgrove, and that's
completely wrong. Thank you.
PH3-S19-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-110 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 19 – Barney Barnett
PH3-S19-1. This comment requests that a train station be built in the Highgrove area.
The Draft EIR, Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove Station
requests, and the reasons why it is not being considered as part of the
proposed project. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed. See also Response to Other
Interested Parties Letter #1, which provides a detailed explanation for the
infeasibility of a Highgrove Station.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-111 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 20 - Elizabeth Lawlor
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> My name is Elizabeth Lawlor. I live at 422 West Campus View
Drive. I've lived there for 22 years. So that puts
PH3-S20-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-112 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 20 – Elizabeth Lawlor (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
my back fence within 10 feet of the Kinder-Morgan high pressure
fuel line, and it puts me in the neighborhood where if we have a
chlorine spill, I'll be trapped along with my family and my kids.
I'm also an avid gardener in my backyard as many of my neighbors
are. And I also should have put on my card that I am representing
the community garden at the Father's House church. That's at the
(unintelligible) crossing at Mt. Vernon. I agree with so many of
our school representatives, and what I would like to do though is
focus on the safety issues in particular the high pressure line,
the fuel line needs to be buried and protected by a concrete
barrier. I was very impressed that those fifth graders came up
with the depth of ten feet for that. I -- we -- I would like to
have at least one grade separation into the neighborhood as a
mitigation for the safety problem. I walk my dog often in Box
Springs Park, and I see many people doing that -- many kids, many
students from UC Riverside. They go from the city part of
PH3-S20-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S20-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-113 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 20 – Elizabeth Lawlor (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the park to the county part of the park. The only way across into
the other part is over the rail line. So there needs to be --
echoing Mr. Block, there needs to be a safe crossing -- at least
one. And there need to be signs towards that safe crossing,
rather than one or two public education pamphlets or whatever
that may or may not get to the people that actually use the park.
The signs need to be in the park. Air quality monitoring is
something that hasn't been brought up very much. But the trains
currently pollute. You can smell them after they've gone by, and
I notice stuff on my tomatoes in my backyard. I'd like to know
what that stuff is and whether it's from cars or the train and if
it's going increase with the train. Certainly that would be an
issue with the two schools and the kids are doing physical
education outside there. Will the pollution be hurting their
lungs worse with more train traffic? So there should be some
pre- and post monitoring of that. Perhaps the AQMD could be
helping with that. And
PH3-S20-2
(cont’d)
PH3-S20-3
PH3-S20-4
PH3-S20-5
PH3-S20-6
PH3-S20-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-114 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 20 – Elizabeth Lawlor (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
then if train traffic increases on that line in the future, if
our (unintelligible) grows, and I hope it will, then there should
some stated upper limit at which point there'd be a trigger for
further environmental review. Because whatever mitigations are
done for this pollution, would need to be rethought if there's
more traffic. Thank you.
>> Thanks Ms. Lawlor. (Unintelligible) he'll be followed by
Regina Salazar.
PH3-S20-7
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-115 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 20 – Elizabeth Lawlor
PH3-S20-1. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School and Master Response #4 – Hazardous
Materials Transport. The existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel line is located
within the ROW, however, the PVL project is not planning to relocate or
alter the pipeline as it currently exists. There are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S20-2. See Master Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations,
where roadways go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific
approach distance to maintain appropriate roadway grades and clearance
heights for the tracks. For grade separations to be possible within the
UCR neighborhood, many homes would lose vehicle and driveway
access.
The ROW has been in existence for over 100 years and the City of
Riverside and the County of Riverside developed the parks without
considering access across private property (the SJBL/RCTC ROW). If
unauthorized people enter the ROW, even to “just” cross the tracks to get
to the other side, they are considered to be trespassing.
The PVL project does not include adding additional track in this area or
affecting existing access to parks in any way. The existing track will
remain in its current location. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment, no mitigation is required, and the Draft EIR has
not been changed.
PH3-S20-3. CARB and SCAQMD operate an ambient air quality-monitoring network
throughout the state that monitors air pollutants. This network
encompasses every county in the state (including Riverside County
where the proposed PVL would operate) and the most current and
relevant data from these monitoring stations was used in the air quality
analysis. The SCAQMD operates three air quality-monitoring stations in
Riverside and one in Perris that measure the local air quality on a
continuous basis. Also, see Response to Comment PH2-S4-11.
PH3-S20-4. Section 4.3.4 of the Draft EIR outlines the measures used to calculate the
expected emissions due to the implementation of the PVL project. The air
quality analysis for the PVL accounted for all relevant project parameters
and conditions and ensured that the analysis was done in compliance
with the most up-to-date local, state, and federal air quality regulations
and guidance. Tables 4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that
emissions projected for criteria pollutants, local intersections (CO
hotspots), greenhouse gases, mobile source air toxics, construction
activities and locomotive and parking operations all fall below local
thresholds of significance and state and federal emissions standards.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-116 July 2011
PH3-S20-5. See Response to Comments PH3-S20-3 and PH3-S20-4.
PH3-S20-6. The speaker asserts that if the proposed project is approved that RCTC
must monitor air quality on an ongoing basis at the three schools adjacent
to the project alignment. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the proposed
project is not considered a project of air quality concern with respect to
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) (see
Draft EIR, Section 4.3.4). Moreover, according to the health risk
assessment, the calculated risk at point of greatest concentration of
diesel exhaust particulate and acrolein was below the threshold of
significance (see Draft EIR, Table 4.3-9). Therefore, the Draft EIR did not
identify a significant impact with regard air quality and no mitigation was
required. Where no significant impact is identified, CEQA does not require
that the lead agency conduct ongoing monitoring (see State CEQA
Guidelines § 15097). However, if a significant impact is identified, CEQA
requires that the lead agency impose feasible mitigation measures and
further requires that the lead agency adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the mitigation measures imposed, with the decision of which
to require being up to the lead agency. (Id.) To require ongoing
monitoring for an impact that is less than significant (and for which the
lead agency did not impose mitigation measures) would be contrary to
CEQA's policy of finality (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003, 15162(c)).
In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District regularly
monitors air quality within its jurisdiction, which includes the alignment of
the PVL project. According to South Coast Air Quality Management
District's Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan dated July 2010, the
District operates 35 permanent monitoring sites for purposes of collecting
data on air quality. The Network Plan includes monitoring sites in Perris
and Riverside (Magnolia). The Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network
Plan is submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency annually.
Finally, Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code places specific
responsibility for air pollution control at the local level on air pollution
control and air quality management districts. According to the Health and
Safety Code, the air pollution control and air quality management districts
have primary responsibility for controlling air pollution from non-vehicular
sources. (Health & Safety Code §§ 39002, 40000.) A "non-vehicular
source" includes all sources of air contaminants, including the loading of
fuels into vehicles, except vehicular sources. (Health & Safety Code §
39043.) A "vehicular source" is a source of air contaminants emitted from
motor vehicles. (Id. at § 39060.) A "motor vehicle" is a device that is self-
propelled and by which a person or property may be propelled, moved or
drawn on a highway, except for a device moved exclusively by human
power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. (Id. at § 39039.) A
locomotive is a device that moves on a stationary rail or track and is
therefore not considered a "motor vehicle" and is consequently a "non-
vehicular source." As a result, regulation and control of air pollution from
locomotives falls within the purview of the air quality management district,
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-117 July 2011
subject to the limitations set forth in the Clean Air Act § 209(e)(1). (42
U.S.C. § 7543(e)(1)).
As a result, RCTC is not obligated to conduct ongoing monitoring of air
quality at the three school sites as requested by the speaker.
PH3-S20-7. The addition of freight train service is not in the scope of the PVL project
and thus any increases in freight volume would not trigger additional
analysis here. Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air
Quality Technical Report) outlines the extensive measures used to
calculate the expected emissions due to the implementation of the PVL
project. The air quality analysis for the PVL accounted for relevant project
parameters and conditions and ensured that the analysis was done in
compliance with the most up-to-date local, state, and federal air quality
regulations and guidance. Tables 4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show
that emissions projected for criteria pollutants, local intersections (CO
hotspots), greenhouse gases, mobile source air toxics, construction
activities and locomotive and parking operations all fall below local
thresholds of significance and state and federal emissions standards.
More specifically, Table 4.3.9 of the Draft EIR (supported in Appendix C
of the Air Quality Technical Report) outlines the health risk assessment
conducted to measure the impacts of mobile source air toxics (including
diesel particulate matter) in the immediate vicinity of the proposed PVL
alignment. As shown in Table 4.3-9, the MSAT emissions from the
operation of the proposed PVL would have less than significant impact on
the surrounding neighborhood.
The PVL project is expected to have 12 train trips per day (six in each
direction) on the alignment. Freight trains are not a part of the project and
RCTC is not responsible for freight traffic. If ridership increases in the
future, RCTC may build additional stations to meet this demand. RCTC
has committed to conducting additional environmental reviews for any
new stations that would be added in the future. There are no new impacts
as a result of this comment, the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-118 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 21 - Roger Turner
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Good evening members of the commission and thank you for doing
this public hearing tonight (unintelligible). I am a resident in
the neighborhood. I live at 3415 Santa Cruz Drive. I've lived
there for 36 years -- 26 years, and I've seen a lot of different
things happen in the community. One observation tonight is
there's a lot of recurring comments certainly coming up, and I
will just go over some of those and give them a little bit of a
fine touch. The noise issue is certainly a real issue. When the
Metro Link
PH3-S21-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-119 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 21 – Roger Turner (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
starts to kick in and do their trips, as noted before, the
freight trains are going to be put off to another time. And I
personally have been woken up -- I'm about 200 feet away from the
track -- and I've been personally woken up at 1:00 a.m., 2:00 am,
3:00 a.m., 4 a.m., by the four horn blows that they have to do by
law in crossing. And my crossing is Mt. Vernon's biggest impact
area. One of the things that I noticed that I don't think has
been brought out in the impact analysis deals with the echo
effect off the Box Springs Mountain. There's a big noise that
goings up there, and you can hear it ring right back. And it's
well above the dB level that I would find normal for my
neighborhood especially that time of night. The other issue is
vibration certainly. My house vibrates 200 feet away. So that's
another issue, and it's been brought up before. Perhaps there
could be some new construction or something done to the bed of
the rails to soften that. I really agreed with the gentleman that
came up early about
PH3-S21-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S21-4
PH3-S21-5
PH3-S21-2
PH3-S21-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-120 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 21 – Roger Turner (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
the hazmat and safety issues. There does need to be much more in
the mitigation created for a hazmat safety plan and program. I
would encourage that the neighborhood get involved in the
development of that and have response times and all the things
that go into this are really brought out. One of the things
that's of real concern to me is that during this past year I
personally saw where one of the freight trains in the mid-
afternoon had been setting on the train track for like two days.
And I went up and talked to the train people that came out there,
and it turns out that somebody irritated the track. They had to
have a good inspection to make sure it was safe for the train to
go. The engineer was past his 12 hours in time. He was cut off by
the union had to leave the train. They didn't have to replacement
for him, and the train sat there. So that's an issue that needs
to occur. I really agree with the school district and the issues
here. My kids went to Hyatt and Highland and I personally have
PH3-S21-5
(cont’d)
PH3-S21-6
PH3-S21-7
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-121 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 21 – Roger Turner (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
witnessed three derailments there. One, as Richard bought up,
about the freight train with the corn. Another with the lumber,
and the first one that I witnessed was a freight train that
rolled over right at Hyatt Elementary School on the grade. They
have about a 12- or 15-foot grade above the school, and the
freight cars actually rolled over down the embankment and were
right next to the fence on the property there. So that's a real
safety issue. I guess what I'd like to close with is the
Environmental Impact Report as well as the NEPA document that's
going to get prepared really does need to have a health risk
assessment done in it for the air quality impacts in the short
term, long term relative to the neighborhood and the people that
are there. There is no such plan for that, and I don't believe an
adequate analysis has been done that affects the people in the
neighborhood due to the exhaust coming from these trains.
PH3-S21-7
(cont’d)
PH3-S21-8
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-122 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 21 – Roger Turner
PH3-S21-1. The noise and vibration assessment conducted assumes that no time
shifting of freight trains would be required as a result of the PVL project
implementation. Therefore, such conditions are not considered in the
noise analysis.
PH3-S21-2. Based on technical guidance from the FTA, the Metrolink horns that
would be used for the proposed PVL project would not be as loud as the
existing freight train horns that are presently sounded. Noise barriers are
proposed as mitigation for homes along West Campus View Drive.
Because 3415 Santa Cruz Drive is two rows behind the PVL alignment,
noise attenuation would be provided by the proposed noise barrier and
the row of existing homes along West Campus View Drive.
PH3-S21-3. Concerning noise reflections off Box Springs Mountain, since the face of
the mountain is in general angled upward and not a smooth surface, it is
assumed that most of the train noise reflections would be dispersed
sufficiently so as not to add significant noise to proposed project
operations. Existing noise levels in the box springs area were taken into
account for the PVL noise analysis. See Master Response #6 - Noise.
PH3-S21-4. A vibration assessment based on FTA vibration criteria (see Draft EIR,
Table 4.10-6) was performed for the PVL project. The results
demonstrated that the proposed PVL project rail operations would not
result in any vibration impacts in the area of Box Springs. The speaker’s
house is located over 400 feet from the PVL alignment not 200 feet as the
speaker states. As such, vibration impacts from the PVL project would not
occur at this residence. However, as part of the PVL project, the rail along
the entire alignment would be improved to all welded track that would
reduce wheel vibration from both future PVL trains and existing freight
traffic.
PH3-S21-5. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport and Master
Response #7 – Emergency Planning and Response. The PVL project
does not involve the transportation of hazardous materials. Furthermore,
though unlikely and unanticipated, if an emergency were to occur near
the PVL corridor, the Riverside County Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) and/or the City of Riverside Emergency Management Office would
be activated and trained professionals would be in place to manage and
coordinate the appropriate Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
PH3-S21-6. The PVL project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a few cars.
These trains are too short to block more than a single crossing. Thus,
even in the unanticipated event that a project train stops in the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-123 July 2011
neighborhood, there would be no significant impact because only one of
three ingress/egress locations would be affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will
become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of
SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated
that trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the
UCR neighborhood) because this would block other trains from passing
through. This would force the BNSF trains to only stop in the bypass track
area (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90). So the event that you witnessed
hopefully would not happen again. Therefore, there are no new impacts
as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S21-7. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master Response
#10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby Residences Supplemental
Protection (Derailment). The ROW improvements proposed for the PVL
project would improve the operating conditions for the freight operations
within the corridor. The improved rail, ties, and ballast would improve
safety and reduce the potential for rail car derailment. Therefore, the
analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and
no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to
further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were
raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S21-8. Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air Quality Technical
Report) outlines the measures used to calculate the expected emissions
due to the implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for
the PVL accounted for relevant project parameters and conditions and
ensured that the analysis was done in compliance with the most up-to-
date local, state, and federal air quality regulations and guidance. Tables
4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that emissions projected for criteria
pollutants, local intersections (CO hotspots), greenhouse gases, mobile
source air toxics, construction activities and locomotive and parking
operations all fall below local thresholds of significance and state and
federal emissions standards.
More specifically, Table 4.3.9 of the Draft EIR (supported in Appendix C
of the Air Quality Technical Report) outlines the health risk assessment
conducted to measure the impacts of mobile source air toxics (MSATs) in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed PVL alignment. As shown in Table
4.3-9, the MSAT emissions from the operation of the proposed PVL would
have less than significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-124 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 22 - Regina Salazar
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
So all of that needs to be considered. Thanks very much for your
time.
>> Thanks a lot for your concise comments. Ms. Salazar will be
followed by Kevin Dawson.
>> My name is Regina Salazar. I live at 167 Masters Avenue. I'm
about 200 feet from the tracks, and I came to just complain about
the noise.
>> (Unintelligible).
>> The noise and the vibration. And also I do garden, and I do
notice that there's like a soot, kind of oily thing on the
plants. And I have to wash it off (unintelligible) before you eat
them. But when you wake up every night like every hour or so
you're waken up and then you try to function during the day and
you -- you're tired. This is a public nuisance, and that needs to
be addressed. I don't know if there's any plan for any sound wall
or anything.
PH3-S22-1
PH3-S22-3
PH3-S22-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-125 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 22 – Regina Salazar (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
If it does derail, because that's that curve there, I'm right up
the street from Hyatt School. (Unintelligible) it is going to
roll down the track, and it will roll right into my backyard.
Something needs -- something other than an aesthetic wall needs
to be put there. And my neighbors wanted me to say they also
garden and the noise also affects them. What about the
retrofitting of the windows for the people in that area? Is
there any plans for that? And who do we contact to get moving on
that since we can't stop the project? And that's it.
>> Thanks for your comments and questions. And they will be
answered and maybe staff can give you some information here
tonight if you can stick around.
>> Thank you.
>> Following Mr. Dawson will be Dr. Elizabeth -- is it Breaker?
PH3-S22-4
PH3-S22-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-126 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 22 – Regina Salazar
PH3-S22-1. See Master Response #6 – Noise. A detailed noise assessment was
conducted for project Metrolink trains at properties along the entire
alignment. Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including
sound insulation and noise barriers were proposed at specific locations
(see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5). No noise impacts were predicted to occur
near the Masters Avenue area. However, wheel squeal treatments in the
form of wayside applicators that would significantly reduce the squeal
noise, are proposed at all short radius curves along the entire alignment
(see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). Sound insulation is only proposed for
properties that would be impacted by the project and noise barriers would
not be feasible.
PH3-S22-2. In regards to the concern this comment expresses about the soot-like
substance on plants from an unknown source, the speaker’s residence is
also close to the freeway, which is a more consistent source of particulate
matter than the trains that come and go sporadically. Therefore, there are
no impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S22-3. A detailed noise assessment was conducted for project Metrolink trains at
properties along the entire alignment. Where impacts were predicted,
noise mitigation including sound insulation and noise barriers were
proposed at specific locations (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5). No noise
impacts were predicted to occur near the Masters Avenue area and,
therefore, no noise barriers are proposed for it. However, wheel squeal
treatments in the form of wayside applicators that would significantly
reduce the squeal noise, are proposed at all short radius curves along the
entire alignment (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4).
PH3-S22-4. See Master Response #10 – Hyatt Elementary School and Nearby
Residences Supplemental Protection (Derailment). The analysis in the
Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and no mitigation is
required for this issue. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this
issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and no
mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S22-5. See Master Response #6 – Noise. Sound insulation is only proposed for
residences that would be impacted by the project and where noise
barriers would not be feasible. The proposed project would also eliminate
old rail and use new welded rail in its place along the entire PVL corridor
that would have the added benefit of reducing noise and vibration from
existing freight traffic in this area (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). If the
project is approved, the speaker may contact RCTC with questions
regarding sound insulation.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-127 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 23 - Kevin Dawson
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Breaker.
>> Good evening, supervisors and board members. I'm Kevin Dawson.
I live at 269 (unintelligible) Court about 500 feet from the rail
line. I've been watching this project for quite some time now,
and I have some serious concerns. I am concerned about the
permanent negative impacts this project will have upon my
neighborhood. And that is the effects it will have on the health,
safety, and general livability of our community. But I also have
concerns that speak to the legitimacy of this $230 million
project. It started a few years ago when I first read in the
paper -- when I first became aware of it that RCTC had hired two
public relations firms. It appeared that these relations firms
were hired specifically using Prop 1A money to study the
community and figure out how to market this project as we moved
forward. Later RCTC staff came to our community meeting to give
us a presentation on this project. The marketing people were
there and they put post-its on the
PH3-S23-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-128 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 23 - Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
wall, and they were taking notes on anything we ever said. The
RCTC staff was there and the then director Eric Haley was there.
During that meeting Eric Haley said, "You know, we've got quite a
bit of money coming with this project, and we can do some really
nice things for you people. We can put in sound walls. And
(unintelligible) zones. And I think we can even put in new sound
windows for people. But, you know, if you don't agree to a UCR
station I don't see how we can justify that expense." Well, that
seemed pretty much like extortion to me. At one point I was
asking him a question about diesel particulate matter, and he
didn't seem to get the gist of what I was trying to say and
another member of our community said, "I think what Kevin's
trying to say is -- " and Mr. Haley turned around and started
screaming at her. His face turned beet red and he said, "I don't
want to hear any crap from you tonight. If I had known this was
going to be such a contentious meeting, I never would have come."
And he turned around and
PH3-S23-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-129 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 23 - Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
grabbed his jacket and made like he was going to bolt for the
door. Well, you know -- as we were going along I started paying
more attention to this project. And it seemed to me that there
were certain misrepresentations and manipulations that Mr. Haley
and his staff were pushing forward. There were problems with the
-- I listened to the proposal that Mr. Barnett gave about the
station in Highgrove, and it seems to make sense to me to put a
station in a community where they want it and also that the rail
could send trains to San Bernardino and to Riverside and service
the trains that are already running from Riverside to San
Bernardino. That seems to speak to the whole purpose of having a
regional rail system -- flexibility and planning for the future.
And yet Mr. Haley put it on the agenda for your board to consider
an item that said we vote -- we're going to never consider having
a station at Highgrove. And as we showed up in that meeting staff
was handing out fliers that had extra information
PH3-S23-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S23-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-130 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 23 - Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
that was false. Like if you vote to approve the station in
Highgrove, it will cause your board to have to incur the entire
cost of that Colton flyover which is false. But it scared you
into voting the way he wanted you to vote. Well, as we were going
along there was other problems. In your DEIR you relied on a
report about freight traffic. Well, that report is flawed. The
consultant went to the BNSF and said I'm doing this report to
study if this project is going to increase freight traffic. BNSF
told that consultant -- We're not going to cooperate with you.
You're on your own. So he took and he did the best he could and
went down the line and physically looked to see who was using
that line and what was it they're shipping and how often they're
going to use it and he prepared his report like that. But he
never went to county economic development and said -- What plans
do you have in the line? He didn't go to any of the developers
or (unintelligible) and say what are you guys developing? What's
in the works?
PH3-S23-2
(cont’d)
PH3-S23-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-131 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 23 - Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
How is this going to, you know, what's going to expand on this
line? And sure enough several months after the report was
published there was two articles in the Press Enterprise, one
about Smurfit Stone, world's largest manufacturer of corrugated
cardboard products, had just inked a contract to build a
manufacturing facility down by (unintelligible) down the I-215
corridor where they would get all their raw product and ship out
their finished product via the rail line. Couple months later it
was a steel manufacturer -- same thing, inked a contract to get
all the raw product down the line and ship raw product out. So
that report's flawed and yet the DEIR uses it in support of the
project.
>> Mr. Dawson, can you kind of (unintelligible)?
>> Yes, I will. Because the DEIR used different flawed data, I'm
worried about this is the ghost of DHL (phonetic). This is a
project getting moved forward due to
PH3-S23-3
(cont’d)
PH3-S23-4
PH3-S23-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-132 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 23 - Kevin Dawson (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
economic interests, interests in development and you're using
false data. And we're going to have to live with the results of
this project for a very long time. It's a permanent thing and I
think this tears at the legitimacy of the project. This project
should be if it's really legitimate it should be able to stand on
its own merits and not be pushed through with false data. And I
think it's only right that we should be able to question this
project. Our homes and community are on the line. And I want to
support public transit -- transportation but I, for one, I smell
a rat.
>> Thank you.
PH3-S23-5
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-133 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 23 – Kevin Dawson
PH3-S23-1. This comment generally states that the PVL project will have permanent
negative impacts to the speaker’s neighborhood, including effects on the
“health, safety, and general livability” of the community. This comment is
incorrect. The Draft EIR evaluated the gamut of environmental issue
areas as stipulated by State CEQA Guidelines, including potential
impacts to health (Section 4.3, Section 4.6, Section 4.7, Section 4.10, and
Section 5.0), safety (Section 2.4, Section 4.6, Section 4.7, Section 4.10,
Section 4.11, Section 4.12), and general livability and found that the PVL
project will not result in significant, unmitigable impacts.
This comment also generally questions the “legitimacy of this $230 million
project” and states that there are “certain misrepresentations and
manipulations” regarding the PVL project. However, the speaker does not
provide specific examples or reasons for these beliefs.
Therefore, as no specific concerns were raised, a more specific response
is not required (Browning-Ferris Industries v. City of San Jose (1986)
1818 Cal. App. 3d 852 [where a general comment is made, a general
response is sufficient]). There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S23-2. The Draft EIR in Section 2.2 provides a description of the Highgrove
Station requests and the reasons why it is not being considered as part of
the proposed project. The Colton flyover cost, as the speaker suggests,
was not a part of the decision-making process. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S23-3. See Master Response #5 – Freight Operations. This comment claims, “In
your Draft EIR you relied on a report about freight traffic. Well, that report
is flawed.” This comment supports this claim by telling a story about how
the “consultant” who prepared the freight traffic report was not given
information from BNSF and therefore had to base conclusions solely on
observations. This comment continues by saying that the consultant
“never went to county economic development and said – what plans do
you have in the line? He didn’t go to any of the developers or
(unintelligible) and say what are you guys developing? What’s in the
works?” This comment and the concocted story are incorrect.
It is true that BNSF did not provide information regarding freight traffic on
their line; however, this information is rarely made public. Furthermore,
BNSF does not dictate or control the freight traffic; they merely provide
transportation services to the companies that ship or receive goods via
trains. Therefore, even if BNSF did provide information regarding freight
traffic, all it would be able to convey are statistics for past shipments, not
estimates for future growth. Additionally, if by “county economic
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-134 July 2011
development” the speaker was referring to a County of Riverside
employee, they have nothing to do with planning future freight shipments.
As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13, what actually occurred during
the preparation of the freight traffic study were interviews with the eight
shippers located between Riverside and Romoland with sidings off of the
SJBL. None of these shippers indicated that the track improvements for
the PVL project would result in an increase of their rail shipments. Freight
operations are dictated by costumer demand; in turn, customer demand is
a function of economic conditions. The relationship between track
improvements and increased freight operations is tenuous, at best. The
business decision to provide freight service along the alignment is profit
driven. As long as the customer demand for freight service is low, there is
no reason to assume BNSF would increase operations on the SJBL,
regardless of the PVL project (Draft EIR, Section 2.4.13).
The freight study, therefore, is not flawed. Contrary to this comment, the
report preparers did interview companies that utilize freight trains to ship
goods and did not base conclusions solely on observations. In turn, the
Draft EIR, which utilized the freight study to evaluate potential
environmental impacts, is also not flawed. The analysis in the Draft EIR is
correct - there are no significant impacts and no mitigation is required for
this issue. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and
the Draft EIR has not been changed. See also Response to Other
Interested Parties Letter #1, which provides a detailed analysis of the
Highgrove Station option.
PH3-S23-4. See Response PH3-S22-3. Again, this comments relays information that
is in no way related to the PVL project, it is purely an economic and
consumer-driven demand issue. No new impacts as a result of this
comment were raised and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S23-5. This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-135 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 24 - Elizabeth Broeker
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Wickhiesen.
>> Wickhiesen.
>> Wickhiesen.
>> Wickhiesen, all right. All right, go ahead.
>> Yes, I'm a 20-plus-year resident of the UCR neighborhood. I
live at 636 Sandalwood Court just up the street from Highland
Elementary School. I'm also a Metrolink commuter. I am an
environmental biologist. I believe that that mass transit is
vital to developing sustainable future. However, trains are
noisy. Trains are dirty. Commuter and freight train track sharing
is, I think, an incompatible use of the system. And this proposal
is not a proposal for the 21st century and beyond. It is deeply
flawed. You're proposing to add train traffic to an existing
vital community with three schools, a University, a freeway, many
elderly residents without
PH3-S24-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-136 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 24 - Elizabeth Broeker (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
adequate provision for our health safety. We need to have a
visionary and proactive approach to developing transit that does
not -- that uses more than just current bus practices but is
future-looking and will meet the transportation needs of the
county, will emphasize environmental, health and public safety
needs. What legacy do you want the transportation commission to
have into the future? I submit that this is not it. This is not
what you want to leave our county with. That said I will echo the
comments of my neighbors. There must be at least one grade
separation for this project to go through. There must be air
quality impact assessment on an ongoing basis particularly at the
three schools. There needs to be an upper limit to the number of
trains that are allowed to go through and any more than 12 should
trigger a new environmental impact report. There must be adequate
noise mitigation and there has to be provision for burial of that
PH3-S24-2
PH3-S24-3
PH3-S24-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S24-4
PH3-S24-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-137 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 24 - Elizabeth Broeker (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
high pressure jet fuel line and an emergency plan needs to be put
in place. Thank you.
>> Thanks a lot. And Mr. Wickhiesen (phonetic).
>> Wickhiesen.
>> Wickhiesen. He'll be followed by Dee Andre.
PH3-S24-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-138 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 24 - Elizabeth Broeker
PH3-S24-1. This comment states that “we need to have a visionary and proactive
approach to developing transit that does not – that uses more than just
current bus practices but is future-looking and will meet the transportation
needs of the county, will emphasize environmental, health and public
safety needs.” The PVL project will meet the transportation needs of the
county, as identified in the Draft EIR, Section 2.3 and Section 3.3. The
PVL project also emphasizes environmental, health, and public safety
needs: it was identified as the environmentally superior alternative (Draft
EIR, Section 3.3) and found no significant, unmitigable impacts to
environmental issue areas.
No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and the Draft
EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S24-2. See Master Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations,
where roadways go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific
approach distance to maintain appropriate roadway grades and clearance
heights for the tracks. For grade separations to be possible within the
UCR neighborhood, many homes would lose vehicle and driveway
access. No new impacts as a result of this comment were raised and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S24-3. Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air Quality Technical
Report) outlines the measures used to calculate the expected emissions
due to the implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for
the PVL accounted for all relevant project parameters and conditions and
ensured that the analysis was done in compliance with the most up-to-
date local, state, and federal air quality regulations and guidance.
Tables 4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that emissions projected for
criteria pollutants, local intersections (CO hotspots), greenhouse gases,
mobile source air toxics, construction activities, and locomotive and
parking operations all fall below local thresholds of significance and state
and federal emissions standards. Further, CARB and SCAQMD operate
an ambient air quality-monitoring network throughout the state that
monitors air pollutants. This network encompasses every county in the
state (including Riverside County where the proposed PVL would
operate) and the most current and relevant data from these monitoring
stations was used in the air quality analysis. The SCAQMD operates
three air quality-monitoring stations in Riverside and one in Perris that
measure the local air quality on a continuous basis.
The speaker asserts that if the proposed project is approved that RCTC
must monitor air quality on an ongoing basis at the three schools adjacent
to the project alignment. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the proposed
project is not considered a project of air quality concern with respect to
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) (see
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-139 July 2011
Draft EIR, Section 4.3.4). Moreover, according to the health risk
assessment, the calculated risk at the point of greatest concentration of
diesel exhaust particulate and acrolein was below the threshold of
significance (see Draft EIR, Table 4.3-9). Therefore, the Draft EIR did not
identify a significant impact with regard air quality and no mitigation was
required. Where no significant impact is identified, CEQA does not require
that the lead agency conduct ongoing monitoring (see State CEQA
Guidelines § 15097). However, if a significant impact is identified, CEQA
requires that the lead agency impose feasible mitigation measures and
further requires that the lead agency adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the mitigation measures imposed, with the decision of which
to require being up to the lead agency. (Id.) To require ongoing
monitoring for an impact that is less than significant (and for which the
lead agency did not impose mitigation measures) would be contrary to
CEQA's policy of finality (State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003, 15162(c)).
In addition, the SCAQMD regularly monitors air quality within its
jurisdiction, which includes the alignment of the PVL project. According to
South Coast Air Quality Management District's Annual Air Quality
Monitoring Network Plan, dated July 2010, the District operates 35
permanent monitoring sites for purposes of collecting data on air quality.
The Network Plan includes monitoring sites in Perris and Riverside
(Magnolia). The Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan is submitted
to the EPA annually.
Finally, Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code places specific
responsibility for air pollution control at the local level on air pollution
control and air quality management districts. According to the Health and
Safety Code, the air pollution control and air quality management districts
have primary responsibility for controlling air pollution from non-vehicular
sources (Health & Safety Code §§ 39002, 40000). A "non-vehicular
source" includes all sources of air contaminants, including the loading of
fuels into vehicles, except vehicular sources (Health & Safety Code
§ 39043). A "vehicular source" is a source of air contaminants emitted
from motor vehicles. (Id. at § 39060.) A "motor vehicle" is a device that is
self-propelled and by which a person or property may be propelled,
moved or drawn on a highway, except for a device moved exclusively by
human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. (Id. at §
39039.) A locomotive is a device that moves on a stationary rail or track
and is therefore not considered a "motor vehicle" and is consequently a
"non-vehicular source." As a result, regulation and control of air pollution
from locomotives falls within the purview of the air quality management
district, subject to the limitations set forth in Clean Air Act § 209(e)(1). (42
U.S.C. § 7543(e)(1)).
As a result, RCTC is not obligated to conduct ongoing monitoring of air
quality at the three school sites as requested by the speaker.
PH3-S24-4. If ridership increases in the future, RCTC would build additional stations
to meet this demand. RCTC has committed to conducting additional
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-140 July 2011
environmental reviews for any new stations that would be added in the
future. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment, the Draft
EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S24-5. See Master Response #6 – Noise. A detailed noise assessment was
conducted for project Metrolink trains at properties along the entire project
alignment. Where impacts were predicted, noise mitigation including
noise barriers and sound insulation were proposed at specific locations to
reduce impacts to less than significant levels (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.5).
PH3-S24-6. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School and Master Response #7 – Emergency
Planning and Response. Though unlikely and unanticipated, if an
emergency were to occur near the PVL corridor, the Riverside County
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and/or the City of Riverside
Emergency Management Office would be activated and trained
professionals would be in place to manage and coordinate the
appropriate Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). No new impacts as a
result of this comment were raised and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-141 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 25 - Ken Wilkizen
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> My name is Ken Wickhiesen. I live at 3365 Santa Cruz Drive
right where Campus View and Santa Cruz come together. We've been
opposed to this Perris Valley Line from day one for several
reasons. Number one is because of the exhaust from the
locomotives coming through. Now anybody who knows or has seen the
locomotive knows that a locomotive sits on the track about 12 to
14 feet above grade. It exhausts its spent fuel up about 35 feet
in the air. There is no mitigation process available to mitigate
the effects of the particulate the locomotive is going to spew
over the schools and the community. It is a physical
impossibility.
PH3-S25-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-142 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 25 – Ken Wilkizen (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
Number two I as opposed to some of my fellow residents I don’t
have a problem with the Santa Faye Railroad. My problem is with
Metrolink in and of itself. In Metrolink's short history it has
provided -- it has became number one in the United States in
accidents and the number of people it has killed on the rails.
There is nothing that these people here in this room or anybody
can do to change that. That is the way that it is. We have
opposed this from day one. We have been ignored from day one. And
I fail to understand how people such as yourselves can look these
citizens directly in the face and ignore what they say.
PH3-S25-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-143 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 25 – Ken Wilkizen
PH3-S25-1. The air quality analysis for the PVL accounted for relevant project
parameters and conditions and ensured that the analysis was done in
compliance with the most up-to-date local, state, and federal air quality
regulations and guidance. The manufacturers of the locomotive
equipment (as well as the transportation agency using them, Metrolink)
are also bound by federal air quality regulations and must meet the
emissions criteria. As noted in the Draft EIR, Table 4.3-12, Metrolink
would operate the PVL schedule by using six diesel-electric locomotives
that meet the USEPA stringent Tier 2 emissions standards for
locomotives. By comparison, Tier 2 locomotives restrict pollutant
emissions to 90% of Tier 1 standards that were restricted to
approximately 60% of Tier 0 or uncontrolled locomotive emissions. By the
operating year of the PVL, all new locomotives would be required to meet
Tier 3 emissions which require an approximately 50% reduction of Tier 2
emissions. As noted in Table 4.3-12, the expected emissions of the
locomotives would be completely offset by the reduction in emissions
from diverted vehicular traffic. Moreover, releasing exhaust at a height
where it would not be directly inhaled by humans is common practice for
the dispersal of exhaust smoke. The high release point for locomotive
emissions is a benefit to the community since the higher release point
results in a more effective dispersal of pollutant emissions, thus
minimizing impacts for ground level receptors.
PH3-S25-2. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). As no specific
concerns were raised, a more specific response is not required
(Browning-Ferris Industries v. City of San Jose (1986) 1818 Cal. App. 3d
852 [where a general comment is made, a general response is
sufficient]). Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are
no significant impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The
Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a
result of this comment were raised and no mitigation measures are
required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-144 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 26 - Dee Andrée
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> All right.
>> Dee Andre and you'll be followed by Karen Wright.
>> My name is Dee Andre. I live at 168 Mystic Way. And the
question was proposed to Mr. Ayala, the Principal at Hyatt, do
any of the children cross the train tracks?
PH3-S26-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-145 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 26 – Dee Andrée (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
Well, any child that lives between Nisbet and Blaine cross the
train tracks to go to Hyatt. I personally pick several of those
kids up to drive them to school so they can get to school safely
because their parents work. Now not only that but these kids ride
their bikes to Islander Pool which is a public pool right there
at Big Springs and Mount Vernon. And this is all summer these
kids are exposed to this. And also what Mr. Ayala did not mention
was the squealing of the trains at the school, it caused a fire
right next to the playground at the school this year. Now it
wasn't a very big fire but, you know, there was brush there. And
the squeaking of the trains and their brakes so it causes
problems. And nobody has mentioned the rodent population that
undermines the trains. The tracks themselves which when we've had
a lot of rain like we’ve had recently will cause the tracks to
collapse which did cause one of the derailments at Big Springs.
So we need to take this into consideration not only the noise and
the air
PH3-S26-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S26-2
PH3-S26-3
PH3-S26-4
PH3-S26-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-146 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 26 – Dee Andrée (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
pollution because we are like the worst air quality in the nation
in Riverside. So we have to take all of this into consideration
to better our lives as a community so that we have something for
our children in the future. Thank you.
>> Thanks for those -- we appreciate your comments. Thanks for
those firsthand comments. Appreciate that. Following Ms. Wright
will be Mamoot Sadigan (phonetic). Close?
>> Pretty close.
PH3-S26-5
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-147 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 26 – Dee Andrée
PH3-S26-1. If unauthorized people enter the ROW, they are considered to be
trespassing. This is true if people are “just” crossing the tracks, or if they
are walking along the tracks. To increase the awareness of trains and
increase safety Metrolink provides “Operation Lifesaver,” a safety
education program. Operation Lifesaver provides age appropriate
programs for communities and schools within the Metrolink service area.
For additional information regarding the program, see the Draft EIR,
Section 2.4.14. The Draft EIR found no significant, unmitigable impacts as
a result of the PVL project. The project does not increase safety risks,
quite the contrary. Instead, the PVL project would upgrade the existing
physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger
infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced safety.
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no impacts
and no mitigation is required. Additionally, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S26-2. The PVL project would replenish ballast, and replace ties, and rail next to
Hyatt Elementary School. These track improvements would upgrade the
existing physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger
infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced operational
safety. In addition, what causes a spark is friction between the metal train
wheel and the metal rail. The wayside applicators will lubricate the tracks,
thus reducing this friction between the train wheels and rail. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
PH3-S26-3. The principal source of noise near the curved area would be wheel
squeal. Therefore, as part of the project, wayside applicators are
proposed to significantly reduce the noise from wheel squeal at all tight
radius curves along the project alignment (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4).
PH3-S26-4. The proposed PVL project will improve the rail, ties, and ballast along the
project corridor. SCRRA will be responsible for maintenance of the
corridor. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S26-5. CARB and SCAQMD operate an ambient air quality-monitoring network
throughout the state that monitors air pollutants. This network
encompasses every county in the state (including Riverside County
where the proposed PVL would operate) and the most current and
relevant data from these monitoring stations was used in the air quality
analysis. The SCAQMD operates three air quality-monitoring stations in
Riverside and one in Perris that measure the local air quality on a
continuous basis. See Response to Comment PH2-S4-11.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-148 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 27 - Karen Doris Wright
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Karen Wright, 4167 Central. My comments are going too
scattered and I'm unprepared for this. I was hoping to come early
and I thought there would be a presentation. I had to study the
map some time ago and noticed that I thought two places where
you're putting stops along the whole line either there weren't
stops or they had stops in the wrong place. And I can't recall
exactly where those were. I believe one may have been in the Van
Buren or someplace where there's a lot of people living out
there.
PH3-S27-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-149 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 27 – Karen Doris Wright (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
And even if you can't afford to put a stop there now, it needs to
be designated because there's a lot of commuters there. And for
environmental and other reasons, it wouldn't make sense for
people to go up Van Buren, get on the freeway and drive one way
or the other. So I'm not sure if I'm remembering exactly where
the stops off. But there was at least two spaces that were not
logical on it. Regarding particulate matter it's largely ignored
in Riverside County. They have all these meetings and people say
they go to them and they say they’re doing a great job. I don’t
know about in the county so much. Well, maybe I do. Along the --
when I drive along the freeway, I notice they are building
housing right up into freeway which it shouldn't. And the city
just built low-income housing right identical next to the
freeway. So it's being ignored. And I'm not familiar with the
lines that these people are talking about but if the particulate
matters issued then the schools -- if you have to put that in,
you
PH3-S27-2
PH3-S27-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-150 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 27 – Karen Doris Wright (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
should pay to move the school and everything else because that's
deadly and all that. I noticed that this meeting is being held at
6:00. And if people are using a public transportation they
couldn't get here maybe before this meeting is over. Also it
doesn't seem to be being televised so people could watch from
home and give additional comments. I don’t see it being
videotaped. And I don’t see anything information being handed out
so people like I could know what the current status of things is.
If this is a public meeting where you're taking comments, I think
you should also have handout information at least a website and a
single map or something. Let me see. I think there needs to be
more outreach and it needs to be on the different TV channels.
You should work with the different communities like the city of
Riverside. They put some of the same things over and over and
over on the TV channel three and I think there's other cable
channels. And this information and this meeting and what you're
PH3-S27-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-151 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 27 – Karen Doris Wright (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
saying could be aired so more people could hear about it and give
their concerns. Or maybe some -- somebody may come up with a
revelation that would resolve some of your issues. And I know
Metrolink could be well used and I don't know too much about
where the stops should go. I used a lot of public transit BART in
the Bay Area and it's going to be in there. There's going to be -
- you'd be lying if you're told there was only going to be 12
trains a day. That's a joke because if that's going to -- those
trains run all day long and, I think, it's what? Until 1:00 in
the morning. And they run every ten minutes. And this area's
growing and it might end up somewhat close to that. So if you're
letting them think there's only going to be 12 trains on there a
day that's just hardly -- doesn't make any sense. And my nephew
one of them would be riding the Metrolink now but they keep
raising their fares and forcing them into cars. So for
environmental reasons if you're going to want people out of their
cars, you have
PH3-S27-3
(cont’d)
PH3-S27-4
PH3-S27-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-152 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 27 – Karen Doris Wright (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
to put those stops in sensible locations. Like if there isn't one
at the end of Van Buren or the end of -- or Central or those
logical locations. Now they may not be able to be there now but
they could be put as proposed and not every train would have to
stop at every stop. Maybe the ones with the little bit less
traffic only have it stop twice an hour and the other one stop so
many times an hour. Okay, good luck.
>> Thanks. And Mr. -- you'll help me with your last name?
>> Sadigan (phonetic).
>> Sadigan. And Mr. Sadigan will be followed by Judy Kohn. Go
ahead.
PH3-S27-5
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-153 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 27 – Karen Doris Wright
PH3-S27-1. The proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station would be located just
south of Alessandro Boulevard and north of Van Buren Boulevard. There
is no station proposed at Van Buren Boulevard. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S27-2. CARB and SCAQMD operate an ambient air quality-monitoring network
throughout the state that monitors criteria air pollutants including
particulate matter. This network encompasses every county in the state
(including Riverside County where the proposed PVL would operate) and
the most current and relevant data from these monitoring stations was
used in the air quality analysis. The SCAQMD operates three air quality-
monitoring stations in Riverside and one in Perris that measure the local
air quality on a continuous basis. Further, the SCAQMD (which is
responsible for Riverside County) has established daily limits controlling
the emissions of particulate matter during the operational and
construction phases of a project (see Draft EIR, Table 4.3-5). In addition,
SCAG has a TCWG that reviews proposed transportation projects and
decides whether or not to designate them as POAQCs with respect to
emissions of particulate matter. The TCWG reviewed the proposed PVL
project and determined that it was not a POAQC on April 16, 2010. A
copy of the TCWG review form is shown in Air Quality Technical Report
B, Appendix F..
Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air Quality Technical
Report) outlines the measures used to calculate the expected emissions
due to the implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for
the PVL accounted for all relevant project parameters and conditions and
ensured that the analysis was done in compliance with the most up to
date local, state, and federal air quality regulations and guidance. Tables
4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that emissions projected for criteria
pollutants, local intersections (CO hotspots), greenhouse gases, mobile
source air toxics, construction activities and locomotive and parking
operations all fall below local thresholds of significance and state and
federal emissions standards.
PH3-S27-3. Public outreach for the PVL project has gone far beyond the minimum
requirements for CEQA. The Draft EIR, Section 1.4 explains the steps
RCTC has taken so far. RCTC prepared an IS/MND and circulated the
document for public and agency review in early 2009. As part of the
public involvement for the IS/MND document, RCTC held two public
outreach workshops in June 2008, a public information meeting in
February 2009, and two public hearings in February 2009. In response to
public input, RCTC decided to proceed with an EIR.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-154 July 2011
On July 28, 2009, two weeks after the NOP was posted by the State
Clearinghouse, RCTC conducted a public scoping meeting at the Moreno
Valley Towngate Community Center. The intent of this meeting was to
receive input on the issues that should be covered in greater detail in the
Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR public review and comment period was open for 49 days
between April 5, 2010 and May 24, 2010. This exceeds the CEQA
prescribed minimum 45-day review period. Initially, two public hearings
(April 4, 2010 and April 22, 2010) were scheduled; however, in response
to public request, a third public hearing (May 17, 2010) was held. These
public hearings were a courtesy of RCTC and not required by CEQA
(CEQA Section 15202(a)). Additionally, as stated in the Draft EIR, Section
1.5, the Draft EIR was available for review at RCTC office, Riverside Main
Library, Woodcrest Library, Moreno Valley Public Library, Perris Branch
Library, and the RCTC webpage (http://www.perrisvalleyline.info/).
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S27-4. The speaker doesn’t identify a specific BART route for comparison to
PVL, but the ridership analysis for the PVL project was based on
surrounding land use. The land use of Riverside County is a much lower
density then the catchment areas for BART service and therefore can be
expected to have lower ridership numbers until density increases are
allowed through the local General Plan process.
If ridership increases in the future, RCTC might build additional stations to
meet this demand. RCTC has committed to conducting additional
environmental reviews for any new stations that would be proposed in the
future. There are no new impacts as a result of this comment, the Draft
EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S27-5. As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 2.2, starting in 1988, RCTC initiated
studies of potential station sites on the BNSF main line to serve future
commuter rail service to Orange County. As the Metrolink system
expanded within Riverside County, existing stations were reaching
capacity and various station selection studies were undertaken. Based on
these studies and projected ridership, four stations were chosen for the
opening year of 2012: Hunter Park Station (one of three studied
locations), Moreno Valley/March Field Station, Downtown Perris Station,
and South Perris Station. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result
of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-155 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 28 - Mahmoud Sadeghi
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Good evening my name is Mamoot Sadigan and I'm a UCR resident
living on 465 Mount Vernon Drive. We started seeing many
derailments and crashes on TV of Metrolink. We do not like to
witness one in our neighborhood. Although I
PH3-S28-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-156 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 28 – Mahmoud Sadeghi (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
am for Metrolink when it comes to removing congestions off our
freeways, I think that's a good thing. Other I believe that the
EIR should have considered additional options or alternatives.
Certainly safety has been an issue that has discussed tonight and
I think that I don't know actually that the Environmental Impact
Report considered that perhaps making bridges or the crossing
such as Iowa -- excuse Spruce or Blaine Street. That would
alleviate the -- or mitigate the impact as far as the emergency
people crossings or also safety. Because I've got on BART system
in San Francisco and I see that a lot of area they go underground
tunnels. And I know this is an expensive alternative. However, I
think with the possibility of what the future income it will
generate this proposed project it would be very worthwhile to
consider that alterative to put a tunnel throughout this area
that would alleviate the noise impact as well as the vibration
impact and air quality impact. So I'd certainly like to, you
know, see
PH3-S28-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S28-2
PH3-S28-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-157 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 28 – Mahmoud Sadeghi (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
those things discussed in the draft EIR or the final otherwise,
you know, the noble alternative should be considered if they are
willing to mitigate just by a simple noise wall. Noise walls have
historically shown that it does not offset the impact noise. As a
matter of fact studies show that noise walls reflect a noise off
of the other side of noise wall and vibrate through the adjacent
neighborhood so it broadens the noise in the area of vibrations.
So that is not necessarily the best solution. And also vibration
you should have been discussed more in this document. That's all.
Thank you.
>> Thanks for those considered comments. Next is Ms. Kohn. And
she’ll be followed by Arlinda Argarus (phonetic).
PH3-S28-3
(cont’d)
PH3-S28-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-158 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 28 – Mahmoud Sadeghi
PH3-S28-1. See Master Response #3 – Derailments (General). Section 3.0 of the
Draft EIR identifies the various project alternatives that were evaluated
first within an Alternatives Analysis, then with the Draft EIR itself. The
appropriate range of alternative was considered. The speaker does not
identify any other alternatives he believes are feasible, so no further
response is required.
PH3-S28-2. See Master Response #12 – Grade Separations. Grade separations,
where roadways go under or over railroad tracks, require a specific
approach distance to maintain appropriate roadway grades and clearance
heights for the tracks. For grade separations to be possible within the
UCR neighborhood, many homes would lose vehicle and driveway
access. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S28-3. State CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to adopt all “feasible”
mitigation measures that would “substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects” of a proposed project (Pub. Res. Code § 21002;
State CEQA Guidelines § 15021(a)(2)). This principle, however, does not
require that a lead agency “adopt every nickel and dime mitigation
scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the EIR” (San Franciscans
for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209
Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). Instead, the scope of mitigation measures is
tempered by the “rule of reason” and the principle that the goal of CEQA
is to produce “informational documents” (Concerned Citizens of South
Central Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1994) 24
Cal.App.4th 826, 841). The goal of imposing mitigation measures on a
proposed action is to reduce potentially significant impacts, not
necessarily to eliminate all impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); State
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)).
A tunnel is beyond the scope of the PVL project and not economically
feasible. Furthermore, since mitigation measures would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels, no further mitigation is required. Therefore,
there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR
has not been changed.
PH3-S28-4. A detailed noise and vibration assessment was conducted for project
Metrolink trains at properties along the entire project rail alignment.
Where noise impacts were predicted, mitigation, including noise barriers
and sound insulation, was proposed at specific locations (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.10.4) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. For
projects where sound reflections off noise barriers are of concern, sound
absorptive materials are often proposed for use on noise barriers.
However, it is not expected that reflections off noise barriers would result
in any significant increases in noise levels since the Metrolink alignment
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-159 July 2011
would not be very close to any of the proposed noise barriers (see FTA
Manual, page 2-12). Moreover, the speaker provides no evidence
showing that noise barriers are ineffective.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-160 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 29 - Judy Conn
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity. I live on the
corner of Mount Vernon Avenue and Nisbet Way. I'm less than 500
feet from the railroad crossing there. I've lived there for about
24 years. And I'd like to just throw
PH3-S29-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-161 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 29 – Judy Conn (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
out a number and that number is 108. That number is the number of
times that many of us will hear the blast of the horn per day.
108 times. The intensity will depend on where we are, how close
we are to the crossing but with three crossing, 12 trains, three
blasts -- minimum blasts a day per train, and crossing 108 times
which seems to me a bit excessive and highly indicative of noise
pollution. We need quiet zones. Myself 36 times a day and when I
say day I'm including the evening trains and then, you know,
waking up at 1:00am trains. And I don't think people realize that
you can't even have a conversation on your phone. I mean, I've
been on the phone where I've gone in my closet to try and finish
talking to somebody because it's so loud that I can't hear them
and they can't hear me. The second -- the other thing is I've
installed double pane windows and that helps with the creaking,
clanking and groaning and trust me there is. You’d think there's
some beast out there the way this thing grumbles and moans and
groans. Sorry I didn't
PH3-S29-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S29-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-162 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 29 – Judy Conn (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
mean to like throw myself into this. But that's done. You know,
I've mitigated that but as far as the double paned windows
helping with the earsplitting which one of our students described
horns -- no, it doesn't help. It just doesn't help. The other
thing that I'm concerned about is I don’t want to live in a
sealed house. There -- I like to occasionally open my windows.
And even with the double paned windows, you know, at night in the
summer, forget it. You really are jarred awake. You sometimes get
acclimated to a certain degree but I've lived there 24 years and
it still wakes me up from time to time. And I hear all the trains
from when they start it's about 12 to 15 minutes when they start
at the Spruce one. The Spruce crossing and rumble their way past
my house about that 12.5 to 15 minutes of noise of some sort. So
we need quiet zones desperately. The other thing that I did want
to mention, too, is we have some daycare centers -- some family-
owned daycare centers in the neighborhood. And by law -- it's my
PH3-S29-2
(cont’d)
PH3-S29-3
PH3-S29-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-163 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 29 – Judy Conn (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
understanding -- by law these family-owned day care centers
cannot lock their doors. There is a potential that children --
they're excited by trains. They go crazy when trains go by that
they could run out. They can't lock them in there. And the other
point, too, is that I'm also wondering how I'm going to back out
of my driveway. With all those people backed up waiting for these
trains to go by, my driveway backs right into Mount Vernon and
I'm figuring I'm going to be trapped, you know. So I really think
we need to look more carefully at this. I'd like to know what
will help all of us trying to back out of our driveways when
these trains are going by. And I'd also like us to seriously
consider the quiet zones. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Ms. Kohn. She'll be followed by Germontel Colsa
(phonetic).
PH3-S29-4
(cont’d)
PH3-S29-5
PH3-S29-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-164 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 29 – Judy Conn
PH3-S29-1. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones. The sounding of horns at a rail
grade crossing is required by the FRA. According to the FRA’s Train Horn
Rule, train horns must be sounded in a standardized pattern of 2 long, 1
short and 1 long each time it approaches a traffic grade-crossing.
However, based on technical guidance from the FTA, the Metrolink horns
that would be used on the proposed PVL project would not be as loud as
the horns that are currently sounded by freight trains. In the area of the
PVL alignment near the speaker’s home, noise barriers are proposed to
reduce noise levels to less than significant.
Additionally, a noise barrier is proposed west of Mount Vernon Avenue
and south of the tracks that would reduce noise impacts to less than
significant levels (see Draft EIR, Table 4.10-11). Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S29-2. See Master Response #6 - Noise. While the request for mitigation of
residential outdoor uses is understandable, the use of noise barrier
mitigation at several properties was deemed not feasible. As a result,
sound insulation is proposed at specific properties to ensure interior uses
are mitigated. Sound insulation is not limited to double-paned windows
and may involve caulking and sealing gaps in the building envelope and
installation of specially designed solid-core doors (FTA Manual, Section
6.8.4).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
PH3-S29-3. See Response to Comment PH3-S29-1.
PH3-S29-4. The Draft EIR found no significant, unmitigable impacts as a result of the
PVL project. The project does not increase safety risks. Instead, the PVL
project would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which
would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance,
and enhanced safety. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the daycare
centers to watch the children entrusted to them.
To increase the awareness of trains and increase safety Metrolink
provides “Operation Lifesaver,” a safety education program. Operation
Lifesaver provides age appropriate programs for communities and
schools within the Metrolink service area. For additional information
regarding the program, see the Draft EIR, Section 2.4.14. Please note
that Operation Lifesaver is not required as mitigation but is simply a
gesture of “good will” by RCTC to provide an additional safety measure.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-165 July 2011
PH3-S29-5. The PVL train schedule is presented in the Draft EIR in Section 2.4.11.
The trains are anticipated to be commuter trains providing passengers
with a new mode of transportation to and from work. Therefore, the
schedule times were selected to be early in the morning and late in the
afternoon. When commuter trains pass through the UCR neighborhood
gates at grade crossings would be down for a short period, less than a
minute, while the train safely passes through the crossing. Because of the
short time period that the crossing gates would be down, traffic is not
anticipated to back up on Mount Vernon Avenue. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S29-6. See Response to Comment PH3-S29-1.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-166 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 30 - Arlinda Argeris
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Good evening, everybody. My name is Arland (phonetic) Archer,
the owner of Apple Tree Learning Center. And all
PH3-S30-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-167 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 30 – Arlinda Argeris (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
of my neighbors have brought out all of the concerns that I have
had. The one thing I was concerned about is with our inflation
and the problems we're having with our monies, how is this
project going to be -- how is it going to be paid for? Are we,
the taxpayers, going to have to pay for this? IS this already a
done deal? That's right. Bob, where you listening to me?
>> I'm sorry.
>> Oh, okay, I just I'm concerned about our neighborhood. I'm
concerned about all teachers and the school programs that are
being cut back. Now this is not really a good time to have this
project going on. And then I heard one rumor that I wanted to
know if this was true or not. Has UCR purchased Hyatt Elementary?
I'd just like to know. I think --
>> They wouldn't tell us.
PH3-S30-2
PH3-S30-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-168 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 30 – Arlinda Argeris
PH3-S30-1. While CEQA requires that the environmental analysis “take into account a
reasonable range of environmental, economic, and technical factors,
population and geographic areas, and specific sites” (§21159[c]), the
specific economic feasibility of a project is outside of the scope of CEQA.
In the Draft EIR, Section 3.0, a range of alternatives were evaluated
based on their potential environmental, economic, and technical impacts
as they relate to the PVL project goals and objectives.
After taking into consideration the variety of potential impacts and how
each alternative fulfilled the goals and objectives of the project, RCTC
found that the Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus
Street Alternative (“Citrus Connection”) was the Locally Preferred
Alternative and the environmentally superior alternative. No further
analysis is required. Therefore, as this comment does not raise specific
environmental concerns, no further response is necessary.
PH3-S30-2. See Response PH3-S30-1.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-169 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 31 - Gurumantra Khalsa
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> I haven’t heard that but we’ll be happy to --
>> Okay.
>> Jeff.
>> Thanks for your comments. Mr. Colsa and unless there's -- are
we having more speaker cards?
>> I have no more.
>> Then we're coming to the last speaker who will be Allen
Brewlinger (phonetic), second to last. Go ahead,
Mr. Colsa.
>> Good evening ladies and gentleman. I'm Germontel Colsa. I live
at 4108 Watkins Drive and I'm here on behalf of the University
Neighborhood Association. Many of whom in the standing room only
75 to 100 people are part of that neighborhood association. And
we’re here as you've heard articulate, informed, intelligent,
fully self-expressed.
PH3-S31-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-170 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 31 - Gurumantra Khalsa (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
And we’re here to insist that you live up to your commitment to
public service and our tax dollar (unintelligible) and at least
give us the considerations that are here. We cannot any longer be
using cost as a reason not to do something. We're seeing how well
that's working out in the Gulf. And cost is just something you
pay on the backend if you don't take care of this stuff. You've
heard all of the neighbors. We all know we're in earthquake
territory. We all know what the hazards are here with the gas
line. We know that there are train derailments in the past. We
know they're likely to happen again in the future. We know that
if our three crossings are blocked by a freight train and a
chlorine gas cloud happens to be going and blowing the right way,
you just got a disaster that is going to make seizing our destiny
look a lot like a long-distance off. So if we're going to really
seize our destiny and have a city of our dreams. And at the very
least we've got to be able to sleep through the night
PH3-S31-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S31-2
PH3-S31-3
PH3-S31-4
PH3-S31-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-171 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 31 - Gurumantra Khalsa (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
and so do you. And you're not going to be able to as long as you
don't address these concerns in a legitimate manner. We know what
can mitigated. We know we have to do it and cost is simply not
going to apply. If we can't do because we can't afford it then
maybe we need to wait. Thank you very much.
>> A few more -- it stimulated more. Okay, Mr. Brewlinger -- is
he still here? Allan Brewlinger, Ross Court. Oh, there you are.
Needs some help -- can we get a hand mic?
>> We can pull one of those.
>> He can use mine.
>> For you articulate speakers, I am not such. Perris Valley
compressed Metro gas buses that serves that area --
>> It's not on.
>> It's not on.
PH3-S31-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-172 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 31 – Gurumantra Khalsa
PH3-S31-1. This comment is introductory. No response is necessary.
PH3-S31-2. See Master Response #2 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary and Master Response #3 – Derailment (General).
The existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel line is located with the ROW,
however, the PVL project is not planning to relocate or alter the pipeline
as it currently exists. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S31-3. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General). The PVL project will
improve overall track conditions so that both Metrolink and freight can
operate safely along the same alignment. The improved rail, ties, and
ballast would improve safety, and reduce the potential for rail car
derailment. The analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no
significant impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The Draft
EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a result
of this comment were raised and no mitigation measures are required.
PH3-S31-4. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. As stated in
the Draft EIR in Section 4.7.4: “As a commuter rail line, PVL service is
passenger only. As such, there would never be an occasion when
hazardous materials would be transported on the commuter trains.”
Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated for this issue area
and no mitigation measures are required.
This comment also expresses concern regarding the fact that freight
trains can block every grade crossing in the UCR neighborhood. The PVL
project’s trains would be commuter trains of only a few cars. These trains
are too short to block more than a single crossing. Thus, even in the
unanticipated event that a project train stops in the neighborhood, there
would be no significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress
locations would be affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will
become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of
SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated
that trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the
UCR neighborhood) because this would block other trains from passing
through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas where there is a bypass
track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR neighborhood.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S31-5. This comment is informational and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-173 July 2011
PH3-S31-6. This comment is informational and does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no response is necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-174 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 32 - Allen Brunlinger
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Laura, can you --
>> Take this from here.
>> But, of course. Okay, compressed natural gas -- buses are in
service of Perris Valley Area. We have high-pressure gas line in
the area. When -- not if -- a disaster happens how will we, the
neighbors be notified. Noise -- I live over 1,000, 1,600 feet
from the train lines and I don’t see (unintelligible). The
neighbors that live 50, 75 feet -- some of the speakers tonight
that live close to the trains. Like I said over 1,000 feet and
I'm awakened several times a night. The other night 10:00, 10:05,
11:07, 12:18. Cost -- the cost is about $230, $258 million. It's
the loss of sleep, the loss of life when we do have a chemical
spill. We need that long-term regardless of what chemicals will
be spilled on our children. Why should we have our schedules, our
lives dictated by the train schedule? Like we had speakers
PH3-S32-2
PH3-S32-3
PH3-S32-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-175 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 32 - Allen Brunlinger (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
earlier we had to fix our sleeping schedule and our work schedule
around what time the train is not running. I bought a house in
the area. I've lived there for 30 years. I bought it for its
quiet cove. Now it looks like it's gone. Screeching noise -- it's
insane. I think the people that are passing this are trying --
should be forced to live here so that they can enjoy it the way
that we do.
>> Yeah.
>> The wall. The wall's a joke, laughable. That's not going to
stop dust, debris. Again, if I'm over 1,000 feet away and I hear
it, what makes you think a 10, 12, 100 foot wall would stop the
noise? If Spain put in a 400 miles of Chunnel from 1988 to 1992
for the Olympics maybe the channel's not a bad idea actually.
>> It's be great.
>> Built well, maybe we should be building this train.
PH3-S32-3
(cont’d)
PH3-S32-4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-176 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 32 - Allen Brunlinger (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Maybe a bar, too.
>> Maybe the year after right? California is already bankrupt.
You're not willing to or able to buy our houses nor are we
wanting to sell them. Cost-benefit analysis -- cost is to our
schools, to the residents, to the 22,000 plus University
students. The tracks were never engineered for passenger trains.
Untold cost, wrong project, wrong time, wrong idea, wrong area.
Sorry idea.
>> Appreciate those comments. I thought I heard Mr. Brewlinger's
compare the area to a quiet cove. Is that what you said Mr.
Brewlinger?
>> Yes, he did. Used to be.
>> Used to be a quiet cove.
>> (inaudible)
>> Okay, thanks for your comments.
PH3-S32-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-177 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 32 – Allen Brunlinger
PH3-S32-1. See Master Response #2 - Kinder Morgan Pipeline Segment Near
Highland Elementary School and Master Response #7 – Emergency
Planning and Response. Though unlikely and unanticipated, if an
emergency were to occur near the PVL corridor, the Riverside County
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and/or the City of Riverside
Emergency Management Office would be activated and trained
professionals would be in place to manage and coordinate the
appropriate Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). There are no new
impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed.
PH3-S32-2. Based on the FTA Manual, operational night-time noise related to night-
time activity is specifically accounted for with respect to rail project noise
assessments performed for residential communities. Because
construction will be limited to daytime hours, no night-time construction
noise impacts will be result.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and Vibration_Manual.pdf)
PH3-S32-3. See Master Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport and Master
Response #6 – Noise. As stated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5, impacts
to ambient noise levels will be reduced to less than significant with
mitigation incorporated. Additionally, the railroad track has been in that
location for over 100 years and the speaker must have known this when
he purchased his house. There are no new impacts as a result of this
comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S32-4. Noise barriers are intended to mitigate project-induced noise so that
impacts as defined by CEQA would be less than significant at noise
sensitive properties. Noise barriers are recognized by the FTA as a
legitimate mitigation option (FTA Manual, Section 6.8.3). Noise barriers
are not intended to affect dust and debris.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
This comment also suggested building a channel for the train. A channel
or a tunnel are beyond the scope of the PVL project and not economically
feasible. State CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to adopt all
“feasible” mitigation measures that would “substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects” of a proposed project (Pub. Res. Code
§ 21002; State CEQA Guidelines § 15021(a)(2)). This principle, however,
does not require that a lead agency “adopt every nickel and dime
mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the EIR” (San
Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco
(1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). Instead, the scope of mitigation
measures is tempered by the “rule of reason” and the principle that the
goal of CEQA is to produce “informational documents” (Concerned
Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-178 July 2011
District (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 841). The goal of imposing mitigation
measures on a proposed action is to reduce potentially significant
impacts, not necessarily to eliminate all impacts (Pub. Res. Code §
21100(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)). Since mitigation
measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, no further
mitigation is required. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of
this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S32-5. This comment states that “the tracks were never engineered for
passenger trains.” While this comment is currently correct, the PVL
project includes track improvements throughout its length to make the
track suitable for commuter trains (see Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1). These
track improvements would upgrade the existing physical condition of the
rail line, which would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of
maintenance, and enhanced operational safety. Therefore, there are no
new impacts as a result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been
changed. The rest of this comment is informational and does not raise
specific environmental concerns. Therefore, no further response is
necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-179 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 33 - Dave Roddy
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Used to be a quiet cove echoes on the range.
>> All right, and next it will be Dave Roddy (phonetic) and he'll
be followed by Jens Christian (phonetic).
>> I lived at the top of Big Springs Road for 30 years --
approximately 70 to 100 feet from the tracks. And I -- well, many
speakers here already tonight have covered points on the
environmental assessment so I’ll provide some direct endlessly
repeated observations. When I was growing up, I used to think
that if the trains were running everything was right in the
world. Things have radically changed. So I've done an
Environmental Mitigation for 20 years professionally with two
degrees from UCR in Biology and Geology. And I've used them well.
And I've believed in ambiguous unempirical data and provable
evidence. So the screeching and squealing they're talking about
that's been enjoyed for the last 10 years. It's basically like
fingernails on a chalkboard through a sound system at a
PH3-S33-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-180 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 33 - Dave Roddy (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
hospital. Led Zeppelin would be impressed by it. So that goes
through everything in the house. The reason for this I've talked
in detail with many, many personnel BNSF, surveyors and other
staff. And the reason for this is mainly due to the radius of the
curvature is smaller than the length of the cars that they're
running. And they all uniformly agreed that it's basically greed
that propelled this. They could run shorter cars like they used
to. The first 20 years I lived there and this wasn't really a
problem. It really wasn't and it has been become. The horns are
insanely loud at all hours of the night. The quiet zone should
sort of have been established long ago. There's no real problem
with litigation or legal points. I mean, they should just be
truncated a long time ago. It's a half mile to the north of me
and it echoes throughout the hills exactly as these people have
indicated with the varying styles according to the varying
engineers. Sometimes they're pretty aggressive. It makes the
coyotes
PH3-S33-2
PH3-S33-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S33-3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-181 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 33 - Dave Roddy (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
howl all over the place out here and the dogs, too. The -- I've
got thousands of photographs -- nobody else does -- thousands of
photographs and thousands of audio recordings. Like I said I
believe in unempirical, provable evidence and it's not going to
be disputable. I have it all there including all the AAAGH as
they go by, you know, at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning,
let alone in the afternoon. So the thousands of photos and the
thousands of audio recordings are mostly of the thousands of
students literally probably 10,000 by now that I've observed
personally on the way to the city, hiking, partying. They use
those tracks. They loiter. They party. They use it as a right
away. It's not innocent stuff. Sometimes there's drug deals and
gun deals going on there. In 2008 of June or May through June it
was a full month of the security guard. I put my house up there
with that derailment of five cars. And there was corn spilled out
of them. But, of course, if it was something else it would be
PH3-S33-4
PH3-S33-3
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-182 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 33 - Dave Roddy (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
like we'd be dead. If it was something along the lines of
hazardous materials -- also they wiped out the habitat there that
was extended for thousands of years which is really sad to see.
There's really no way for increased philosophy here so I'm going
to be talk about high-speed trains moot. It's not appropriate for
the grade and for the way the tracks are configured. And it would
impact the habitat in ways that basically garner non-attention
much attention at least by our species. As people have already
stated sound walls and any other sound mitigation would be
inadequate and ineffective. It's just that straightforward. And
we just need a different, a rail technology apply if this is
really going to go through. The last point that I’d like to
attend is this safe crossing. I consider it a non-issue. I mean,
I know that some people feel they have legitimate points. I've
observed this literally 10,000. It's a 24/7 problem 365. Students
will be up there as much or more night hiking.
PH3-S33-4
(cont’d)
PH3-S33-5
PH3-S33-6
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-183 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 33 - Dave Roddy (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
And as the anonymously excessive pediatrician traffic during the
day they put my home in a marked street. They use that as a just
a proprietary self-entitled thoroughfare to go, you know, suit
themselves and do whatever they're going to do up there. And that
generally includes no respect for the environment. If you go up
there and you see there's groups of 20, 30, 40 sometimes and
they're all doing things generally in an inebriated state -- not
always but it's usually immature also. So the 10,000 students
there's not been a single incident where a kid got nailed. And
that the engineers come through and have to lay on their horn at
the students in front of my house, students get out of the way.
And if they're not getting out of the way it's because they’re
playing chicken with the train. And that's always intentional.
There's not been one single incident. So we can't really tunnel
under the tracks. We can't really preclude them from going by
across the tracks. That's just the way it is. That's practical
reality. And
PH3-S33-6
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-184 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 33 - Dave Roddy (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
like I said I've got the evidence. I've got thousands of photos
and thousands of audio recordings to exactly point out with an
out ambiguity what I'm telling you. So I’ll be happy to entertain
any -- if you'd like some of the evidence, I’ll be happy to give
it to you.
>> Anything you wish to present you can send to commission and
we’ll get a copy of it. So thanks Mr. Roddy. Christian and then
the final speaker, I believe, will be Abderomen Coaxial
(phonetic).
PH3-S33-6
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-185 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 33 – Dave Roddy
PH3-S33-1. As part of the project, wayside applicators are proposed to significantly
reduce the noise from wheel squeal at tight radius curves along the
project alignment (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4). The sounding of horns
at a rail grade crossing is required by the FRA. However, based on
technical guidance from the FTA, the Metrolink horns that would be used
as part of the proposed PVL project will not be as loud as the horns that
are currently sounded by freight trains. In addition, by shortening trains as
the speaker suggests, the number of PVL trains would have to actually
increase in order to support the same number of estimated future
passengers.
PH3-S33-2. See Master Response #1 – Quiet Zones.
PH3-S33-3. Concerning noise reflections and echoes off Box Springs Mountain, since
the face of the mountain is in general angled upward and not a smooth
surface, the train noise reflections would be dispersed sufficiently so as
not to add significant noise to proposed project operations.
PH3-S33-4. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master
Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. The PVL project will
improve overall track conditions so that both Metrolink and freight trains
can operate safely along the same alignment. The improved, rail, ties,
and ballast would improve safety, and reduce the potential for rail car
derailment. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are
no significant impacts and no mitigation is required for this issue. The
Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No new impacts as a
result of this comment were raised and no mitigation measures are
required.
PH3-S33-5. RCTC is proposing to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to south of
the City of Perris. This would be the extension of the existing 91 line from
downtown Los Angeles. RCTC is not proposing high-speed train service
along this corridor. If another agency is proposing high-speed train
service along the PVL corridor then they will have to have approval from
RCTC, the landowner.
The PVL project includes track improvements throughout its length to
make the track suitable for commuter trains (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.2.1). These track improvements would upgrade the existing
physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger
infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced operational
safety. Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment
and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S33-6. See Master Response #8 – Grade Crossings. If unauthorized people
enter the ROW, they are considered to be trespassing. This is true if
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-186 July 2011
people are “just” crossing the tracks, or if they are walking along the
tracks.
In general, noise barriers would not completely eliminate noise levels.
They are however, intended to mitigate project-induced noise so that
impacts as defined by CEQA are less than significant at noise sensitive
properties. Sound insulation is also proposed at several affected
properties where noise barriers are not feasible. The FTA recognizes
noise barriers as an effective and legitimate noise mitigation option (FTA
Manual, Section 6.8.3).
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf).
Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no impacts
and no mitigation is required. Additionally, there are no new impacts as a
result of this comment and the Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-187 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 34 - Jens Christian
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
like I said I've got the evidence. I've got thousands of photos
and thousands of audio recordings to exactly point out with an
out ambiguity what I'm telling you. So I’ll be happy to entertain
any -- if you'd like some of the evidence, I’ll be happy to give
it to you.
>> Anything you wish to present you can send to commission and
we’ll get a copy of it. So thanks Mr. Roddy. Christian and then
the final speaker, I believe, will be Abderomen Coaxial
(phonetic).
>> Thank you, Mr. Buster. I've lived at 119 Masters Avenue which
is maybe 1/2 mile from where that track runs through there. And I
would just like to echo the sentiment of everyone here today that
it's really become a serious quality of life issue for everybody
with the noise. There are countless times where I'm awaken at
night by trains and it's very, very annoying. And let's just put
it this way, you know, you guys work for us and no means no. And
we
PH3-S34-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-188 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 34 – Jens Christian (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
from the very beginning have been opposed to this. We don't need
any more rail traffic going through this area than what we
already have. So with that said remember you work for us. No
means no. Thank you.
>> Very good.
PH3-S34-1
(cont’d)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-189 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 34 – Jens Christian
PH3-S34-1. The impact of early morning PVL train operations was taken into
consideration in the noise assessment (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4).
Subsequently, the noise study conducted for the proposed PVL project
found that noise impacts as defined by the FTA Manual would not occur
for residences with the proposed mitigation measures. These measures
include noise barriers at selected locations and sound insulation for
specific properties (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.10-9 to 4.10-11). With respect
to the home on 119 Masters Avenue, according to the FTA Manual, noise
sensitive properties located 1,600 feet from a rail alignment do not require
consideration in a noise assessment (FTA Manual, Table 4-1). As a
result, no mitigation was required for the property at 119 Masters Avenue.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA Noise and Vibration Manual.pdf)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-190 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 35 - Abdurrahman Koksal
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> And our last speaker Mr. -- is it Coaxial?
>> Coaxial.
>> Coaxial, yes.
>> Good evening. My name is Laprama Coaxial (phonetic). I live at
304 Centers (phonetic) Drive. Since this project is on the plan,
I think, we should think (inaudible) about the system. I mean,
these are technologies -- these are all technologies we know
that. This is going to be for the future plan, for everybody, for
our kids. And my daughter goes (inaudible). My son is the
Highland Elementary School. I am concerned about their safety.
Okay, since
PH3-S35-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-191 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
Speaker 35 – Abdurrahman Koksal (cont’d)
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
everything is a nice project. Everything is ground, you know,
everybody's talking about. Let's take the worst case scenario
like what happened in the Gulf. I would end up like that my kids,
my wife, my life is not even to, you know, my house is not
inevitable to that. So another thing if you're all thinking that
this is such a system, I read the part sect essay let's say
there's a chlorine spill. How are we going to handle that one?
Okay, one time I work at the UCR and I was coming to home --
going to home. Mount Vernon was closed and Blaine Street was
closed. I want to go home. I cannot go my house. How does it
work? I mean, what kind of companies? I was thinking. How am I
to go home? My car is not airborne. I wait there. So I know
maybe it's a close thing but let's think about the true nature of
the system. So let's air pollution let's affected environment
and, you know, this good people that lives here. I want to
continue to live there. Thank you very much.
PH3-S35-1
(cont’d)
PH3-S35-3
PH3-S35-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-192 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
Speaker 35 – Abdurrahman Koksal
PH3-S35-1. See Master Response #3 – Derailment (General) and Master
Response #4 – Hazardous Materials Transport. The Draft EIR found no
significant, unmitigable impacts as a result of the PVL project. The project
does not increase safety risks. Instead, the PVL project would upgrade
the existing physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a
stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced
safety.
To increase the awareness of trains and increase safety Metrolink
provides “Operation Lifesaver,” a safety education program. Operation
Lifesaver provides age appropriate programs for communities and
schools within the Metrolink service area. For additional information
regarding the program, see the Draft EIR, Section 2.4.14. Please note
that Operation Lifesaver is not required as mitigation but is simply a
gesture of “good will” by RCTC to provide an additional safety measure.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
PH3-S35-2. This comment expresses concern regarding the fact that freight trains can
block every grade crossing in the UCR neighborhood. The PVL project’s
trains would be commuter trains of only a few cars. These trains are too
short to block more than a single crossing. Thus, even in the
unanticipated event that a project train stops in the neighborhood, there
would be no significant impact because only one of three ingress/egress
locations would be affected.
Additionally, with the implementation of the PVL project, the corridor will
become a shared corridor with the Metrolink and BNSF under control of
SCRRA. Due to the shared nature of the operations, it is not anticipated
that trains would be allowed to stop in areas of single track (including the
UCR neighborhood) because this would block other trains from passing
through. Instead, trains would stop in the areas where there is a bypass
track (between MP 7.50 to MP 16.90) and not in the UCR neighborhood.
Therefore, there are no new impacts as a result of this comment and the
Draft EIR has not been changed.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-193 July 2011
PH3-S35-3. Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR (and the accompanying Air Quality Technical
Report) outlines the measures used to calculate the expected emissions
due to the implementation of the PVL project. The air quality analysis for
the PVL accounted for all relevant project parameters and conditions and
ensured that the analysis was done in compliance with the most up-to-
date local, state, and federal air quality regulations and guidance. Tables
4.3-7 to 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR show that emissions projected for criteria
pollutants, local intersections (CO hotspots), greenhouse gases, mobile
source air toxics, construction activities and locomotive and parking
operations all fall below local thresholds of significance and state and
federal emissions standards.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-194 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Thank you.
>> That's our last speaker. I want to thank the audience for your
comments and everyone almost to all the 32 speakers that kept
them very brief and concise and yet added a lot of important
detail here tonight that I thinks really going to help these
commissioners. And we are going to convey back to our fellow
commissioners some of the sentiments here. And, of course, all
your comments have been recorded and we’re coming up in June --
is that right, Ms. Rosso? We’re going to have our hearing on
what's the date?
>> We haven't raised the document yet but it's tentative for the
end of June.
>> But that will be published in the newspaper when we have our
hearing. We'll get a final document on incorporating all these
comments and responses to these comments in June. Is that
correct?
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-195 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> No, in June will be the settled document.
>> Why don't you get a --
>> We’ll give you somewhat what the timeline is for the schedule
is for this process.
>> For this particular document the CEQA document -- the state
document -- it's scheduled for going December of 2010. What we’re
going to have in the meantime it's the release of the NEPA
document and that will be released sometime around the end of
June beginning of July. And then we’ll have another public
hearing for that document as well.
>> All right, thanks, maybe dividing my fellow -- you have a
question on the timeline?
>> Well, when is the time that we can see the things that have
been draft? These concerns expressed -- when will that be
answered? When will you come to us and say, "You
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-196 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
know what? We're not going to include this but we are going to
include that. What's that happen?
>> If you want to help me here, I think the comments from today
will be incorporated into the document where the document will be
available for approval in December of 2010.
>> The final document will address all the comments that
(inaudible). It would be like in about October is when that
document will be -- the commission will actually act upon the
schedule for the (inaudible).
>> Okay, coming up in the fall and if you'll leave your web site.
I know the notice for this hearing was in the newspaper last
week. (Unintelligible) not (unintelligible) too far in advance. I
know. I know. It's never a perfect science notification. But
certainly if you leave your names with us or (unintelligible), in
the office will make sure you're personally notified. And if you
know of any
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-197 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
other local organization or (unintelligible) schools any other
key businesses like that should be notified we'll try to make
that effort.
>> Can't people still comment on this through May 24th? I forgot
to ask, and I didn't get (unintelligible) did anybody comment on
no transit that (unintelligible) wiping out houses or the impact
of the brick falling?
>> Written comments will be taken through what date?
>> May 24th.
>> Through May 24th.
>> Is it noon on the 24th? Is that when they last take them?
>> 5 p.m.
>> By the close of business.
>> Mr. (Unintelligible).
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-198 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> For those of you who want to stay informed, check out the
University Neighborhood's web site that's
universityneighborhood.net/wordpress. Sign up, and you'll be on
the list and be notified of what happens from our point of view.
>> Okay, Mr. Block?
>> The staff has stated that the final day for receiving public
comments that will be accepted is May 24th and that presumably is
5 p.m. (unintelligible) RCTC web site (unintelligible) that
address. But I want to add that legally the commission is
required to consider all comments. It doesn't have to respond in
writing. Comments submitted by May 24th have to be responded to
in writing by the RCTC staff (unintelligible).
>> Sometimes you'll get an idea out of the comments or questions
in the response. And sometimes there are several iterations of
that like a tennis ball going over the net.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-199 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
And you'll think of something maybe the last day of the hearing,
and I've seen on some occasions that late information making a
real difference. Go ahead.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Go ahead. I forgot your name.
>> Beth Breaker.
>> Breaker.
>> In interests of transparency and availability of information
to the public, I'd like to make two suggestions for future
hearings held by this commission. One is to have key dates and
deadlines posted so that people who come into the meeting can
visually see that and write it down. Second is for members of the
commission and staff not to use acronyms and jargon, but rather
clearly state what CEQA and NEPA stand for because most members
of the public will not necessarily know the implications of those
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-200 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
(unintelligible). > Good points. Good points. Any further points?
Mr. (Unintelligible) quickly.
>> I'd like to ask everybody the look on your web site
highgrovehappenings.net. There's eight and a half years of
information there.
>> All right. We have a lot of good news broadcasters here. My
fellow commissioners, you want to make any comments? Mayor?
>> No.
>> I just want to thank everybody for keeping this an orderly
hearing. We're listening to everything that you said, and we're
glad that you said it in a calm and sophisticated manner. Thank
you.
>> Vice chairman (unintelligible), you want to make any comments.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-201 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> (Unintelligible) this has been a very good hearing and
certainly the largest in attendance and that's been good for us
too, to see that people are interested.
>> Supervisor Ashley?
>> We do appreciate the turn out and the comments were very, very
well prepared and well thought out. And I too -- I grew up in
living about 500 feet from the same railroad track and it went
through (unintelligible) and it was a lot busier then than it is
now. That was back when agriculture and all the potato sheds were
going. My family owned a potato shed, and we lived on the other
side of the tracks. And we had kids all over the place, and we
played with the railroad. We thought that was our
(unintelligible) no one was ever -- like I said we all stayed out
of the way. The only person I ever heard that was run over, there
was a beer joint in (unintelligible) dirt floor and very popular,
one of the old-time residents there, one that worked in the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-202 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
potato shed for my father and I, he was in his 70's. He had a
little bit too much to drink, and he was going home. You have to
get through a fence. They cut a hole in the fence to get a
shortcut. He got hit by the train. That's the only person I ever
heard about there that's affected by that. But still it's there.
All these comments are good. I mean, right now, where I live, I
live in Perris, and I live quite a ways away on the hill. And I
hear every train that's going by every time they toot their horn,
I hear it. Every night just like you do. And that's something we
got used to. It's like it didn't bother me. It's been part of me
forever it seems like. But I understand your comments. These are
real. And right now if we don't do anything -- if there is no
project, those freight trains keep going, and there's going to be
more of them. And that track is really -- not in the best shape
now. So whatever we do, we not only have to make sure, you know,
that the Metro Link is safe and quiet and health and safety is
addressed, but
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-203 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
we also have to make that existing situation significantly
better. I think that's where we really make a gain. So if we
don't do anything, you still have all -- most of the complaints
are about situations that already exist -- not about the project.
I mean, it's about the project too, but we have an existing
situation that has to be addressed and improved on as well. And
that's not going to go away no matter what we do. We don't have
control over that.
>> Commissioner (unintelligible).
>> Yes, I just wanted to thank you for coming and for your very
good remarks. And several of the things -- your problems were new
today. And I heard you. I listened to you. And I will be looking
into those. And I thank you very much for coming.
>> Our director Anne Mayer. You've been very courteously -- her
and her staff standing for all this time. Did you have any
concluding comments?
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-204 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
>> Just thank you for your participation.
>> And for me -- you really made vivid what I anticipated a
couple years ago. This is a very sticky wicket to get through.
With additional service you have this close conjunction
geographic and the physical here of this steep grade, the winding
track, the important facilities, the underground pipeline, and
the recent history pointed out and potential that we've seen in
the inland area whether Cajon Pass or any of the local tracks
here of serious incidents. Now it convinced me then that the
mitigation to reduce that to no significant impact was going to
be so expensive that it would be much better off and far quicker
to put in quick bus service, the fanciest buses available, called
"Bus Rapid Transit," it's the BRT is the acronym now, between
Perris and Riverside, much more flexible, could have been done to
10 to 15 million bucks at that time and to test out what the
actual demand was and encourage demand. And then as technology
improved we could make a
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-205 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
case to do what's necessary here in this very close knit
(unintelligible) grown up around the historic railroad tracks
which have always been at low levels of freight. Now, there have
been improvements. I mean we're talking about Positive Train
Control that ultimately -- supposedly the ultimate safety system
to separate the passenger rail -- freight rail from passenger
rail. That's coming. They've got the first allocation for that.
So whether or not we can say at this time that we're going to
have a net improvement in all these respects, primarily safety,
but also the other types of problems that have been illustrated
here tonight. Whether we can say if we're going to have a net
improvement with this project, with the addition of these
passenger trains and the (unintelligible) freight over the --
over if there were no project -- someone asked (unintelligible)
no project alternative would the growth in freight that could
occur -- there's some increase there already, I don't know. We
don't think that's going to be
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-206 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
that substantial, that will some in some industries that
(unintelligible) so there could be some. So whether or not we can
make that case that this will be a better community, safer
community, less environmental impacts because of this project
when it's all said and done, I can't say. What I can see is it's
going to be extremely expensive to do the things that are
necessary to reduce the impacts down to below these threshold
levels. And that's what I'm afraid about. So I'm kind of alone on
the commission. No one joined me a couple years ago. In fact, it
was (unintelligible) newspaper made the suggestion -- I think
there was a handful of people who called me -- I had no calls
from anyone in the city backing me up, you know, liked it or
otherwise. I had no calls from the school district supporting me
at that time. So maybe as the years have gone by, people begin to
realize this project is heading toward -- you know, trains are
going to start running, and there's federal money available to
fund a
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-207 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
substantial portion of it. And we're in the final stages of this
consideration, and yet this is the only first hearing where we've
got the full -- I mean you've really given us the full spectrum
of legitimate concerns in this one area. There's been other
concerns in -- but this one area compresses in the most vivid
form what the (unintelligible) is of modern -- particularly
modern rail, commuter rail in areas that have already been built
up. And whether we're going to be able to meet those challenges
with the measures we have and the money we've got in our pocket,
I doubt, I doubt. But this commission wants to go ahead with this
so it's my task I see to represent you -- try to insist on the
most comprehensive and more than adequate improvements and
mitigation in this area. So your testimony tonight has really
filled up -- as I said the spectrum -- legitimate spectrum of
concerns out of just this one area along this seven-mile route.
So we really
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
0.3.4.3 PUBLIC HEARING #3
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.4.3-208 July 2011
Public Hearing #3
May 17, 2010
4927 Arlington Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
951-779-0787 (V)
951-779-0980 (Fax)
www.QuickCaption.com
appreciate your coming tonight, and we'll look for any further
comments you have. And we stand adjourned.
>> Before you adjourn can you remind people who you five people
are? Some people don't know who you are and why you're sitting
there.
>> We introduce ourselves at the beginning of the meeting.
(End of tape)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.3.5 REFERENCES
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.3.5-1 July 2011
0.3.5 References
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), 2010. Employee Safety Programs.
Website accessed on October 27, 2010.
http://www.bnsfcorp.com/careers/pdf/EmployeeSafetyPrograms.pdf
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), 2010. Safety and Security. Website
accessed on October 27, 2010. http://www.bnsf.com/communities/safety-and-security/
Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), 2006. FTA Manual: Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, Office of Planning and Environment, May 2006.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manuarl.pdf
Kinder Morgan, 2010. Kinder Morgan Safety Brochures. Website accessed on October 27,
2010.
http://www.kindermorgan.com/public_awareness/AdditionalInformation/KMSafetyBrochures
.cfm
Kinder Morgan, 2010. Pipelines In Your Community. Website accessed on October 27, 2010.
http://www.kindermorgan.com/public_awareness/
Kinder Morgan, 2010. Pipeline Safety. Website accessed on October 27, 2010.
http://www.kne.com/ehs/pipeline_safety/
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2010. Website accessed
October 19, 2010. http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about/agency
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2010. Federal Hazardous
Materials Transportation Law: An Overview. Website accessed October 19, 2010.
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/Hazmat%20Law%20
Overview.pdf
Riverside County Transit Commission (RCTC), 2010. Safety and Security Management Plan for
the Perris Valley Line Project. Revision 1, September 1, 2010.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Fact Sheet: Localized Significance
Thresholds. Website http://www.aqmd.gov/localgovt/images/lst_fact_sheet.pdf
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 2010. Safety. Website accessed on:
October 26, 2010. http://www.metrolinktrains.com/safety/?id=3
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 2009. Southern California Regional Rail
Authority System Safety Program Plan.
Zeta-Tech, 2011. Analysis of Safety Issues for the Proposed Commuter Rail Service on the
Riverside County Transportation Commission’s Perris Valley Line in the Vicinity of Highland
and Hyatt Schools.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-1 July 2011
0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
0.4.1 Introduction and Summary
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097, public agencies are required to adopt a
monitoring or reporting program to assure that the mitigation measures and revisions identified
in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are implemented. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code:
“…the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes
made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate
or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the
decision maker coincidental to certification of the EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan (MMRP) must be adopted when making the findings (at the time of approval of the project).
As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097, “reporting” is suited to projects that have
readily measurable or quantitative measures or which already involve regular review.
“Monitoring” is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetland restoration
or archaeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee,
are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to
assure compliance. Both reporting and monitoring would be applicable to the proposed project.
The EIR prepared for the Perris Valley Line (SCH No. 2009011046) provided an analysis of the
environmental effects resulting from construction and operation of the project. A thorough
scientific and engineering evaluation of each alternative was undertaken in compliance with
CEQA, including the identification of measures designed to avoid or substantially reduce the
potential adverse effects of each alternative.
0.4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table
To track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix was prepared and
includes the following components:
• Mitigation measure
• Schedule
• Responsible for Mitigation
• Actions Taken to Implement Mitigation
• Verification
Mitigation measure timing of verification has been apportioned into several specific timing
increments. The mitigation matrix is included in Table 0.4-1. Of these, the most common are:
1. Prior to construction of the project
2. During construction of the project
3. During operation of the project
9AArabBBcpaicoapptttmfpBstoTaace92666/SDI10R11MitigAESTHETICS AS-1: To minimizresidential areas attenuating barriebe used. BIOLOGICAL REBR-1: The projecconduct pre-conspersonnel prior toactivities. At a minnclude a descriptconcern, its habitof the ESA and thadhere to the propenalties associaprovisions of the that are being imptarget species of the project, any pmovement, and thfrom project site bproject activities mBR-2: Equipmenstaging areas shathe risks of direct or other environmThe project speciappropriate constas drip pans, stracontrol anticipateetc.). 2/PVL FEIR gation Measure ze light spill over during constructioers or directed lighESOURCES ct biologist shall pstruction training fo any ground distunimum, the trainintion of the target ats, the general phe MSHCP, the nvision of the MSHated with violatingESA, the generalplemented to conconcern as they provisions for wildhe access routesboundaries withinmust be accomplnt storage, fuelingall be located to mdrainage into ripmentally sensitive fic SWPPP shall truction related Baw wattles, and sid pollutants (oils,into on, light hting shall Duprepare and for project urbing ng shall species of provisions eed to HCP, the the l measures nserve relate to life to and n which the ished. Pri and minimize arian areas habitats. identify MPs (such lt fence) to grease, PriconFINAL ENVIROTaMitigation MoniSchedule ring constructionor to constructionor to and during nstruction ONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-2able 0.4.2-1 itoring and RepoRespoMiti• Construcn • Construc• Project B• Construc• Project BREPORT 0.4orting Plan nsible for igation ction Manager ction Manager Biologist ction Manager Biologist MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiInstallation of tembarriers, or directlighting, at each lsensitive locationRCTC approves program prior to of construction On-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloITORING AND REPOken to tigation Vemporary ted light n training the start lance by Manager ogist ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9BlvdTtmsBedBcdpbdoCccsnphBpsrswPo92666/SDI10R11MitigBR-3: Stockpilingimited to disturbevegetation, areasdevelopment or inThese staging arethe project biologmore than 500 fesensitive areas. BR-4: “No-fuelingestablished at leadrainages and fireBR-5: The projecconstruction activdays per week thproject to ensure being employed tdisturbance of haof concern outsidConstruction moncompleted descriconstruction activshall be empowernecessary to confproper implementhabitat protectionBR-6: To avoid aprey upon protectshall be kept clearelated trash itemsealed containerswith regular trashPets of project peon site. 2/PVL FEIR gation Measure g of materials shaed areas without ns to be impacted bn non-sensitive heas shall be apprist, and shall be let from environmg zones” shall beast 10 meters (33e sensitive areasct biologist shall mvities at a minimuroughout the duramitigation measuto avoid incidentaabitat and any targe the project footnitoring reports shbing field conditiovities. The projectred to halt work afer with RCTC to tation of species n measures. attracting predatoted species, the pan of trash and dems shall be disposs and removed froh removal, at leasersonnel shall notall be native by project abitats. roved by ocated mentally Pricon e feet) from . Priconmonitor m of three ation of the ures are al get species tprint. hall be ons and t biologist activity if ensure the habitat and Duors that may project site ebris. Food sed of in om the site t weekly. t be allowed DuFINAL ENVIROSchedule or to and during nstruction or to and during nstruction uring constructionuring constructionONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-3RespoMiti• Construc• Project B• Construc• Project B • Construc• Project B • ConstrucREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager Biologist ction Manager Biologist ction Manager Biologist ction Manager MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloITORING AND REPOken to tigation Velance by Manager ogist lance by Manager ogist lance by Manager ogist lance by Manager ogist ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9BlwUTwFBpJipBsJBsdwtwtsbBsbsgombrb92666/SDI10R11MitigBR-7: If dead or ocated, initial notwithin three workiUSFWS Division Torrance Californwriting to the appField Office of theBR-8: Narrow Enpotential to occurJacinto River. If Ndentified 90% of preserved, as reqBR-9: There is aspadefoot toads wJacinto River BridBridge. A pre-conspadefoot toads sdays prior to site western spadefoothe designated cowestern spadefoothe construction ashall prepare a rebe approved by RBR-10: The MSHsurveys and precburrowing owls. Pshall be conducteground disturbancowls are found tomeasures will be burrowing owl nerelocation will occbe destroyed; afte2/PVL FEIR gation Measure injured listed spetification must be ing days, in writinof Law Enforcemnia, and by telephlicable jurisdictione USFWS, and thndemic Plants har in the areas neaNarrow Endemic Pthe population shquired in the MSH potential to impawith the work on tdge and Overflownstruction survey shall be conductedisturbance to deot toads are preseonstruction area. ot toads be identifarea, the project belocation programRCA prior to impleHCP requires bothconstruction survePre-construction sed within 30 days ce to avoid direct be present, the fimplemented: pristing season, pascur and active buer burrows are deecies are made ng to the ment in one and in n, Carlsbad e CDFG. Duve the ar the San Plants are hall be HCP. Duact western the San w Channel for western ed within 30 etermine if ent within Should fied within biologist m that shall ementation. Prih protocol eys for surveys prior to t take. If following ior to ssive rrows will estroyed, PriFINAL ENVIROSchedule uring constructionuring constructionor to constructionor to constructionONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-4RespoMiti • Construc• Project B • Construc• Project Bn • Construc• Project Bn • Construc• Project BREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager Biologist ction Manager Biologist ction Manager Biologist ction Manager Biologist MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiCopies of all communication wUSFWS and CDProject Biologist conduct the survconstruction Project Biologist conduct the survconstruction Project Biologist conduct the survconstruction ITORING AND REPOken to tigation Vewith FG to ey prior to to ey prior to to ey prior to ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9ahhbtBbaatunrBssTcc(ABlSttb(BaSrtw92666/SDI10R11Mitigartificial burrows whabitat that is conhabitat of affectedbe implemented tthe mitigation proBR-11: If nests abillboards locateda project biologistare active. If the bto be active, apprused until the birdnest shall be remregulatory agenciBR-12: There is southwestern willsouthern area of tTo avoid potentiaculvert work propcompleted outsid(May 15th to July Association (SAWBR-13: There is east Bell’s vireo iSprings Reserve.to nesting birds, cthis area shall be breeding season (SAWA, 2004). BR-14: The projearea. RCTC shallSKR for developmright-of-way. Thistime of the gradinwill include sites f2/PVL FEIR gation Measure will be created in ntiguous with the d owls; a monitorto monitor the sucogram. are identified at thd on the I-215 cort shall determine biologist determinropriate buffers shds have fledged aoved with the appies. a potential for imow flycatchers inthe Box Springs Ral impacts to nestiosed for this areae the bird breedin17th) [Santa Ana WA), 2004]. a potential for imin the southern a To avoid potenticulvert work propocompleted outsid(April 10th to Julyect is within the Sl pay $500 per acment outside the es fee shall be paidng permit submittafor the Citrus Consuitable foraging ing plan will ccess of he rridor, then if the nests nes a nest hall be and the proval of Priconpacts to the Reserve. ing birds, a shall be ng season Watershed Dupacts to rea of Box al impacts osed for de the bird y 31st) DuSKR Fee cre to the existing d at the al. The fee nnection, At peFINAL ENVIROSchedule or to and during nstruction uring constructionuring constructiontime of grading rmit submittal ONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-5RespoMiti• Construc• Project B • Construc • Construc• RCTC REPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager Biologist ction Manager ction Manager MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloReceipt for paymRiverside Countygrading permit issubmitted for appITORING AND REPOken to tigation Velance by Manager ogist lance by Manager ogist lance by Manager ogist ment to y when the s proval ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9HLBCSiTtc(BtpBtBpwc(BjaRac(bwot92666/SDI10R11MitigHunter Park StatiLayover Facility (BR-15: There is California hornedSouth Perris Statf the agricultural To avoid potentiathe ground prepaconducted outsid(March 1st to JulyBarbara, 2009) anthat no birds thenprior to constructiBR-16: There is the coastal CalifoBox Springs Canypotential impacts work proposed focompleted outsid(February 15th to BR-17: Prior to aurisdictional areaapproval from theRWQCB. The mitarea impacts will credits for perman(total of 0.085 acrbank. The temporwill be mitigated bon land owned bythe project area. 2/PVL FEIR gation Measure on, South Perris,approximately 65a potential for im lark in the area oion and the Layovfields are allowedal impacts to nestiration work shall e of the bird nesty 31st) (County of nd maintained to n use the area forion. a potential for imornia gnatcatcher yon Reserve. To to nesting birds, or this area shall be the bird breedinAugust 30th) (SAany construction ias, RCTC shall obe USACE, CDFG tigation for jurisdibe to purchase mnent impacts at ares) from a local mrary impacts, 0.33by restoration/enhy RCTC near or a and 5 acres). pacts to of the ver Facility d to fallow. ing birds, be ting season Santa ensure r nesting Dupacts to within the avoid culvert be ng season WA, 2004). Dumpacts to btain permit and the ctional mitigation a 1:1 ratio mitigation 35 acres, hancement adjacent to PriFINAL ENVIROSchedule uring constructionuring constructionor to constructionONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-6RespoMiti • Construc • Construcn • RCTC REPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager ction Manager MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloOn-going surveillthe Construction and Project BioloITORING AND REPOken to tigation Velance by Manager ogist lance by Manager ogist lance by Manager ogist ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9CCAd36teardiCscECctSdAAACmCLpamteT92666/SDI10R11MitigCULTURAL RESCR-1: A qualifiedAmerican monitordisturbing constru3.50 and 4.50, an6.50. These monito temporarily halequipment to exaassess significanrecommendationsdeemed approprinvestigate or mitCA-RIV-2384, CAsites shall be avoconstruction throuESA and delineatCR-2: Replacemculverts (MP 1.60two bridges (MP 2SJBL alignment sdetailed documenAmerican BuildingAmerican EngineAmerican LandscCR-3: Ground-dimonitored by a quCitrus ConnectionLayover Facility. Tpresent at locatioanticipated to be monitor shall havtemporarily halt oequipment to alloThe monitor shall2/PVL FEIR gation Measure SOURCES d archaeologist ar shall monitor grouction activities bend between MP 5itors shall have thlt or divert construamine potential rece, and offer s for the proceduate to either furthigate any adverseA-RIV-4497/H andoided during projeugh the establishted by exclusionament of four wood 0, 5.30, 6.11 and 20.70 and 20.80)shall be mitigatedntation according gs Survey/ Historering Record/ Hiscape Survey standisturbing activitiesualified paleontolon, South Perris StThe monitor shalns where excavadeeper than four e the authority toor divert constructw for removal of l be equipped to s nd Native ound etween MP .60 and he authority uction esources, res her e impacts. d AE-CB-2 ect ment of ary fencing. Dubox 18.10) and ) along the by to Historic ric storic dards. Pris shall be ogist at the tation and l also be ation is feet. The tion specimens. salvage DuFINAL ENVIROSchedule uring constructionor to constructionuring constructionONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-7RespoMiti • Construc• ArchaeoMonitor• Native AMonitorn • Construc• RCTC • Qualified • Construc• PaleontoMonitorREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager ological American fction Manager d Historian Action Manager ological wMITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement Mi Project Archaeolflag environmentsensitive areas (exclude construcactivities. The comonitoring activitdescribed in fieldmonitoring logs.A qualified historcomplete the HABS/HAER/HAdocumentation fosubmittal to the Information CentOn-going surveillthe Paleontologiswith activities docin daily log sheetITORING AND REPOken to tigation Ve ogist to tal ESA) to ction onstruction ties will be d rian will ALS or ter lance by st Monitor cumented ts ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9acstvTpdspBwsiacCrccapseriteCdpibse92666/SDI10R11Mitigany fossils uneartconstruction, andsediment samplethe remains of smvertebrates. To mitigate adverpaleontological reduring constructioshall be identifiedpreservation, andBernardino Countwith permanent restorage. A report temized inventoryaccompany the recuration and storaCR-4: In the everesources are encconstruction, groucease in the immarchaeologist (cupaleontologist (pashall be retained encountered, assrecommend a counvestigate and/oto those resourceencountered. CR-5: In the evediscovery of humproject constructin §15064.5(e) of be strictly followespecify that upon excavation or dist2/PVL FEIR gation Measure thed during proje shall be prepares that are likely tomall fossil invertebrse impacts to anesources encounton, recovered sped, prepared for ped curated at the Sty Natural Historyetrievable paleonof findings that iny of specimens secovered specimage. nt cultural or palecountered duringund-disturbing acediate area. A qultural resources) aleontological resto examine the msess significance,urse of action to fr mitigate adverses that have beennt that unanticipaan remains occuron, the procedurefthe CEQA Guided. These procedudiscovery, no furturbance of the sct ed to collect o contain brates and y tered ecimens ermanent San y Museum tological ncludes an hall ens for eontological ctivity shall ualified and/or sources) materials and further e impacts n Duated rs during es outlined elines shall ures rther ite or any DuFINAL ENVIROSchedule uring constructionuring constructionONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-8RespoMiti • Construc• ArchaeoMonitor PaleontoMonitor • Construc• ArchaeoMonitorREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager ological and/or ological ction Manager ological wMITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiOn-going surveillthe ArchaeologicMonitor/PaleontoMonitor with activdocumented in dsheets On-going surveillthe Archaeologicwith activities docin daily log sheetITORING AND REPOken to tigation Velance by cal ologist vities aily log lance by cal Monitor cumented ts ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9nacdAbcCNDrtawHHt••••••PsawC92666/SDI10R11Mitignearby area reasadjacent human rcounty coroner mdetermine if the reAmerican. If the rbe Native Americcontact the NativeCommission (NANAHC shall identDescendent (MLDrecommendationstreatment and disany associated grwith PRC §5097.9HAZARDS AND HHM-1: Soil conthe following loca• 6400 Fischer RAST release • 13260 HighwaUST release • 2 South D Strerelease • 24 D Street, Pe• 101 and 102 Sgasoline UST release • 210 West San gasoline and dPrior to constructshall occur and inanalysis, and drillwith and under thCounty Departme2/PVL FEIR gation Measure onably suspectedremains can occumust be contactedemains are Nativremains are detercan, the coroner se American HeritaHC) within 24 houtify the Most LikelD). The MLD shas for the approprisposition of the rerave goods in acc98. HAZARDOUS Mtamination is susations: Road, Riverside –ay 215, Riverside eet, Perris – gasoerris – gasoline USouth D Street, Perelease and wastJacinto Avenue, diesel UST releasion soil characterncludes sampling ling shall be coordhe guidance of theent of Environmend to overlie ur. The to e rmined to shall age urs. The y ll make ate emains and cordance MATERIALS spected at – diesel – gasoline oline UST UST releaseerris – te oil Perris – se rization and dinated e Riverside ntal Health. DuFINAL ENVIROSchedule uring constructionONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-9RespoMiti • ConstrucREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager wMITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement Mi Construction Masubmit soil sampanalysis to RCTCwhere soil will beITORING AND REPOken to tigation Ve nager to ple C for areas e disturbed ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9ResdfHptcdasdecwieTtMHaNNtD•••92666/SDI10R11MitigRCTC shall contrenvironmental cosoil has been samdisposed of propefederal regulationHHM-3: Prior to prepare a traffic mtraffic managemeconsultation with determine detour any closures, temsignage, coordinadepartments regaemergency accescomponent of thewith local emergedentify emergencevent of a wildlanThis traffic managthe traffic manageMitigation MeasuHHM-4: See Mitiabove. NOISE AND VIBRNV-1: Noise barrthe following locaDesign Drawings• NB 1: 10’ high 264+00 and St• NB 2: 13’ high 269+30 and St• NB 3: 9’ high a283+00 and St2/PVL FEIR gation Measure ract with a qualifiensultant to determmpled, characterizerly according to ns. construction RCTmanagement planent plan shall be plocal jurisdictionsroutes, length anmporary access roation with police aarding changes inss routes. An adde plan shall be cooency response agcy evacuation round fire near PVL fagement plan is thement plan requirre TT-4. igation Measure HRATION riers shall be consations (based on 3): and 530’ long beta. 269+30 and 570’ long beta. 275+00 and 680’ long betwta. 289+40 ed mine if the zed and state and TC shall n. The prepared in s to nd timing of outes, and fire n ditional ordinating gencies to utes in the acilities. e same as red by PriHHM-3 Pri structed at 30% etween Sta. etween Sta. ween Sta. PriFINAL ENVIROSchedule or to constructionor to constructionor to operation ONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-10RespoMitin• RCTC • Contractn • RCTC • Construc • RCTC • ConstrucREPORT 0.4nsible for igation tor ction Manager ction Manager wMITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiConstruction Manager/contracprepare plan prioconstruction and approval from RCto implementatio The ConstructionManager’s bid pawill be based on adherence to all specifications cathe Noise BarrierEngineering PlanITORING AND REPOken to tigation Vector to or to receive CTC prior n n ackage the lled for in r ns ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9••••••••••Nel(brttwbwsbte92666/SDI10R11Mitig• NB 4: 12’ high 289+40 and St• NB 5: 8’ high a297+70 and St• NB 6: 8’ high a303+00 and St• NB 7: 10’ high 322+00 and St• NB 8: 11’ high 331+00 and St• NB 9: 13’ high 323+40 and St• NB 10: 13’ higSta. 332+80 a• NB 11: 9’ high 336+00 and St• NB 12: 9’ high 339+10 and St• NB 13: 13’ higSta. 342+20 aNV-2: Based on engineering consocations and St. (eight properties tbarriers will not preduction. Improvthese properties bthe tracks with newell as caulking abuilding envelopewindows and instsolid-core doors, below the FTA imthan significant leeight properties s2/PVL FEIR gation Measure and 600’ long beta. 295+40 and 530’ long betwta. 303+00 and 800’ long betwta. 311+00 and 800’ long beta. 330+00 and 320’ long beta. 334+20 and 950’ long beta. 332+40 h and 250’ long bnd Sta. 334+80 and 310’ long beta. 339+10 and 310’ long beta. 342+20 h and 380’ long bnd Sta. 346+00 the topography atraints at seven rGeorge’s Episcototal), the use of rovide adequate ving the sound insby replacing windew sound-rated wand sealing gaps e, eliminating opetalling specially dewould reduce nompact criteria, andevels. Sound insushall be provided etween Sta. ween Sta. ween Sta. etween Sta. etween Sta. etween Sta. between etween Sta. etween Sta. between and residential pal Church noise noise sulation of dows facing windows, as in the erable esigned ise to d to less lation for at the PriFINAL ENVIROSchedule or to operation ONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-11RespoMiti• RCTC • ConstrucREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiConstruction Maprepare plan prioconstruction and approval from RCto implementatioITORING AND REPOken to tigation Venager to or to receive CTC prior n ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9f•••••••NoctaceaNPrA92666/SDI10R11Mitigfollowing location• Northeast cornWest Blaine SStreet) • Northeast cornMount Vernon View Drive) • Southwest corMount Vernon Mount Vernon • Northeast cornCitrus Street (1• Northeast cornSpruce Street Kentwood Driv• Southeast cornSpruce Street Drive) • St. George’s ENV-3: Ballast Maof a rubber (such cork or other typethat is placed undand rail. The ballaconcrete or asphaeffective. Ballast attenuation at freqNV-4: ResilientlyPads): This treatrubber pads placeA resiliently supp2/PVL FEIR gation Measure s: ner of the grade ctreet (619 West Bner of the grade cAvenue (116 Earner of the grade cAvenue (first homAvenue) ner of the grade c1027 Citrus Streener of the grade c(first two homes ve) ner of the grade c(first home on GlEpiscopal Church ats: A ballast matas shredded rube of resilient elastder the normal baast mat shall be palt layer to be momats can providequencies above 2y Supported Ties tment consists of ed underneath coorted tie system ccrossing at Blaine crossing at st Campus crossing at me on crossing at et) crossing at on crossing at lenhill t consists bber tires), tomer pad allast, ties, placed on a ost e 5 to 12 dB 25 to 30Hz. Priresties(Under-Tie resilient oncrete ties. consists of PribauseFINAL ENVIROSchedule or to operation, ifsiliently supporteds are not used. or to operation, ifllast mats are noted. ONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-12RespoMitif d • RCTC • Construcf t • RCTC • ConstrucREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager ction Manager MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiConstruction Maprepare plan prioconstruction and approval from RCto implementatioConstruction Maprepare plan prioconstruction and approval from RCITORING AND REPOken to tigation Venager to or to receive CTC prior n nager to or to receive CTC prior ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9cru*tm2iReejHTTMRmtrAsLtmTDReshsm92666/SDI10R11Mitigconcrete ties suprails are fastenedusing standard ra*Implementation bthe above describmeasures (NV-3 263+00 and 275+mpact predicted Riverside (affectinextending approxeastern side of thust south of SpruHighland ElemenTRANSPORTATTT-1: Cactus AvMoreno Valley/MaReduce north/soumaximum green tthe PM (5-6 PM) reduce delays forAvenue’s throughseconds, and impLOS from LOS F to LOS E with 72 maintaining LOS TT-2: SR-74 (4thDowntown Perris Reduce the maximeast/westbound Sseconds during thhour. The levels osouthbound D Strmovements, and 2/PVL FEIR gation Measure ported by rubber d directly to the coail clips. by RCTC of eithebed vibration mitigor NV-4) between+00 will eliminate in the UCR area ng a total of 14 hoximately 1,200 feehe proposed PVL uce Street and notary School). ION AND TRAFFenue at Old 215 arch Field Stationuthbound Old 215time to 15 secondanalysis hour. Thr westbound Cacth movement fromprove the overall with 146 secondsseconds of delayC for Old 215. h Street) at D StreStation) mum green time SR-74 left-turn phhe PM (5-6 PM) aof service for nortreet’s through/leftthe overall interspads. The oncrete ties er one of gation n Sta. the 2 VdB of omes et along the alignment orth of FIC (for n) 5’s ds during his will tus 240 to 116 intersection s of delay y, while DePrieet (for for the hase to 14 analysis th and t-turn ection, will DePriFINAL ENVIROSchedule esign or to operation esign or to operation ONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-13RespoMiti• RCTC • Construc• RCTC • ConstrucREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager Action Manager AMITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement Mito implementatioCity of Perris PubWorks/EngineeriAdministration Dimplement trafficactions. City of Perris PubWorks/EngineeriAdministration Dimplement trafficactions. ITORING AND REPOken to tigation Ven blic ng ivision to -related blic ng ivision to -related ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9bwhTrIemPmA*itftdmiaesriR2RiPtmpHo(92666/SDI10R11Mitigbe improved beyowithout the projechour with this mitiTT-3: Bonnie Driramps (for South Install a new traffeastbound Bonniemovement from LPM (5-6 PM) anamovement from LAM (6-7 AM) and*RCTC shall desimprovements, anthe affected jurisdfor the installationthe signals in condevelopment of thmitigation measumpacts of the proabove-mentionedeliminated (out ofsignificant impactremaining three lompacts are expeRedlands Avenue215 Off-Ramp, anRoad), traffic signnstalled by other PVL) as part of ththe project. Theremeasures will neeproposed PVL proHowever, in the eof these three loc(unrelated to the 2/PVL FEIR gation Measure ond future levels ct during the PM aigation measure. ive at southboundPerris Station) fic signal. This wile Drive’s right-turLOS F to LOS B dlysis hour and lefLOS F to LOS C d PM analysis hougn the above-prond execute agreedictions to providen of the signals ornjunction with the he project. With thres in place, the soposed project atd intersections wilf the six locationsts are expected). ocations where scted (San Jacintoes, SR-74 at northnd SR-74 at Shernals are planned tprojects (unrelathe future conditionefore, no mitigatioed to be implemeoject at these inteevent that the signcations by other pPVL) does not ocof service analysis d I-215 l improve rn during the ft-turn during the urs. oposed ements with e funding r to install hese significant t the three l be s where At the ignificant o and hbound I-rman to be ted to the n without on ented by the ersections. nalization projects ccur prior to DePriFINAL ENVIROSchedule esign or to operation ONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-14RespoMiti• RCTC • ConstrucREPORT 0.4nsible for igation ction Manager AMITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiConstruction Madesign the propoand receive apprRCTC and/or PuWorks/EngineeriAdministration Dprior to implemenITORING AND REPOken to tigation Venager to osed signal roval from blic ng ivision ntation. ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
9tiaPTmjttdpagpctccc 92666/SDI10R11Mitigthe 2012 openingnstallation of traffadditional locationPVL project featuTT-4: RCTC shamanagement planurisdictions to mitraffic levels of setraffic managemedetours; coordinaprojects (if applicaany street closuregrade crossing clpolice and fire dechanges in emergtemporary accesscommercial propecontact informatiocontractors. 2/PVL FEIR gation Measure g year of the PVL,ffic signals at thesns will be incorpoures. all develop a trafficn in consultation winimize impacts toervice. At a miniment plan shall addation with other coable); length and es; length and timosures; coordinatpartments regardgency access rous routes and signerties are affectedon for RCTC and , the se orated as c with local o existing mum, the ress: onstruction timing of ming of any tion with ding utes; age if any d; and its PriFINAL ENVIROSchedule or to constructionONMENTAL IMPACT 0.4-15RespoMitin • RCTC • ContractREPORT 0.4nsible for igation tor MITIGATION MONIActions TakImplement MiConstruction Manager/contracprepare plan prioconstruction and approval from RCto implementatioITORING AND REPOken to tigation Vector to or to receive CTC prior n. ORTING PLAN July 2011 erification
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 April 5, 2010
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
State Clearinghouse No. 2009011046
VOLUME 2 OF 2
Prepared for:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Prepared by:
and
Kleinfelder
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 320-2000
STV Incorporated
9130 Anaheim Place, Suite 210
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
(909) 484-0660
April 5, 2010
Revised: July 2011
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 i of xiii April 5, 2010
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ................................ 1-1
1.2 EIR ADEQUACY ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR .......................................................................... 1-2
1.4 EIR PROCESS ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 DRAFT EIR REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................................... 1-3
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS ............................................................................ 1-5
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................ 2-1
2.2 PROJECT AREA BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 2-3
2.3 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................. 2-9
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 2-11
2.4.1 Track Improvements ........................................................................................ 2-14
2.4.2 Stations and Other Facilities ........................................................................... 2-15
2.4.3 Acquisitions and Relocations .......................................................................... 2-34
2.4.4 Culvert Replacement and Extension ............................................................... 2-43
2.4.5 Bridge Replacements ...................................................................................... 2-43
2.4.6 Grade Crossings ............................................................................................. 2-43
2.4.7 Communication Systems ................................................................................. 2-48
2.4.8 Noise Barriers .................................................................................................. 2-48
2.4.9 Landscape Walls ............................................................................................. 2-48
2.4.10 Construction .................................................................................................... 2-49
2.4.11 Operations ....................................................................................................... 2-50
2.4.12 Maintenance .................................................................................................... 2-51
2.4.13 Freight Usage .................................................................................................. 2-51
2.4.14 SCRRA/Metrolink Operation Lifesaver ............................................................ 2-53
2.4.15 Positive Train Control ...................................................................................... 2-53
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 RCTC Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 3-2
3.1.3 CEQA Guidelines .............................................................................................. 3-3
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 3-3
3.2.1 No Project Alternative ........................................................................................ 3-9
3.2.2 Express Bus Alternative .................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.3 New Commuter Rail Alternatives .................................................................... 3-10
3.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 3-12
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.1.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.1-4
4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.1-7
4.1.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................... 4.1-7
4.1.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.1-21
4.1.6 Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................... 4.1-21
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.2-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ii of xiii April 5, 2010
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.2-2
4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.2-6
4.2.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................... 4.2-6
4.2.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.2-12
4.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.3-7
4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 4.3-13
4.3.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................. 4.3-14
4.3.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.3-31
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................ 4.4-14
4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 4.4-18
4.4.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................. 4.4-19
4.4.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.4-26
4.4.6 Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................... 4.4-28
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.5-5
4.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.5-9
4.5.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................. 4.5-10
4.5.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.5-15
4.5.6 Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................... 4.5-16
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................ 4.6-11
4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 4.6-15
4.6.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................. 4.6-15
4.6.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.6-18
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................. 4.7-1
4.7.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.7-4
4.7.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 4.7-10
4.7.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................. 4.7-11
4.7.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.7-18
4.7.6 Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................... 4.7-19
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY ................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.8-2
4.8.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.8-9
4.8.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................. 4.8-10
4.8.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.8-20
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.9-5
4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 4.9-9
4.9.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................... 4.9-9
4.9.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.9-13
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION .............................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................. 4.10-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 iii of xiii April 5, 2010
4.10.2 Regulations ................................................................................................. 4.10-22
4.10.3 Thresholds of Significance ......................................................................... 4.10-26
4.10.4 Project Impacts ........................................................................................... 4.10-27
4.10.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4.10-39
4.10.6 Mitigation Summary .................................................................................... 4.10-43
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................. 4.11-1
4.11.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................. 4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.11-11
4.11.3 Thresholds of Significance ......................................................................... 4.11-12
4.11.4 Project Impacts ........................................................................................... 4.11-12
4.11.5 Future Conditions ....................................................................................... 4.11-40
4.11.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4.11-40
4.11.7 Mitigation Summary .................................................................................... 4.11-41
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................. 4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................ 4.12-3
4.12.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 4.12-6
4.12.4 Project Impacts ............................................................................................. 4.12-7
4.12.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 4.12-9
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................... 5-1
5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ....................................................................... 5-2
5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................... 5-2
5.3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.2 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.5 Cultural Resources: ........................................................................................... 5-7
5.3.6 Geology and Soils: ............................................................................................ 5-7
5.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: ................................................................... 5-7
5.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality: ........................................................................... 5-7
5.3.9 Land Use and Planning: .................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.10 Noise: ................................................................................................................ 5-9
5.3.11 Utilities and Service Systems: ........................................................................... 5-9
5.3.12 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................... 5-11
5.3.13 Construction Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-11
6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ........................................................................... 6-1
6.1 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................... 6-1
6.3 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................... 6-1
6.4 RECREATION .................................................................................................... 6-2
7.0 REPORT PREPARATION ............................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 LEAD AGENCY .................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 REPORT PREPARERS ..................................................................................... 7-1
8.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 8-1
9.0 INDEX ........................................................................................................................................... 9-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 iv of xiii April 5, 2010
TABLES
Table ES.4-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measure .............................................. ES-6
Table 1.6-1 Agency Actions and Approvals ........................................................................ 1-5
Table 2.4-1 PVL Parcel Acquisitions ................................................................................ 2-35
Table 2.4-2 Preliminary Opening Year Operations Schedule ........................................... 2-50
Table 3.3-1 Comparison of Alternatives to Proposed Project LPA ................................... 3-13
Table 4.2-1 LESA Model Scoring Thresholds .................................................................. 4.2-4
Table 4.2-2 Farmland Designations of the PVL Project Components ............................. 4.2-7
Table 4.2-3 Final LESA Scoresheet for the PVL project ................................................ 4.2-10
Table 4.3-1 Regional Criteria Pollutants Attainment Status 2009 .................................... 4.3-3
Table 4.3-2 2006-2008 Air Quality Summary for Project Area Monitoring
System .......................................................................................................... 4.3-4
Table 4.3-3 2008 Emission Inventory for Riverside County - South Coast Air
Basin (Tons per Day) .................................................................................... 4.3-5
Table 4.3-4 Ambient Air Quality Standards 2009 ............................................................ 4.3-9
Table 4.3-5 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ........................................... 4.3-12
Table 4.3-6 Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)Threshold ...................................................... 4.3-13
Table 4.3-7 Local Area Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis ..................................... 4.3-17
Table 4.3-8 Parking Lot Carbon Monoxide Analysis ...................................................... 4.3-18
Table 4.3-9 Calculated Risk at Point of Greatest Concentration ................................... 4.3-21
Table 4.3-10 Greenhouse Gas Qualitative Assessment .................................................. 4.3-23
Table 4.3-11 Perris Valley Line Predicted Daily Construction Emissions (lbs) ................ 4.3-26
Table 4.3-12 2012 Net Change in Operational Emissions (in pounds per day) ............... 4.3-29
Table 4.4-1 Cores and Linkages related to PVL .............................................................. 4.4-4
Table 4.4-2 MSHCP Cell Number Conservation Criteria ................................................. 4.4-5
Table 4.4-3 Jurisdictional Areas of Impact..................................................................... 4.4-24
Table 4.6-1 SJBL Alignment Soil Mapping Units ............................................................. 4.6-6
Table 4.6-2 Summary of Significant Faults ...................................................................... 4.6-8
Table 4.6-3 Approximate Distance to Nearest Faults (Miles) .......................................... 4.6-8
Table 4.8-1 Surface Water Beneficial Uses within the Project Area ................................ 4.8-6
Table 4.8-2 Groundwater Beneficial Uses within the Project Area .................................. 4.8-6
Table 4.9-1 Land Uses Adjacent to the PVL .................................................................... 4.9-2
Table 4.10-1 Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas .................................................... 4.10-2
Table 4.10-2 Allowable Transit Noise Level Increases (Ldn and Leq in dBA) .................... 4.10-6
Table 4.10-3 Summary of Noise Measurements (2002) .................................................. 4.10-9
Table 4.10-4 Summary of Noise Measurements (2005) ................................................ 4.10-12
Table 4.10-5 Noise Monitoring Locations for Detailed Noise Assessment
2008/2009................................................................................................. 4.10-13
Table 4.10-6 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact
Criteria for General Assessment .............................................................. 4.10-17
Table 4.10-7 Summary of Vibration Measurements (2005) ........................................... 4.10-18
Table 4.10-8 City of Riverside – Exterior Noise Standards ........................................... 4.10-25
Table 4.10-9 Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses for
Riverside ................................................................................................... 4.10-28
Table 4.10-10 Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses for
Perris ........................................................................................................ 4.10-30
Table 4.10-11 Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 3 Land Uses ..................... 4.10-31
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 v of xiii April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-12 Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 2
(Residential) Land Uses for Riverside ...................................................... 4.10-34
Table 4.10-13 Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 2
(Residential) Land Uses for Perris ............................................................ 4.10-34
Table 4.10-14 Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 3
(Institutional) Land Uses ........................................................................... 4.10-35
Table 4.10-15 Summary of Wheel Squeal Locations ...................................................... 4.10-36
Table 4.10-16 Proposed Noise Barrier Locations ............................................................ 4.10-41
Table 4.11-1 Level of Service Descriptions ................................................................... 4.11-10
Table 4.11-2 AM and PM Analysis-Hour Ridership ....................................................... 4.11-17
Table 4.11-3 Modal Split of Passengers for the AM Peak Period .................................. 4.11-18
Table 4.11-4 Auto-Trip Generation (Number of Vehicles) ............................................. 4.11-18
Table 4.11-5 Hunter Park Station Options 2012 Future Levels of Service with
the Project ................................................................................................ 4.11-21
Table 4.11-6 Moreno Valley/March Field Station 2012 Future Levels of
Service with the Project ............................................................................ 4.11-27
Table 4.11-7 Downtown Perris Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the
Project ...................................................................................................... 4.11-29
Table 4.11-8 South Perris Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the
Project ...................................................................................................... 4.11-32
Table 4.11-9 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures .......................... 4.11-36
Table 4.11-10 Station Parking Lot Capacities ................................................................. 4.11-40
Table 4.12-1 Existing Grade Crossings ........................................................................... 4.12-2
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 vi of xiii April 5, 2010
FIGURES
Figure ES.2-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ............................................................................ ES-4
Figure 2.1-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ............................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2.4-1 PVL Corridor Mile Posts ................................................................................ 2-12
Figure 2.4-2 Riverside Downtown (Existing) Station .......................................................... 2-13
Figure 2.4-3 Track Improvements ...................................................................................... 2-16
Figure 2.4-4 Citrus Connection .......................................................................................... 2-17
Figure 2.4-5 Citrus Connection Engineering Site Plan ...................................................... 2-18
Figure 2.4-6 Typical Station Features for ADA Mobility ..................................................... 2-19
Figure 2.4-7 Typical Views of Platform and Canopy Structure .......................................... 2-20
Figure 2.4-8 Hunter Park Station Options .......................................................................... 2-22
Figure 2.4-9 Hunter Park Station Palmyrita Avenue Option Engineering Site
Plan ............................................................................................................... 2-23
Figure 2.4-10 Hunter Park Station Columbia Avenue Option Engineering Site
Plan ............................................................................................................... 2-24
Figure 2.4-11 Hunter Park Station Marlborough Avenue Option Engineering
Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 2-25
Figure 2.4-12 Moreno Valley/March Field Station ................................................................ 2-26
Figure 2.4-13 Moreno Valley/March Field Station Engineering Site Plan ............................ 2-27
Figure 2.4-14 Downtown Perris Station ............................................................................... 2-28
Figure 2.4-15 Downtown Perris Station Engineering Site Plan ............................................ 2-29
Figure 2.4-16 South Perris Station ....................................................................................... 2-30
Figure 2.4-17 South Perris Station Engineering Site Plan ................................................... 2-31
Figure 2.4-18 Layover Facility .............................................................................................. 2-32
Figure 2.4-19 Layover Facility Engineering Site Plan .......................................................... 2-33
Figure 2.4-20 [Revised] Citrus Connection Parcel Acquisition ............................................ 2-37
Figure 2.4-21 [Revised] Hunter Park Station Parcel Acquisition .......................................... 2-38
Figure 2.4-22 [Revised] Moreno Valley/March Field Station Parcel Acquisition .................. 2-39
Figure 2.4-23 [Revised] South Perris Station and Layover Facility Parcel
Acquisition ..................................................................................................... 2-40
Figure 2.4-24 [Revised] Street Improvements Parcel Acquisition ........................................ 2-41
Figure 2.4-25 [Deleted] San Jacinto Avenue Improvements Parcel Acquisition .................. 2-42
Figure 2.4-26 Bridge and Culvert Improvement Locations .................................................. 2-45
Figure 2.4-27 San Jacinto River Bridges ............................................................................. 2-46
Figure 2.4-28 PVL Grade Crossing Improvements and Closures ........................................ 2-47
Figure 3.2-1 2004 Alternatives Analysis - Express Bus Alternative ..................................... 3-5
Figure 3.2-2 2004 Alternatives Analysis - Commuter Rail Alternative with New
Connection to UP RIL ...................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.2-3 2004 Alternatives Analysis - Commuter Rail Alternative with
Highgrove Turnback ........................................................................................ 3-7
Figure 3.2-4 Locally Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail with Citrus
Connection ...................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 4.1-1 Scenic Vista Locations ................................................................................. 4.1-2
Figure 4.1-2 Scenic Routes .............................................................................................. 4.1-5
Figure 4.1-3 Communication Tower Locations ............................................................... 4.1-11
Figure 4.1-4 [Revised] Landscape Wall Locations.......................................................... 4.1-15
Figure 4.2-1 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................. 4.2-8
Figure 4.2-2 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................. 4.2-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 vii of xiii April 5, 2010
Figure 4.3-1 Air Quality Monitoring and Modeling Locations .......................................... 4.3-16
Figure 4.4-1 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Cores and Linkages ................ 4.4-3
Figure 4.4-2 Stephens‘ Kangaroo Rat Habitats and Reserves ......................................... 4.4-7
Figure 4.4-3 Habitat and Vegetation Types ...................................................................... 4.4-8
Figure 4.4-4 Habitat and Vegetation Types at Station Sites ............................................. 4.4-9
Figure 4.4-5 Habitat and Vegetation Types at Station Sites ........................................... 4.4-10
Figure 4.4-6 MSHCP Criteria Cells ................................................................................. 4.4-21
Figure 4.6-1 PVL Corridor Geology .................................................................................. 4.6-2
Figure 4.6-2 PVL Corridor Soils ........................................................................................ 4.6-5
Figure 4.6-3 Regional Faults............................................................................................. 4.6-7
Figure 4.6-4 Liquefaction Potential ................................................................................. 4.6-10
Figure 4.7-1 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern ................................................... 4.7-6
Figure 4.8-1 FEMA Zones for FIRM Panels C0065G, C0727G, and C0731G ............... 4.8-18
Figure 4.8-2 FEMA Zones for FIRM Panel C1440G ....................................................... 4.8-19
Figure 4.10-1 Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels ............................................... 4.10-3
Figure 4.10-2 Allowable Transit Noise Increases ............................................................. 4.10-5
Figure 4.10-3 Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations - North .................................... 4.10-10
Figure 4.10-4 Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations - South ................................... 4.10-11
Figure 4.10-5 Typical Vibration Levels ............................................................................ 4.10-15
Figure 4.11-1 Hunter Park Station Options Traffic Study Locations ................................. 4.11-3
Figure 4.11-2 Moreno Valley/March Field Station Traffic Study Locations ....................... 4.11-4
Figure 4.11-3 Downtown Perris Station Traffic Study Locations ....................................... 4.11-5
Figure 4.11-4 South Perris Station Traffic Study Locations .............................................. 4.11-6
Figure 5.3-1 Projects Near PVL Corridor ........................................................................... 5-10
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 viii of xiii April 5, 2010
APPENDICES (located on enclosed CD)
Appendix A Draft IS/MND Comment Matrix
Appendix B Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Checklist
Appendix C Grade Crossing Modifications Table
Appendix D LESA Model Calculations
Appendix E Agency Communication Log
TECHNICAL REPORTS (located on enclosed CD)
A San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis
B Air Quality Technical Report
C Noise and Vibration Technical Report
D Traffic Technical Report
E Habitat Assessment Report
F Jurisdictional Determination
G Hazardous Materials Corridor Study – SJBL Segment
H Zeta Tech Report
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ix of xiii April 5, 2010
AA Alternatives Analysis
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AE Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
AGR Agricultural Supply
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AP Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APZ Accident Potential Zone
AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
AST Above Ground Storage Tank
AT&SF Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad
BFE Base Flood Elevation
BMP Best Management Practices
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFFP California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDWR California Department of Water Resources
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act
CETAP Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGP Construction General Permit
CGS California Geologic Survey
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CP Control Point
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plans
dB Decibel
dBA A-Weighted Decibel
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 x of xiii April 5, 2010
EDR Environmental Database Report
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FR Federal Register
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GBN Ground-Borne Noise
GBV Ground-Borne Vibration
GCOR General Code of Operating Rules
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWR Groundwater Recharge
HABS Historic American Buildings Survey
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HALS Historic American Landscape Survey
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HMCS Hazardous Materials Corridor Study
HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
I-215 Interstate 215
IB Inbound side of track
ICBO International Conference of Building Officials
IND Industrial Service Supply
IS Initial Study
JPA March Joint Powers Authority
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LA Union Station Los Angeles Union Station
Ldn Day-night average sound level
Leq Equivalent noise level
Leq(h) Hourly value of equivalent noise level
LESA Land Evaluation Site Assessment
LOS Level of Service
LPA Locally Preferred Alternative
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 xi of xiii April 5, 2010
MAFB March Air Force Base
MARB March Air Reserve Base
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDP Master Drainage Plan
MF Multi-Family Residence
MFA Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc.
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MP Mile Post
mph Miles per hour
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MSAT Mobile-Source Air Toxics
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NCSS National Cooperative Soil Survey
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxide
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
OB Outbound Travel
O&M Operating and Maintenance
Pb Lead
PM10 and PM2.5 Particulate Matter
POAQC Projects of Air Quality Concern
ppm Parts per Million
PRC Public Resources Code
PRPA Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
PROC Industrial Process Supply
PTC Positive Train Control
PVL Perris Valley Line
PVRWRF Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 xii of xiii April 5, 2010
RCA Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority
RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
RCDEH Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
RCIP Riverside County Integrated Project
RCLIS Riverside County Land Information System
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
REC-1 Water Contact Recreation
REC-2 Non-contact Recreation
ROC Reactive Organic Compounds
ROW Right-of-way
RPUD Riverside Public Utilities Department
RPWD Riverside Public Works Department
Rte Route
RTA Riverside Transit Agency
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAWA Santa Ana Watershed Association
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority
SF Single-Family
SFHAs Special Flood Hazard Areas
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJBL San Jacinto Branch Line
SKR Stephens‘ Kangaroo Rat
SPWN Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development
SR State Route
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TCWG Transportation Conformity Working Group
TLMA Riverside County Transportation & Land Management Agency
UBC Uniform Building Code
UCR University of California, Riverside
UP RIL Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 xiii of xiii April 5, 2010
USC United States Code
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VdB Vibration Decibels
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
vph Vehicles per hour
WARM Warm Freshwater Habitat
WILD Wildlife Habitat
WMWD Western Municipal Water District
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-1 April 5, 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary identifies the type of document, the proposed project including
location, the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and summary of impacts and
mitigation for the proposed Perris Valley Line (PVL) project. Note, the summary of impacts and
mitigation is an overview of mitigation proposed for the project and is not the Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Plan.
ES.1.0 Document Identification
This EIR is to serve as a public disclosure document which would inform responsible agencies,
decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects anticipated with the
adoption and implementation of the PVL project. It depicts the project alternatives (including the
No Project Alternative), documents the project‘s potential environmental effects pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and proposes mitigation
measures, as applicable.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] 3 §15000 et seq.). Per Public Resource Code (PRC) §21067 of the CEQA
Statute and 14 CCR §15367 and §§15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the ―Lead Agency.‖ The Lead Agency
is ―the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as
a whole.‖ As the Lead Agency, RCTC has the authority to adopt the proposed PVL project and
implement appropriate mitigation measures, as required, to reduce significant impacts.
It should be noted, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and
circulated for public review and comment in January 2009. After careful consideration of public
comments received, RCTC decided to discontinue the IS/MND process and instead, prepare an
EIR. The EIR process was initiated with the publication of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on
July 14, 2009 (Appendix B, Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Checklist). The project
described in the NOP included construction of a 4th track along the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) Line. Subsequently, it was determined the 4th track was not needed for the PVL to
operate, so the additional track has been removed from the project.
The proposed project must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the NEPA Lead Agency and is preparing a
Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the project.
ES.2.0 Proposed Project
RCTC proposes to extend 24 miles of commuter rail service from the existing Riverside
Downtown Station to the cities of Moreno Valley and Perris in western Riverside County,
California. This new rail extension, known as the PVL, would be operated by the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), the operators of the SCRRA/Metrolink commuter
rail system. The PVL would be created by using the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) and San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) rail corridors with a new connection, as shown in
Figure ES.2-1.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-2 April 5, 2010
In the city of Riverside, the PVL would connect to the existing Riverside Downtown Station from
the existing BNSF right-of-way (ROW), an approximately three-mile segment of rail currently
operating with freight and commuter service. From the BNSF, the PVL would operate on a new
curved rail segment, known as the ―Citrus Connection,‖ which would connect the BNSF and the
SJBL. The Citrus Connection would be constructed on property to be acquired, located north of
Citrus Street and Springbrook Wash in the city of Riverside. The eastern end of the Citrus
Connection would link to the existing 21-mile SJBL alignment and extend south to the city of
Perris. The PVL project would be supplemented with limited acquisition of properties to create
support facilities, including station areas and a Layover Facility. It is anticipated that the PVL
project would offer commuter rail service starting in 2012 with stations at Hunter Park, Moreno
Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris, and South Perris.
ES.3.0 Purpose of an Environmental Impact Report
The purpose of an EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a
project. CEQA states that the purpose of an EIR is to: (1) inform the public and decision -
makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project; (2) identify methods that could
reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts of a project ; and (3) identify alternatives
that could reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts or propose more effective use
of the project site.
The principal use of this EIR is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed project. An EIR is an informational
document and is not intended to determine the merits of, or recommend approval or disapproval
of a project. Ultimately, RCTC decision-makers must weigh the environmental effects of a
project among other considerations, including planning, economic, and social concerns.
The standards of adequacy of an EIR, defined by §15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as
follows:
―An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient level of analysis to provide decision-makers
with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect of the proposed
project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of
what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the
experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and
good faith effort at full disclosure.‖
This EIR is comprised of nine chapters:
Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Chapter 2.0 – Proposed Project
Chapter 3.0 – Project Alternatives
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis
Chapter 5.0 – Other Environmental Considerations
Chapter 6.0 – Effects Found Not to be Significant
Chapter 7.0 – Report Preparation
Chapter 8.0 – References
Chapter 9.0 – Index
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
ES.2-1
92666
12/8/09
JP
RM
92666vicEIR_ES.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
CALIFORNIA
PROJECT
AREA
"
LEGEND
!R
!R
Hunter Park
HUNTER PARK STATION OPTIONS
COLUMBIA
(WEST SIDE)
MARLBOROUGH
(WEST SIDE)
PALMYRITA
(EAST SIDE)
Citrus Connection
NOTE: ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED SITES WILL BE SELECTED
10120.5
Miles ±BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
SITE BOUNDARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-4 April 5, 2010
ES.4.0 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts, and
recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis. Table
ES.4-1 summarizes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance
after mitigation associated with the PVL project.
Table ES.4-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measure
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
Aesthetics
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to create
a new source of
substantial light or
glare, which would
adversely affect
day or nighttime
views in the area.
Potentially
significant
AS-1:
In order tTo limit minimize light spill over into
residential areas during construction, light
attenuating barriers or directed lighting will
shall be used.
No Impact
Agricultural Resources
Implementation of
the project would
not result in any
significant impacts
to agricultural
resources.
No Impact No significant impacts to agricultural resources
were identified; therefore, no mitigation is
required.
No Impact
Air Quality
Implementation of
the project would
not result in any
significant impacts
to air quality.
No Impact No significant impacts to air quality were
identified; therefore, no mitigation is required.
No Impact
Biological Resources
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to have a
substantial
adverse effect,
either directly or
through habitat
modifications, or
any species
identified as a
candidate,
sensitive, or
special-status
species in local or
regional plans,
Potentially
significant
BR-1:
A The project biologist shall prepare and
conduct pre-constructiona training session for
all project personnel prior to any
grading/constructionground disturbing
activities. At a minimum, the training shall
include a description of the target species of
concern, its habitats, the general provisions of
the ESA and the MSHCP, the need to adhere
to the provision of the MSHCP, the penalties
associated with violating the provisions of the
ESA, the general measures that are being
implemented to conserve target species of
concern as they relate to the project, any
provisions for wildlife movement, and the
No Impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-5 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
policies, or
regulations by
CDFG or USFWS
access routes to and from project site
boundaries within which the project activities
must be accomplished.
BR-2:
Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas
will shall be located to minimize the risks of
direct drainage into riparian areas or other
environmentally sensitive habitats. The project
specific SWPPP will shall identify appropriate
construction related BMPs (such as drip pans,
straw wattles, and silt fence) to control
anticipated pollutants (oils, grease, etc.).
BR-3:
Stockpiling of materials will shall be limited to
disturbed areas without native vegetation,
areas to be impacted by project development
or in non-sensitive habitats. These staging
areas will shall be approved by the project
biologist, and shall be located more than 500
feet from environmentally sensitive areas.
BR-4:
“No-fueling zones” will shall be established
within a minimum ofat least 10 meters (33 feet)
from drainages and fire sensitive areas.
BR-5:
The qualified project biologist will shall monitor
construction activities at a minimum of three
days per week throughout the duration of the
project to assess if practicableensure
mitigation measures are being employed to
avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any
target species of concern outside the project
footprint. Construction monitoring reports will
shall be completed with applicable
conditionsdescribing field conditions and
construction activities. The project biologist
will shall be empowered to halt work activity if
necessary to confer with RCTC staff to ensure
the proper implementation of species habitat
and habitat protection measures.
BR-6:
To avoid attracting predators that may prey
upon protected species, the project site will
shall be kept clean of trash and debris. Food
related trash items will shall be enclosed
disposed of in a sealed containers and
removed from the site with regular trash
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-6 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
removal, at least weekly. Pets of project
personnel will shall not be allowed on site.
BR-7:
If dead or injured listed species are located,
initial notification must be made within three
working days, in writing to the USFWS Division
of Law Enforcement in Torrance California,
and by telephone and in writing to the
applicable jurisdiction, Carlsbad Field Office of
the USFWS, and the CDFG.
BR-8:
Narrow Endemic Plants have the potential to
occur in the areas near the San Jacinto River.
If Narrow Endemic Plants are identified 90% of
the population will shall be preserved, as
required in the MSHCP.
BR-9:
There is a potential to impact western
spadefoot toads with the work on the San
Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel
Bridge. A pre-construction survey for western
spadefoot toads will shall be conducted within
30 days prior to site disturbance to determine if
western spadefoot toads are present within the
designated construction area. Should western
spadefoot toads be identified within the
construction area, the project biologist shall
prepare a relocation an program that shall be
approved by RCA prior to
implementationmitigation program will be
implemented.
BR-10:
The MSHCP requires both protocol surveys
and preconstruction surveys for burrowing
owls. If owls are identified during the
preconstruction survey, the appropriate action
will be determined. The appropriate action
could include avoidance and passive or active
relocation efforts. Pre-construction surveys
shall be conducted within 30 days prior to
ground disturbance to avoid direct take. If owls
are found to be present, the following
measures will be implemented: prior to
burrowing owl nesting season, passive
relocation will occur and active burrows will be
destroyed; after burrows are destroyed,
artificial burrows will be created in suitable
habitat that is contiguous with the foraging
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-7 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
habitat of affected owls; a monitoring plan will
be implemented to monitor the success of the
mitigation program.
BR-11:
If nests are identified at the billboards located
on the I-215 corridor, then a qualified project
biologist must shall determine if the nests are
active. If the biologist determines a nest to be
active, appropriate buffers will shall be used
until the birds have fledged and the nest will
shall be removed with the approval of
regulatory agencies.
BR-12:
There is a potential for impacts to
southwestern willow flycatchers in the southern
area of the Box Springs Reserve. To avoid
potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work
proposed for this area shall be completed
outside the bird breeding season (May 15th to
July 17thend of March to the end of September)
[Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA),
20042009].
BR-13:
There is a potential for impacts to least Bell’s
vireo in the southern area of Box Springs
Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting
birds, culvert work proposed for this area will
shall be completed outside the bird breeding
season (April 10th to July 31st end of March to
the end of September) (SAWA, 20042009).
BR-14:
The project is within the SKR Fee area. RCTC
will shall pay $500 per acre, to the SKR fund
managed by Riverside Habitat Conservation
Agency, the required $500 per acre fee for
developing development outside the existing
right-of-way. This fee shall be paid at the time
of the grading permit submittal. The fee will
include sites for the Citrus Connection, the
Hunter Park Station, Downtown Perris Station,
South Perris Station, and Layover Facility
(approximately 65 acres).
BR-15:
There is a potential for impacts to California
horned lark in the area of the South Perris
Station option and the Layover Facility if the
agricultural fields are allowed to fallow. To
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-8 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, the
ground preparation work will shall be
conducted outside of the bird nesting season
(March 1st to July 31st March to July) (County
of Santa Barbara, 2009) and maintained to
ensure that no birds then use the area for
nesting prior to construction.
BR-16:
There is a potential for impacts to the coastal
California gnatcatcher within the Box Springs
Canyon Reserve. To avoid potential impacts
to nesting birds, culvert work proposed for this
area shall be completed outside the bird
breeding season (February 15th to August 30th
mid February to mid September) (SAWA,
20042009).
BR-17:
Jurisdictional areas associated with the
replacement of culverts would result in impacts
to habitat within both USACE and CDFG
jurisdictional areas. Prior to any construction
these impacts to jurisdictional areas, RCTC
shall obtain would require permit approval from
the USACE, CDFG and the RWQCB. The
mitigation for jurisdictional area impacts will be
to purchase mitigation credits for permanent
impacts at a 1:1 ratio (total of 0.085 acres)
from a local mitigation bank. The temporary
impacts will be mitigated by
restoration/enhancement on land owned by
RCTC near or adjacent to the project area. the
Santa Ana River Mitigation Bank. The
mitigation ratios are finalized by the USACE
and CDFG during permitting for the project.
The permitting application is not deemed
complete until the CEQA document is adopted
by RCTC.
Cultural Resources
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to cause
a substantial
adverse change in
the significance of
a historical
resource as
defined in
§15064.5
Potentially
significant
CR-1:
A qualified archaeologist and Native American
monitor will shall monitor ground disturbing
construction activities between MP 3.50 and
4.50, and between MP 5.60 and 6.50. These
monitors will shall have the authority to
temporarily halt or divert construction
equipment to examine potential resources,
assess significance, and offer
recommendations for the procedures deemed
No Impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-9 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
appropriate to either further investigate or
mitigate any adverse impacts. CA-RIV-2384,
CA-RIV-4497/H and AE-CB-2 sites will shall be
avoided during project construction through the
establishment of ESA and delineated by
exclusionary fencing.
CR-2:
Replacement of four wood box culverts (MP
1.60, 5.30, 6.11 and 18.10) and two bridges
(MP 20.70 and 20.80) along the SJBL
alignment shall be mitigated by detailed
documentation according to Historic American
Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER)/Historic American
Landscape Survey (HALS) standards (AE,
2009).
CR-3:
Ground-disturbing activities will shall be
monitored by a qualified paleontologist at the
Citrus Connection, South Perris Station and
Layover Facility. The monitor should shall also
be present at locations where excavation is
great than four feetanticipated to be deeper
than four feet. The monitor shall have the
authority to temporarily halt or divert
construction equipment to allow for removal of
specimens. The monitor shall be equipped to
salvage any fossils unearthed during project
construction, and shall be prepared to collect
sediment samples that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil invertebrates and
vertebrates.
To mitigate adverse impacts to any
paleontological resources encountered during
construction, recovered specimens will shall be
identified, prepared for permanent
preservation, and curated at the San
Bernardino County Natural History Museum
with permanent retrievable paleontological
storage. A report of findings which that
includes an itemized inventory of specimens
will shall accompany the recovered specimens
for curation and storage.
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to directly
or indirectly
destroy a unique
Potentially
significant
CR-4:
In the event that unanticipated cultural or
paleontological resources are encountered
during the proposed PVL project construction,
ground-disturbing activity will shall cease in the
No Impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-10 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature.
immediate area. until the services of a A
qualified archaeologist (cultural resources)
and/or paleontologist (paleontological
resources) shall be retained to are retained.
The archaeologist or paleontologist will
examine the materials encountered, findings,
assess their significance, and recommendoffer
recommendations for the procedures deemed
appropriate a course of action to either further
investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to
those resources that have been encountered.
CR-5:
In the event that unanticipated discovery of
human remains occurs during project
construction, the procedures outlined in
§15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines will shall
be strictly followed. These procedures specify
that upon discovery, no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
human remains can occur. The county
coroner must be contacted to determine if the
remains are Native American. If the remains
are determined to be Native American, the
coroner will shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours.
The NAHC will shall identify the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). The MLD will shall make
recommendations for the appropriate treatment
and disposition of the remains and any
associated grave goods in accordance with
PRC §5097.98.
Geology and Soils
Implementation of
the project would
not result in any
significant impacts
to geology and
soils.
No Impact No significant impacts to geology and soils
were identified; therefore, no mitigation is
required.
No Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to have a
site included on
the list of
hazardous
materials sites
compiled pursuant
to Government
Potentially
significant
HHM-1:
Where soil Soil contamination is suspected at
the following locations:, appropriate sampling
is required prior to disposal of excavated soil.
Characterization of the soil is necessary prior
to any ground-disturbing activities.
Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at
an off-site facility. The following sites will be
characterized for possible soil contamination
No Impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-11 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
Code §65962.5
and, as a result,
has the potential to
create a significant
hazard to the
public or the
environment.
before excavation and/or construction activities
begin:
6400 Fischer Road, Riverside - diesel AST
release
13260 Highway 215, Riverside – gasoline
UST release
2 South D Street, Perris - gasoline UST
release
24 D Street, Perris - gasoline UST release
101 and 102 South D Street, Perris -
gasoline UST release and waste oil
release
210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris –
gasoline and diesel UST release
Prior to construction Ssoil characterization
shall occur and includesactivities including
sampling and analysis, and drilling will shall be
coordinated with and under the guidance of the
Riverside County Department of Environmental
Health. RCTC will shall contract with a
qualified environmental consultant to
determine if the soil has been sampled,
characterized and disposed of properly
according to state and federal regulations.
HHM-2:
If the Palmyrita Avenue site is selected for the
Hunter Park Station, but is not properly
remediated prior to acquisition, RCTC will shall
require the potentially responsible party to
remove and remediate hazardous conditions
and materials pursuant to the requirements of
the local, state, and federal regulations. If,
prior to acquisition, the current property owner
does not complete proper remediation, RCTC
will shall perform the remediation in
accordance with a Health and Safety Plan, and
in accordance with the required protocols for
the removal and disposal of hazardous
materials.
Because of the potential for soil contamination,
sampling and disposal plans will shall be
implemented prior toPre-cConstruction
according to a site-specific hazardous
materials investigation work plan.
Implementation of
the project has the
Potentially
significant
HHM-3:
Prior to Before construction activities
No Impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-12 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
potential to impair
implementation of
or physically
interfere with an
adopted
emergency
response plan or
emergency
evacuation plan
commence, RCTC shallwill prepare develop a
traffic management plan. The traffic
management plan shall be prepared in
consultation with local jurisdictions to
determine detour routes, length and timing of
any closures, temporary access routes,
signage, coordination with police and fire
departments regarding changes in emergency
access routes. An additional component of the
plan shall be coordinating with local
emergency response agencies to identify
emergency evacuation routes in the event of a
wildland fire near the PVL facilities.This traffic
management plan is the same as the traffic
management plan required by Mitigation
Measure HHM-4 and TT-4. minimize impacts
to existing emergency response or evacuation
routes. At a minimum, the traffic management
plan would address: detours; coordination with
other construction projects (if applicable);
length and timing of any street closures;
coordination with police and fire departments
regarding changes in emergency access
routes; temporary access routes and signage if
any commercial properties are affected; and
contact information for RCTC and its
contractors.
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to expose
people or
structures to a
significant risk of
loss, injury or
death involving
wildland fires,
including where
wildlands are
adjacent to
urbanized areas or
where residences
are intermixed with
wildlands
Potentially
significant
HHM-4:
Same as Mitigation Measure HHM-3 above.
Before construction activities commence,
RCTC will develop a traffic management plan
prior to starting construction. The contractor
will also work with local jurisdictions to
minimize impacts to existing emergency
response or evacuation routes for wildland
fires. At a minimum, the traffic management
plan will address: detours; coordination with
other construction projects (if applicable);
length and timing of any street closures; length
and timing of any grade crossing closures;
coordination with police and fire departments
regarding changes in emergency access
routes; temporary access routes and signage if
any commercial properties are affected; and
would contain contact information for RCTC
and the project contractors
No Impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-13 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
Hydrology/Water Quality
Implementation of
the project would
not result in any
significant impacts
to hydrology and
water quality.
No Impact No significant impacts to hydrology and water
quality were identified; therefore, no mitigation
is required.
No Impact
Land Use and Planning
Implementation of
the project would
not result in any
significant impacts
to land use and
planning.
No Impact No significant impacts to land use and planning
were identified; therefore, no mitigation is
required.
No Impact
Noise and Vibration
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to cause
exposure of
persons to or
generation of
noise levels in
excess of
standards
established in the
local general plan
or noise
ordinance, or
applicable
standards of other
agencies.
Potentially
significant
NV-1:
As shown on Figure 4.10-6, nNoise barriers
will shall be provided constructed at the
following locations (based on 30% Design
Drawings):
NB 1: 10’ high and 530’ long between
264+00 and 269+30
NB 2: 13’ high and 570’ long between Sta.
269+30 and Sta. 275+00
NB 3: 9’ high and 680’ long between Sta.
283+00 and Sta. 289+40
NB 4: 12’ high and 600’ long between Sta.
289+40 and Sta. 295+40
NB 5: 8’ high and 530’ long between Sta.
297+70 and Sta. 303+00
NB 6: 8’ high and 800’ long between Sta.
303+00 and Sta. 311+00
NB 7: 10’ high and 700800’ long between
Sta. 322+00 and Sta. 330+00
NB 8: 11’ high and 320’ long between Sta.
331+00 and Sta. 334+20
NB 9: 13’ high and 950’ long between Sta.
323+40 and Sta. 332+40
NB 10: 13’ high and 250’ long between Sta.
332+80 and Sta. 334+80
NB 11: 9’ high and 310’ long between Sta.
336+00 and Sta. 339+10
NB 12: 9’ high and 310’ long between Sta.
339+10 and Sta. 342+20
Less than
significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-14 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
NB 13: 13’ high and 380’ long between Sta.
342+20 and Sta. 346+00
NV-2:
Based on the topography and engineering
constraints at seven residential locations and
St. George’s Episcopal Church (eight
properties total), the use of noise barriers
would not provide adequate noise reduction.
Improving the sound insulation of these
properties by replacing windows facing the
tracks with new sound-rated windows, as well
as caulking and sealing gaps in the building
envelope, eliminating operable windows and
installing specially designed solid-core doors,
would reduce noise to below the FTA impact
criteria, and to less than significant levels.
Sound insulation for eight properties will shall
be provided at the following locations:
Northeast corner of the grade crossing at
West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine
Street)
Northeast corner of the grade crossing at
Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East Campus
View Drive)
Southwest corner of the grade crossing at
Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on
Mount Vernon Avenue)
Northeast corner of the grade crossing at
Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street)
Northeast corner of the grade crossing at
Spruce Street (first two homes on
Kentwood Drive)
Southeast corner of the grade crossing at
Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill Drive)
St. George’s Episcopal Church
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to cause
exposure of
persons to or
generation of
excessive
groundborne-
vibration or
groundborne-noise
levels.
Potentially
significant
NV-3:
Ballast Mats: A ballast mat consists of a
rubber (such as shredded rubber tires), cork or
other type of resilient elastomer pad that is
placed under the normal ballast, ties, and rail.
The ballast mat generally mustshall be placed
on a concrete or asphalt layer to be most
effective. They will not be as effective if placed
directly on the soil or the sub-ballast. Ballast
mats can provide 5 to 12 dB attenuation at
frequencies above 25 to 30Hz.
Less than
significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-15 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
NV-4:
Resiliently Supported Ties (Under-Tie Pads):
This treatment consists of resilient rubber pads
placed underneath concrete ties. A resiliently
supported tie system consists of concrete ties
supported by rubber pads. The rails are
fastened directly to the concrete ties using
standard rail clips.
* Implementation by RCTC of either one of the
above described vibration mitigation measures
(NV-3 or NV-4) between Sta. 263+00 and
275+00 will eliminate the 2 VdB impact
predicted in the UCR area of Riverside
(affecting a total of 14 homes extending
approximately 1,200 feet along the eastern
side of the proposed PVL alignment just south
of Spruce Street and north of Hyatt Elementary
School).
Transportation and Traffic
Implementation of
the project has the
potential to cause
an increase in
traffic that is
substantial in
relation to the
existing traffic load
and capacity of the
street system (i.e.,
result in a
substantial
increase in either
the number of
vehicle trips, the
volume-to-capacity
ratio on roads, or
congestion at
intersections)
Potentially
significant
TT-1:
Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for Moreno
Valley/March Field Station):
Reduce north/southbound Old 215’s maximum
traffic signal green time to 15 seconds during
the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour. This would
reduce delays for westbound Cactus Avenue’s
through movement from 244240 to 119116
seconds and improve the overall intersection
LOS from LOS F with 152146 seconds of delay
to LOS E with 7672 seconds of delay, while
maintaining LOS C for Old 215.
TT-2:
SR-74 (4th Street) at D Street (for Downtown
Perris Station):
Reduce the maximum green time for the
east/westRestripe north/southbound SR-74
left-turn phaseD Street approaches to 14
seconds during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis
hour.provide one left-turn and one
through/right turn shared lane. The levels of
service for north and southbound D Street’s
through/left-turn movements, and the overall
intersection, would be improved beyond future
levels of service without the project during the
PM analysis hour with this mitigation measure.
Less than
significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-16 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
TT-3:
Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps (for
South Perris Station)
Install a new traffic signal. This would improve
eastbound Bonnie Drive’s right-turn movement
from LOS F to LOS B during the PM (5-6 PM)
analysis hour and left-turn movement from
LOS F to LOS C during the AM (6-7 AM) and
PM analysis hours.
*RCTC shall design the above-proposed
improvements, and execute agreements with
the affected jurisdictions to provide funding for
the installation of the signals or to install the
signals in conjunction with the development of
the project. With these mitigation measures in
place, the significant impacts of the proposed
project at the three above-mentioned
intersections will be eliminated (out of the six
locations where significant impacts are
expected). At the remaining three locations
where significant impacts are expected (San
Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, SR-74 at
northbound I-215 Off-Ramp, and SR-74 at
Sherman Road), traffic signals are planned to
be installed by other projects (unrelated to the
PVL) as part of the future condition without the
project. Therefore, no mitigation measures will
need to be implemented by the proposed PVL
project at these intersections. However, in the
event that the signalization of these three
locations by other projects (unrelated to the
PVL) does not occur prior to the 2012 opening
year of the PVL, the installation of traffic
signals at these additional locations will be
incorporated as PVL project features.
TT-4:
Develop RCTC shall develop a traffic
management plan in consultation with local
jurisdictions to minimize impacts to existing
traffic levels of service. At a minimum, the
traffic management plan shall address:
determine detours routes, ; coordination with
other construction projects (if applicable);
length and timing of any street closures, ;
length and timing of any grade crossing
closures; coordination with police and fire
departments regarding changes in emergency
access routes; temporary access routes, and
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 ES-17 April 5, 2010
Environmental
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation
signage if any commercial properties are
affected; and contact information for RCTC
and its contractors. RCTC will be responsible
for development and enforcement of this
measure.
Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of
the project would
not result in any
significant impacts
to utilities and
service systems.
No Impact No significant impacts to utilities and service
systems were identified; therefore, no
mitigation is required.
No Impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 1-1 April 5, 2010
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to serve as a public disclosure document that
informs the responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental
effects anticipated with the adoption and implementation of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project.
It depicts the project alternatives (including the No Project Alternative), documents the project‘s
potential environmental effects pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and proposes mitigation measures, as applicable.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] 3 §15000 et seq.). Per Public Resources Code (PCR) §21067 of the CEQA
Statute and 14 CCR 3 §§15367 and §§15050 through 15053 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the ―Lead Agency.‖ The Lead Agency
is ―the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as
a whole.‖ As the Lead Agency, RCTC has the authority to adopt the proposed PVL project and
implement appropriate mitigation measures, as required, to reduce significant impacts.
RCTC proposes to extend 24-miles of commuter rail service from the existing Riverside
Downtown Station to south of the city of Perris in western Riverside County, California. This
new rail extension, known as the PVL, would be operated by the Southern California Regional
Rail Authority (SCRRA), the operators of the SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail system. The PVL
would be created by using the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and San Jacinto
Branch Line (SJBL) rail corridors.
Additionally, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and
circulated for public review and comment in January 2009. After careful consideration of public
comments received, RCTC decided to discontinue the IS/MND process and instead prepare an
EIR. The EIR process was initiated with the publication of a Notice of P reparation (NOP) on
July 14, 2009 (Appendix B). The project described in the NOP included construction of a 4th
track along the BNSF. Subsequently, it was determined the 4th track was not needed for the
PVL to operate, so the additional track has been removed from the project.
1.1 PURPOSE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The purpose of an EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a
project. CEQA states the purpose of an EIR is to: (1) inform the public and d ecision-makers of
the potential environmental impacts of a project; (2) identify methods that could reduce the
magnitude of potentially significant impacts of a project; (3) identify alternatives that could
reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts or propose more effective use of the
project site.
1.2 EIR ADEQUACY
The principal use of this EIR is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed project. An EIR is an informational
document and is not intended to determine the merits of, or recommend approval or disapproval
of a project. Decision-makers must weigh the environmental effects of a project among other
considerations, including planning, economic, and social concerns.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 1-2 April 5, 2010
The standards of adequacy of an EIR, defined by §15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as
follows:
―An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient level of analysis to provide decision-makers
with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account
of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect of the
proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in
the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an
EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among
the experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness,
and good faith effort at full disclosure.‖
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR
The content and format of this EIR are designed to meet the current requirements of CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines.
Chapter 1.0 – Introduction: This chapter describes the purpose of and organization of the EIR
and its preparation, review, and certification process.
Chapter 2.0 – Proposed Project: This chapter provides a description of the regional and local
environmental setting, project background, project objectives, and project specific details, as
well as identifies required permits for project implementation.
Chapter 3.0 – Project Alternatives: This chapter describes alternatives considered and
compares the relative impacts to those of the proposed PVL project; and provides a brief
description of alternatives considered.
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis: There is a description of the environmental setting,
regulatory compliance, significance criteria, discusses the potentially adverse environmental
impacts for each environmental resource area, and mitigation measures are defined, as
required.
Chapter 5.0 – Other Environmental Considerations: This chapter discusses environmental
issue areas identified within CEQA that require analysis , such as significant irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of resources; growth inducing impacts; and cumulative impacts.
Chapter 6.0 – Effects Found Not To Be Significant: This chapter discusses resource areas
that were found not to be significant, such as mineral resources; population and housing; public
services; and recreation.
Chapter 7.0 – Report Preparation: This chapter identifies firms and individuals responsibl e for
the content of this EIR.
Chapter 8.0 – References: This chapter provides the list of references cited.
Chapter 9.0 – Index
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 1-3 April 5, 2010
Appendices: The appendices present data that support the analysis or contents of this EIR.
Technical studies are also provided electronically on a CD contained within this document. In
addition, copies of these reports are on file at the locations listed in Section 1.5 and are also
available for download on the project website at (http://www.perrisvalleyline.info/).
1.4 EIR PROCESS
RCTC prepared an IS/MND and circulated the document for public and agency review in early
2009. As part of the public involvement for the IS/MND docume nt, RCTC held two public
outreach workshops in June 2008, a public information meeting in February 2009, and two
public hearings in February 2009. In response to public input, RCTC decided to proceed with
an EIR. Comments on the Draft IS/MND in 2009 are provided in Appendix A.
On July 28, 2009, two weeks after the NOP was posted by the State Clearinghouse, RCTC
conducted a public scoping meeting at the Moreno Valley Towngate Community Center. The
intent of this meeting was to receive input on the issues that should be covered in greater detail
in the EIR. The meeting format included tables arranged by topical issues for planning,
engineering, and environmental, supported by maps of the project study area. Project staff
members and resource specialists were available to answer questions. Public participants were
invited to fill out comment cards expressing their concerns. Concerns raised included:
Air quality;
Noise;
Traffic;
Grade crossings;
Floodplains and water quality;
Stations;
ADA compliance;
Safety;
Planning issues;
Growth Inducing impacts;
Previous comments submitted on the IS/MND; and,
Alternatives.
1.5 DRAFT EIR REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with §21091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the draft EIR will be available for public
review and comment for a 45-day period. During the public review period, interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies can provide written comments . Please address all
comments to:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 1-4 April 5, 2010
Contact:
Edda Rosso, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
The draft EIR will be available for review at the following locations:
RCTC office (4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92502-2208)
Riverside Main Library (3581 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501)
Woodcrest Library (16625 Krameria Avenue, Riverside, CA 92504)
Moreno Valley Public Library (25480 Alessandro Boulevard, Moreno Valley, CA 92553)
Perris Branch Library (163 E. San Jacinto Avenue, Perris, CA 92570)
RCTC webpage (http://www.perrisvalleyline.info/)
RCTC will receive written public input on the project and the EIR during the public comment
period which extends from April 5, 2010 to May 24, 2010. Due to the time limits mandated by
state law, comments must be sent to RCTC at the earliest possible date, but no later than
May 24, 2010. An agency response to this EIR should include the name of a contact person
within the commenting agency. In addition, two three public hearings will be held on April 14,
2010 at 9:30AM at the Riverside County Administrative Center (4080 Lemon Street, Riverside,
CA 92502), and on April 22, 2010 at 6:00PM in the City of Perris, City Council Chambers (101
North ―D‖ Street, Perris, CA 92570 – corner of San Jacinto and Perris Boulevard), and on May
17, 2010 at 6:00 PM at UCR Extension – Room C (1200 University Avenue, Riverside, CA
92507).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 1-5 April 5, 2010
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS
The activities identified in this EIR require consultation and possible permitting with federal,
state, and local agencies:
Table 1.6-1
Agency Actions and Approvals
Agency Action
Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC)
Certify EIR
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB)
Section 401 Permit
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Consultation (if threatened or endangered
species impacts are anticipated)
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Consistency Determination with the Western
Riverside County Multiple-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
California Office of Historic Preservation Section 106 Concurrence
Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
―No Rise‖ determination improvements to drainage
structures
Transportation Conformity Working Group Conformity with local air quality plans
SCRRA Design Approval
BNSF Railway Co. Design Approval
UP Railroad Design Approval at the ROW crossing
March Joint Powers Authority Design Review
Riverside Transit Agency Design Review at Downtown Perris
City of Riverside Design Review
City of Perris Design Review
California Public Utilities Commission Grade Crossing Improvements
Federal Communication Commission Communication equipment frequencies
Airport Land Use Commission Consistency with airport plans
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-1 April 5, 2010
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed PVL project is located in the western Riverside County region of southern
California. The project is approximately 70 miles east of Los Angeles, and the study area
includes the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris, as shown on Figure 2.1-1. The
study area includes an existing transportation corridor which extends approximately 24 miles
southeast from Riverside to south of Perris.
The primary transportation facilities in the study area include a limited use rail freight line, the
SJBL, and Interstate 215 (I-215), a limited access freeway, which run approximately parallel to
one another from Riverside to Perris in a south to southeasterly direction. Two large institutions
located in this study area are the University of California, Riverside (UCR) and the March Air
Reserve Base (MARB), located approximately halfway between Riverside and Perris.
Natural features in the vicinity of the northern portion of the study area include the Box Springs
Mountain Reserve to the northeast of the SJBL/I-215 corridor, and the Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness Park to the southwest of the I-215/State Route 60 (SR-60) interchange. The
southern extent of the SJBL/I-215 corridor is characterized by a more rural setting. Adjacent
lands are occupied by industrial, agricultural, and aviation uses. The San Jacinto River crosses
the southern extent of the project corridor near the intersection of Murrieta and Case Roads.
The proposed project would extend commuter rail service from the existing Riverside Downtown
Station in Riverside south to the cities of Moreno Valley and Perris, providing an extension of
the existing SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail service from Los Angeles Union Station (LA Union
Station). This new rail extension, known as the PVL, would be operated by SCRRA, the
operators of the SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail system in southern California. The PVL would
be created through the use of existing rail rights-of–way (ROW) with a short new rail connection,
as described in detail below.
In the city of Riverside, the PVL would connect to the existing Riverside Downtown Station from
the existing BNSF ROW, an approximately three-mile segment of rail currently operating with
freight and commuter service. From the existing BNSF ROW, the PVL would operate on a new
curved rail segment, known as the ―Citrus Connection‖, which would connect the BNSF and the
SJBL. The Citrus Connection would be constructed on property to be acquired, located north of
Citrus Street and Springbrook Wash, in Riverside. The eastern end of the Citrus Connection
would link to the existing 21-mile SJBL alignment to extend south to Perris. The PVL project
would be supplemented with limited acquisition of properties to create support facilities,
including station areas and a Layover Facility. It is anticipated that the PVL project would offer
commuter rail service starting in 2012 with stations at Hunter Park (one of three evaluated
locations), Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris, and South Perris.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2.1-1
92666
12/8/09
JP
RM
92666vicEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
CALIFORNIA
PROJECT
AREA
"
Hunter Park
HUNTER PARK STATION OPTIONS
COLUMBIA
(WEST SIDE)
MARLBOROUGH
(WEST SIDE)
PALMYRITA
(EAST SIDE)
Citrus Connection
NOTE: ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED SITES WILL BE SELECTED
10120.5
Miles ±BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
LEGEND
!R
!R
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
SITE BOUNDARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-3 April 5, 2010
2.2 PROJECT AREA BACKGROUND
Existing conditions within the project corridor include established rail lines that were constructed
in the 19th century. Originally known as the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF), the
existing BNSF railroad main line was constructed between 1885 and 1888 by the Santa Ana &
Los Angeles Railway Company. This line originally extended southwest from Highgrove and
Riverside to Santa Ana in Orange County where it connected with existing lines in Los Angeles
(Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc. [MFA], 2003).
Before the construction of the BNSF main line, the segment of the alignment now known as the
SJBL was constructed in two segments over a six-year period. The California Southern
Railroad completed construction of the first segment between Highgrove and Perris in 1882 to
serve as part of its San Bernardino to National City main line. The second segment between
Perris and San Jacinto was completed in 1888 (MFA, 2003). Both the current BNSF ROW and
SJBL ROW are within their same respective corridors as originally constructed in the late 1880s.
Connecting the San Jacinto Valley with major coastal cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego
by railroad contributed to the success of local agricultural economies. Farmers and ranchers
built sidings along the SJBL to load produce and other farm products directly onto the trains. In
addition to transporting agricultural goods, the railroad also provided passenger service to Los
Angeles (Applied EarthWorks, Inc. [AE], 2009).
Later, the SJBL was acquired by AT&SF and then by RCTC in 1993. Through its operating
agreement with RCTC, BNSF (AT&SF‘s successor) provides limited freight service to customers
along the SJBL, primarily along the I-215 corridor. Both the SJBL and the BNSF lines are
currently used for freight operations. The BNSF main line also accommodates Inland Empire –
Orange County trains operated by SCRRA/Metrolink.
Currently, western Riverside County is linked to the coastal counties by three direct commuter
rail routes via a station stop at the Riverside Downtown Station. Both the Riverside Line and the
91 Line connect to LA Union Station. The Inland Empire – Orange County Line parallels the 91
Line and then turns south to destinations in Orange County. These three existing
SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail lines would serve (link to) the proposed PVL via the Riverside
Downtown Station, providing improved access between the study area and the adjacent coastal
counties currently served by SCRRA/Metrolink.
The 1993 acquisition by RCTC of the entire length of the SJBL presents the opportunity to
utilize the SJBL for an extension of the existing commuter rail service into the study area.
Additionally, it should be noted that RCTC is a member agency of SCRRA/Metrolink. In the
capacity of a member agency of SCRRA/Metrolink and the project proponent, RCTC has
previously donated $26,000 to Riverside to study the potential for ―quiet zones‖ at the grade
crossings in Riverside.
UCR Station
The UCR Station was previously evaluated in the IS/MND which was publicly circulated in
January 2009. The UCR Station would have been located within the SJBL ROW along Watkins
Drive in Riverside. In response to input from the surrounding neighborhood, the station would
have provided for passenger drop-off and pick-up only (―kiss and ride‖), but no parking.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-4 April 5, 2010
However, further input from the neighborhood during the public review and comment period for
the IS/MND resulted in the removal of the UCR Station as part of the PVL. It should be note d,
the General Plan for the City of Riverside does identify a station in the UCR neighborhood.
Highgrove Option
The concept of a Metrolink Station in the Highgrove area has been raised by members of the
public throughout RCTC‘s commuter rail planning process. In response, RCTC studied the
concept on a number of occasions between 1994 and 2010. The studies evaluations
consistently reaffirm that a Highgrove Area Station is not a feasible viable option for the PVL
project. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1) [feasibility of alternatives can be determined
based on factors such as site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure].) Below
is an explanation of why the Highgrove Area Station is not feasible.
During the planning period for the proposed project, site conditions have changed at the
commenter‘s Highgrove area station site. The previously undeveloped 34± acres of private land
now has an approved Parcel Map and Design Review (Planning Case P06-1506 and P06-1508)
from the City of Riverside (November 2007) for development of the Citrus Business Park.
Improvements to the property will include constructing four new industrial buildings (509,787
square feet). Access was approved via Citrus Street; emergency access is via Villa Street.
With public access to the site limited to Citrus Street, access across Springbrook Wash is the
only way to access the two designated parcels north of the Wash. This area, north of the wash,
was approved for two industrial buildings as part of the approval for the Citrus Business Park.
The approved access is from a new crossing constructed on the western portion of the site,
adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way. Since the approval of the Citrus Business Park, the two
industrial buildings south of Springbrook Wash have been constructed. As such, the existing
condition for the commenter‘s proposed Highgrove station site consists of two industrial
buildings with access from Citrus Street and a crossing at Springbrook Wash at the western
boundary of the property adjacent to the BNSF.
The proposed PVL project would construct the Citrus Connection on the two parcels north of
Springbrook Wash. As discussed in the environmental document, the Citrus Connection would
connect the BNSF main line with the SJBL/RCTC ROW via a short curved track to be
constructed. This would replace the two industrial buildings proposed for this northern area.
In addition to the approved Citrus Business Park, the City of Riverside is scheduled to start
construction of a railroad grade separation at Iowa Street on the BNSF main line. The planned
grade separation would allow Iowa Street to be raised over the BNSF main line between
Palmyrita Street and Spring Street. Citrus Street would remain in the current configurati on but
only a right turn in/right turn out would be allowed to and from Iowa Street.
It should also be noted that construction has started on the Spring Mountain Ranch
development, along the northern section of Pigeon Pass Road. The Riverside County
Transportation Department (RCTD) is currently studying alternatives for roadway alignment
through the development to connect Pigeon Pass Road with the City of Riverside. Currently,
neither Center Street nor Villa Street (Highgrove area) connect to the east to provide access to
the Spring Mountain Ranch area. The closest connection for Pigeon Pass Road would be at
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-5 April 5, 2010
Marlborough Street which allows access to the Hunter Park Station. These alignments will
continue to be studied by RCTD.
Starting The planning began in 1988 when, RCTC initiated studies of potential station sites on
the BNSF main line to serve future commuter rail service to Orange County. As a result, RCTC
decided to purchase passenger rail operating rights on the BNSF. As the Metrolink system
expanded within Riverside County, existing stations were reaching capacity and various station
selection studies were undertaken. Unlike other Metrolink member agencies, RCTC takes
responsibility to fund the capital and operating costs for Metrolink Stations wi thin the county. As
such, RCTC takes into account both capital, operation, and maintenance costs when evaluating
station locations.
Commuter rail station siting and selection considerations are based on a number of factors,
including projected ridership and revenue; operational requirements; geographic spacing in
relation to other stations; right of way requirements and availability; local conditions such as
surrounding land use and traffic circulation; and rail config uration. Additionally, both the BNSF
and the CPUC prefer the Marlborough Station location over the Highgrove site. The BNSF is
concerned the Highgrove station location would cause increased congestion on the main line
and not be a feasible option (Project Meeting, February 25, 2009). The CPUC identifies the
Marlborough Station as the preferred location because of the existing roadway access. The
Highgrove station would require two new grade crossings while Marlborough would not require
any (email communication, February 2, 2011).The Highgrove Area Station fails to adequately
meet these considerations.
From an engineering perspective, the Highgrove area station is infeasible for the reasons
enumerated below:
Prior to planning the PVL project RCTC received public input concerning the constructiong of
transit facilities in the Highgrove area. The desired facilities included locating a station on the
BNSF main line near Citrus and Villa Streets. RCTC has revisited the feasibility of this option
numerous times in the past (1994, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2009). In general, the concerns
initially identified by RCTC in early evaluationsstudies have not changed over the years. During
a January 2006 evaluation, RCTC identified five the following key reasons to decline
development of a Metrolink commuter rail station at Highgrove area on the BNSF which are
listed below. The findings included:
1. Public preference was to expand existing stations (38%) compared to construction brand
new stations (only 6% of the public wanted a Highgrove option when compared to three
other station sites);
2. Constrained Operating Environment – Highgrove weekday volume ranks the lowest in
comparison to the current train volumes for the five existing RCTC Metrolink stations. The
closest station (existing Riverside Downtown Station) to the Highgrove area is only 3.7
miles away. The Riverside Downtown Station train volume is more than 4 times that of a
potential Highgrove option. Riverside Downtown serves three commuter lines while
Highgrove would serve just one line.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-6 April 5, 2010
3) A feasibility study was performed for Highgrove to determine current and projected
ridership forecasts. The results indicated that ridership is very low compared to actual trips
at the existing stations.
4) Highgrove serves a limited number of commuter trains combined with low ridership and
high capital costs. Construction of a Highgrove option was estimated to be $15M - $20M
with annual operating costs estimated at $200K - $250K. RCTC determined this would not
be cost effective.
53. It was determined that the opportunity to have a station site on the RCTC owned SJBL
alignment, at a location just south of the Highgrove area (Hunter Park region), would be a
better solution instead of needing to purchasinge property from BNSF.
The Hunter Park Station would also allow for commuters from the Spring Mountain Ranch the
shortest access via Marlborough Avenue or Palmyrita Street (which connects to the Ranch
development directly). Neither Citrus Avenue nor Villa Street connect east across the
SJBL/RCTC ROW to allow access to a station from the east.
Subsequently, after the January 2006 presentation, members of the public requested additional
studies evaluations to determine the viability of the Highgrove Station option as part of the PVL
project. In February 2009 RCTC requested STV Incorporated to prepare a Highgrove Station
Site Plan Study. The results of this study indicated 13 impediments to the construction of a
Highgrove Station. On September 19, 2009, Barney Barnett submitted a letter rebutting STV
Incorporated‘s study. STV Incorporated prepared a response to Mr. Barnett‘s rebuttal by letter
dated January 11, 2010. A summary of STV‘s response is outlined below:
1, Reconfiguration of the Villa Street grade crossing and would be necessary. and This
would include extensive and costly safety and engineering enhancements is costly and
poses potential vehicular and pedestrian safety issues. In addition, the City of Riverside
will not allow regular truck and vehicular access from Villa Street to the northern parcels in
the Parcel Map and Design Review document dated November 8, 2007 (Planning Cases
P06-1506 and P06-1508) that would cause adverse impacts the existing adjacent
residential neighborhood. The CPUC has indicated, in a project email, dated February 2,
2011, that they will not allow a station at Highgrove because of the need to improve two at
grade crossings when none require improvements at Hunter Park.
2. Extending Spring Street westward through an existing vacant residential property and
creating a new vehicular and pedestrian grade crossing creates risks of train and
vehicular/pedestrian collisions and is not feasible for the same reasons as accessing the
site from Villa Street. In addition, the CPUC has reviewed the Highgrove alternative and
prefers the Hunter Park Station (Marlborough alternative) because of the close proximity of
the two sites and existing crossings provide access to the H unter Park Station
(Marlborough alternative). The CPUC implementation practice for General Order Number
88-B is to not allow the construction of new at-grade crossings when not absolutely
necessary. The CPUC views new at-grade crossings at Spring Street or over the Citrus
Connection track as not absolutely necessary because of the option for a station to be
located at Hunter Park (email communication, February 2, 2011).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-7 April 5, 2010
3. The existing topography and evidence of substantial ponding on either sides of the
crossing within the right-of-way (ROW) indicate serious drainage and visibility problems
that would need to be addressed by extensive excavation and grading. Such work would
add substantial construction and operational/maintenance costs and would also intro duce
new impacts to soils, geology and air quality during excavation. Thus, it‘s not
―environmentally friendly‖ as commenter claims.
4. Diverting traffic into the Villa Street neighborhood to access the station parking on the
northern parcels is not viable because the City of Riverside will not allow regular truck and
vehicular access from Villa Street to the northern parcels. This limitation was stated as a
condition of approval in the Parcel Map and Design Review document dated November 8,
2007 (Planning Cases P06-1506 and P06-1508). The City of Riverside indicated that Villa
Street could only be used for emergency access into the site.
5. The original estimate in the 2009 Site Plan Study of 7 acres of available land for parking
was based upon utilizing only the parcel north of the Citrus Connection track. Due to
further design development and moving the Citrus Connection track further north to avoid
the Springbrook Wash conservation easement, the northern parcel area available for
parking has been reduced. STV Incorporated has reevaluated the available land for
parking and included a portion of the parcel south of the Citrus Connection track in parking
land area calculation netting approximately 9.3 acres total available land for parking.
Although, considering the size, shape and configuration of the parcels available, a less
than efficient parking plan would be the result. The actual area available for parking in the
Citrus Connection area is slightly less than the Marlborough alternative containing 9.5
acres. The current total area north of Springbrook Wash is 16.47 acres. This 16.47 acres
would then have the Citrus Connection track through the center of it which would result in
a net usable area of 6.6 acres. Access to the approximately 6.6 acres on the north parcel
would be dependent upon a vehicular undercrossing beneath the Citrus Connection track
due to the access restrictions at Villa Street discussed above. The land area needed for
an undercrossing would severely restrict the 6.6 acres available.
6. RCTC cannot limit access to the western driveway to only Metrolink passengers. The
existing western driveway is shared access with the current property owner of the parcels
(currently an existing industrial warehouse use) south of the Springbrook Wash , forcing
passenger traffic to mix with semi-truck traffic and creating an unsafe condition for access
to the station parking. Per an easement in the Covenants, Codes and Restriction‘s for the
purchase of the property by RCTC, access from this western driveway must be maintained
for the owner of existing warehouse development. Any parking facilities located within the
parcel area south of the Citrus Connection track are limited by the California Department
of Fish and Game 50‘ setback from the Springbrook Wash due to Condition 22 of the
Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration imposed on the subject
property dated 5/30/08.
7. The only viable location for disabled parking is immediately adjacent or in the near vicinity
of the platform and the ticket vending machine which would be in the western drive and
does not fit due to the placement of the adjacent warehouse building. The alternative is to
place the disabled parking north of the Springbrook Wash which would impose an
unreasonable travel distance (in excess of 800 feet) from the closest parking spaces to the
ticket vending machine and platform for disabled passengers.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-8 April 5, 2010
8. BNSF representatives have stated that they prefer not to have a platform in their ROW in
this location due to operational congestion and track capacity because of the high volume
of freight traffic on their Main Line (Project Meeting, February 25, 2009).
9. The Highgrove station would require an inner-track fence to separate the station track (4th
track) from the three BNSF Main Line tracks for safety reasons. This would move the 4th
track further east, thus requiring a design modification to the Citrus Connection curve
increasing the degree of the curve causing decreased train speed, higher wheel noise,
and higher maintenance due to the increased wear on the track. In addition, the minimum
width with required clearances (approximately 44 feet) would force the platform to
encroach into the driveway. Per an easement in the CC&R‘s for the purchase of the
property by RCTC, access from this western driveway must be maintained for the owner of
the warehouse development on the southern parcels.
10. There is adequate bus service to the area proposed for the Highgrove station alternative,
but there would be no on-site bus drop-off area near the platform because of the
constrained space between the platform and the existing open access driveway. Bus
passengers would be dropped off curb-side on either Iowa Avenue or Citrus Street.
11. Reconfiguration of Citrus Street would be required. It is agreed that the Citrus Street
connection to Iowa Avenue will remain unchanged. Because of the length of the platform
and the required distance (150‘) from the switch for the Citrus Connector track,
reconfiguration, including real property acquisition on the east side of the street, would be
required to move Citrus Street eastward where it curves adjacent to the BNSF Main Line
ROW. This would result in an increase in project cost related to the property acquisition
and the road reconfiguration. These costs would not be required for the Hunter Park
station location.
12. A possible option to attempt to accommodate a station in the Highgrove location just south
of the Citrus Connection is for RCTC to purchase the western-most building and property
of the existing warehouse development on Parcel 4, demolish the building, and convert
the property to on-site bus drop-off, disabled parking, and kiss-and-ride (drop off area with
no parking) drop-off. This option presents traffic and congestion challenges due to the
single entry and exit for passenger vehicles and buses. This would also require the
demolition of the newly constructed industrial buildings at the site. Additionally, the
vehicular access issues discussed above for the parcels north of the Citrus Connection
would remain unchanged due to restrictions from the City of Riverside and CPUC.
As a result of additional study subsequent to the Site Plan Study prepared by STV Incorporated
dated 2/27/09, the difference in cost to locate a station at this Highgrove site is now estimated at
an additional $35 Million to $45 Million.
Many commenters suggested that the ―existing‖ depot in Highgrove could be used as a station
site to avoid the cost of constructing a new station. However, there is no existing Highgrove
depot. The Highgrove depot was originally located just south of Center Street and was
demolished in 1953 (DEIR Cultural Resources Technical Report, page 23). The former depot
location is located approximately 2,300 north of Citrus Street and adjacent to where the BNSF
mainline and the SJBL currently connect. This proposed location would only allow for access to
the BNSF mainline and not the proposed PVL project because the PVL project does not travel
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-9 April 5, 2010
that far north. Additionally, this area is a low income minority area that would be significantly
impacted by moving services north of Villa Street.
There is limited parking capacity available at the Highgrove site; bus and public access
to the site has moderate to severe traffic congestion implications to the neighborhood.
The site plan also reveals potential impacts to environmental justice issues that would
require acquisition of real estate. Platform configuration is not feasible in terms of
location, operational congestion, track capacity, and public access specifically for
handicapped patrons. Additionally, Citrus Street would need to be reconfigured, and
access from Iowa Avenue, due to the planned grade separation, would require stairs and
an elevator to access the station. The latest study indicates an estimated cost increase
of about $6M in construction ($12M in project costs) in addition to the estimated
construction cost for the Hunter Park area station, which is $7.2 million ($14.4 project
cost). Right of way acquisition cost is not included in this estimate.
For all the above stated reasons, the Highgrove Station option was not included as a
component of the PVL project or as a feasible alternative, and therefore is not evaluated further
within this EIR.
2.3 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
RCTC developed a Purpose and Need, as well as Goals and Objectives, for the PVL through
the San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (STV Inc., 2004). The
Alternatives Analysis (AA) is the FTA process for reaching a broad consensus on what type of
improvement(s) best meet locally-defined Goals and Objectives for a specified study area. The
Purpose and Need established through the AA was developed based upon understanding of the
transportation conditions, problems, and issues in the study area that would need to be
addressed by a major transportation investment.
The AA identified that the purpose of proposed transportation improvements is to provide
alternatives to help alleviate traffic congestion on the freeway segment and arterials in the study
area, thereby improving the mobility of people and goods. The improvements should also
provide or improve linkages to the overall transportation system, support the achievement of
regional air quality goals, and avoid environmental and community impacts to the extent
possible.
As described above, the primary transportation facilities in this corridor include I -215, a limited
access freeway with a segment that runs from Riverside to Perris in a south/southeasterly
direction, and a limited use rail freight line, the SJBL. Both I-215 and the SJBL run
approximately parallel to one another for the length of the corridor. The SJBL is an existing
non-highway transportation ROW that is significantly underutilized from a passenger
transportation perspective. As noted in the AA, opportunities to use this existing ROW have
been explored in the past with general conclusions that it has the potential to r elieve pressure
on existing and forecasted congestion on the regional transportation network. The I-215/SJBL
alignment is in need of an improved transportation system independent of the ever growing and
increasingly congested roadway system. The needs of the I-215/SJBL alignment were
developed through outreach to the public, affected communities, stakeholders and concerned
individuals. The needs identified are listed below:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-10 April 5, 2010
Reduce roadway congestion;
Provide transit travel options to growing population and employment centers;
Coordinate transportation planning and community development; and ,
Improve use of underutilized transportation resources.
Transportation movement in the area occurs primarily via the heavily congested I-215 freeway,
which overlaps SR-60 between Riverside and Moreno Valley. Current and planned freeway
improvements cannot fully accommodate forecasted demand. In addition, potential freeway
expansion beyond currently planned improvements would have substantial impacts on adjoining
neighborhoods (STV Inc., 2004).
The northern end of the study area is served by SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail service to San
Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange counties. Existing rail ROW, including BNSF and SJBL,
could provide a transit alternative to I-215, avoiding the freeway bottleneck and congestion.
This potential commuter rail service provides an opportunity for transferring some patrons to a
transit mode within the study area, and provides the opportunity for extending commuter rail
service further south and east into Riverside County.
Four goals and complementary objectives were established by RCTC for the I -215/SJBL
alignment based on the corridor‘s issues and the potential for a transit system to achieve or help
achieve the project‘s overall goals. The Goals and Objectives are:
Goal 1 – Improve the Transportation System with Alternate Travel Choices
Objective:
Reduce highway congestion in the corridor;
Improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commuter alternative to the automobile
by making it available, reliable, and convenient to use;
Establish and expand the regional transit network within and beyond the study corridor;
and,
Promote a seamless regional transit system.
Goal 2 – Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development
Objective:
Strengthen the older urban communities as centers of economic opportunity;
Broaden the range and availability of public transportation alternatives between the
various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes;
Encourage transit-friendly communities, at higher densities; foster transit-oriented
development around transit stations; and,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-11 April 5, 2010
Provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent.
Goal 3 – Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts
Objective:
Contain residential, commercial, and industrial ―sprawl‖ development;
Conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1990;
Minimize impacts to the natural and human-made environment; and,
Minimize the need for new ROW, thereby reducing land use impacts to the study
corridor.
Goal 4 – Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently
Objective:
Invest resources efficiently;
Improve the productivity and cost-effectiveness of transit services in the corridor;
Enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system within the corridor;
and,
Select investments that build upon underused and abandoned transportation resources.
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed PVL project would consist of the existing BNSF and SJBL alignments, and
corridor Mile Post (MP) locations along the SJBL alignment are shown on Figure 2.4-1. The
proposed PVL project would be an extension of the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 line from the existing
Riverside Downtown Station, as shown on Figure 2.4-2, along a portion of the BNSF main line
and would connect to the SJBL using the proposed Citrus Connection. For the opening year of
2012, the PVL would include installation and rehabilitation of track ; construction of four stations
and a Layover Facility; improvements to existing grade crossings and selected culverts;
installation of new traffic signals, replacement of two existing bridges along the SJBL at the San
Jacinto River; and construction of communication towers and landscape walls. (In the context
of the PVL project, the term ―landscape wall‖ describes a free-standing, masonry block walls to
be constructed to provide a visual screen; landscape walls have no noise mitigation role. A
landscape wall will be constructed as part of the PVL project at Highland Elementary School
and Hyatt Elementary School. Additionally, RCTC will fund another landscape wall at Nan
Sanders Elementary School. See Section 2.4.9 for additional details).
5 1 2 3
4
6
7 8
9
1011121314151617181
9 9 820
21 !R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
OO
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
2.4-1
92666
2/9/10
JP
RM
92666mpEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREPERRIS VALLEY LINE
CORRIDOR MILE POSTS
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
CONNECTING TRACK
MILE POST FOR SJBL
MILE POST FOR BNSF
!R
!R
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Hunter Park
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles ±BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
300IiFeetSITEPHOTOGRAPH(VIEWNORTHEAST)PVLALIGNMENTSITEBOUNDARY0NPROJECTNO.92666FIGURERIVERSIDEDOWNTOWNDRAWN:12/8/09(EXISTING)STATIONDRAWNBY:JPCHECKEDBY:RMENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT2q42RIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONFILENAME:(KLE!NFELDERPERRISVALLEYLINE92666riverEIR.MXDRIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA-
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-14 April 5, 2010
Project features include:
Construction of a new rail segment (Citrus Connection) between the BNSF and the
SJBL;
Replacement and rehabilitation of existing rail and railroad ties (as necessary);
Installation of set-out tracks;
Construction of four ADA-compliant commuter rail stations;
Installation of a new bypass track along the I-215 corridor;
Replacement of two bridges (San Jacinto River located at MP 20.70, and San Jacinto
River Overflow Channel located at MP 20.80);
Construction of a Layover Facility;
Closure and improvements to existing grade crossings along the SJBL;
Installation of traffic signals;
Culvert replacement at designated locations;
Construction of nine communication towers;
Construction of landscape walls at selected locations; andHighland Elementary School
and Hyatt Elementary School and provision for one at Nan Sanders Elementary School;
and,
Street improvements at designated locations.
2.4.1 Track Improvements
All track improvements would occur within the existing SJBL ROW. Work would meet
SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail standards. This work would include replacement of wood ties
with concrete ties and new ballast (as necessary). In order to more accurately describe the
improvements to the track, the alignment is broken into the following segments with the
identified changes, as shown on Figure 2.4-3:
Citrus Connection: To connect the BNSF to the SJBL, a new approximately 2,000-foot
long track would be constructed, as shown on Figure 2.4-4 and Figure 2.4-5.
MP 1.40 to MP 5.103.50 (approximately Marlborough Avenue south to Poarch
RoadMount Vernon Avenue): The track would be upgraded with new concrete ties, new
welded rail, and new ballast as required.
MP 5.103.50 to MP 7.00 (approximately Poarch RoadMount Vernon Avenue to Box
Springs Boulevard): Wooden ties would be replaced as needed and new ballast added.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-15 April 5, 2010
MP 7.00 to approximately MP 7.50 (approximately Box Springs Boulevard to Eastridge
Avenue): This track would be upgraded with new concrete ties and new welded rail.
MP 7.50 to MP 16.90 (approximately Eastridge Avenue to Nuevo Road): A second
track, identified as a by-pass track, would be constructed on the I-215 side of the
existing SJBL track within the existing RCTC ROW. This track would be constructed
with new concrete ties and new welded rail. The existing track would remain for freight
service only, but would be moved slightly where the ROW passes underneath roadway
overpasses. This change is required to allow for enough clearance for bot h tracks and
the supports for the roadway overpasses.
MP 16.90 to MP 18.20 (approximately Nuevo Road to San Jacinto Avenue): The track
would be upgraded with new concrete ties and new welded rail.
MP 18.20 to approximately MP 19.00 (approximately San Jacinto Avenue to D Street/8th
Street): The track would be relocated so that the PVL would align with the new
platforms at the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility. The new track would be constructed
of new concrete ties and new welded rail, approximately 18 feet from the existing track,
and the existing track would be removed.
MP 19.00 to MP 22.00 (approximately D Street/8th Street to I-215): The track would be
upgraded on the existing alignment with new concrete ties, new wel ded rail, and new
ballast.
2.4.2 Stations and Other Facilities
Stations
Based on projected ridership, RCTC is proposing four stations for the opening year of 2012
including Hunter Park Station (one of three studied locations), Moreno Valley/March Field
Station, Downtown Perris Station, and South Perris Station.
Each of the proposed stations built as part of the PVL project would be constructed wit h 680-
foot long side platforms, and ADA-compliant in accordance with federal law and
SCRRA/Metrolink design standards, as shown on Figure 2.4-6. The ―typical‖ platform is
constructed of concrete with steps up and ADA-compliant walkways from the surrounding grade
to reach track elevation. In addition to the platform, there would be a trackside c anopy
structure, ticket kiosks, schedule information, a shelter comprised of mast -supported roof planes
(sloped to facilitate drainage), and decorative fencing to direct riders to the appropriate areas for
either boarding or disembarking from trains as sho wn on Figure 2.4-7. All parking areas would
be at-grade. Each station is described below in greater detail.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!RRIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRISCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
2.4-3
92666
1/30/10
JP
RM
92666impr1EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
SJBL TRACK IMPROVEMENTS
10120.5
Miles ±
LEGEND
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
DOUBLE TRACK
REHABILITATED TRACK
CONNECTING TRACK
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Hunter Park
!R
!R
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Set-Out Tracks
2.4-4
92666
12/8/09
JP
RM
92666citrusEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
CITRUS CONNECTION
±IOWA AVENUEW. SPRING STREET
VILLA STREET
0 300
FeetGLEN AVENUEPACIFIC AVENUETRANSIT AVENUESITE AERIAL
SITE PHOTOGRAPH (VIEW WEST)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-21 April 5, 2010
For 2012, the four proposed stations are:
Hunter Park Station, as illustrated on Figure 2.4-8, would be located east of I-215 at one of
three proximate site options, shown on Figure 2.4-9, Figure 2.4-10, and Figure 2.4-11. The
Palmyrita Station option is proposed for the east side of the SJBL main track at Iowa
Avenue between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues. The Columbia and Marlborough Station
options have been identified on the west side of the main track, with entry and exit from
Columbia and Marlborough Avenues, respectively. Selection of the Palmyrita Station option
would require a new main track to be constructed east of the existing SJBL , between Citrus
Street and Marlborough Avenue, to accommodate the station. Any of these station options
would accommodate parking for approximately 480 vehicles and cover approximately 8
acres including landscaping.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station would be located west of I-215 and south of Alessandro
Boulevard on property currently owned by the March Joint Powers Authority (March JPA)
and would be donated to RCTC. RCTC would be responsible for the construction ,
operation, and maintenance of the station and parking areas as shown on Figure 2.4-12 and
Figure 2.4-13. The associated parking area would have a capacity of approximately 445
vehicles and cover approximately 7 acres including landscaping.
Downtown Perris Station would be located southwest of I-215 between San Jacinto Avenue
and 4th Street at the existing Perris Multimodal Transit Facility, as shown on Figure 2.4-14
and Figure 2.4-15. Improvements to be undertaken by RCTC would include; an expansion
of the existing parking capacity to approximately 440 spaces covering approximately 6 acres
including landscaping and track realignment within the ROW to allow for proper spacing
between the platform and the train. The Perris Multimodal Transit Facility, currently under
construction, would include eight bus bays and five canopies. The facility would be
operated as a bus terminal by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) prior to the opening of the
proposed PVL project. With the opening of the PVL, it would become a multimodal transit
facility.
South Perris Station would be located west of I-215 near the intersection of the SJBL ROW
and State Route 74 (SR-74), as shown on Figure 2.4-16 and Figure 2.4-17. The associated
parking area would have a capacity of approximately 880 vehicles and cover approximately
11 acres including landscaping.
It should be noted that the rail station lay-out and design will be coordinated with the appropriate
land use agencies (i.e. City of Riverside, March JPA, and City of Perris).
Layover Facility
The proposed Layover Facility would be located southeast of the South Perris Station and west
of I-215, as shown on Figure 2.4-18 and Figure 2.4-19. In the 2012 opening year, the Layover
Facility would accommodate four ten-car trains arriving from Riverside in the afternoon. Trains
would be stored overnight on the four storage tracks (approximately 1,000 feet in length), and
would receive light maintenance, cleaning, and operational testing prior to morning departures.
The Layover Facility would include an ADA-accessible employee support building with modular
offices, storage, and parking. The parking capacity is approximately 40 vehicles covering an
area of less than one acre. The employee support building would be raised by six feet to
remain out of the 100-year floodplain.
2.4-8
92666
12/8/09
JP
RM
92666stationsEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
HUNTER PARK STATION OPTIONS
COLUMBIA
(WEST SIDE)
MARLBOROUGH
(WEST SIDE)
PALMYRITA
(EAST SIDE)
±0 500
Feet
SITE AERIAL
SITE PHOTOGRAPH -
PALMYRITA (VIEW NORTH)
SITE PHOTOGRAPH -
MARLBOROUGH (VIEW SOUTH)
COLUMBIA AVENUE
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
PALMYRITA AVENUE
NORTHGATE STREETSITE PHOTOGRAPH -
COLUMBIA (VIEW SOUTH)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
SITE BOUNDARY
PVL ALIGNMENT
LEGEND
iitc1t1t1ItII!z-LII’°PLATFORM-NtI:11__iI-—_I1:jIf!L:;:==—=—=,::::E:±:ZE:ZEz;z1::::±E±::-f1.,:--E-I1jlIII1!———--———————---EHzzHEE—I.[J;1-———-—4——‘1__c;sHEEEzjEEzzEEzE:E-II’;:::::zz:_z—zEI:I-___---———..•H,-±ELI\--..,-...V;:::!,,i*,\y_________ILEGENDSOURCE:SITEBOUNDARYNOTTOSCALEPOST30%DESIGNDRAWINGUPDATE.,-DRAWNBY:JPENGINEERINGSITEPLANPROJECTNO.92666HUNTERPARKSTATIONFIGUREI4DRAWN:12/16/09MARLBOROUGHAVENUEOPTIONCHECKEDBY:RMENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT2.4—11(NFELDERFILENAME:RIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION92666mar1E_EIRdwgPERRISVALLEYLINERIVERSIDE,_CALIFORNIAic
2.4-12
92666
12/8/09
JP
RM
92666mv_mfEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREMORENO VALLEY/
MARCH FIELD STATION
±ME
RI
DI
AN
P
ARKWAY
I
NTERSTATE
2
1
5
0 300
Feet
SITE PHOTOGRAPH (VIEW SOUTH)
SITE AERIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
SITE BOUNDARY
PVL ALIGNMENT
LEGEND
2.4-14
92666
12/8/09
JP
RM
92666dwntwnPEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
DOWNTOWN PERRIS STATION
±0300
Feet
SAN JACINTO AVENUE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET PERRIS BOULEVARDD STREETB STREETC STREETSITE PHOTOGRAPH (VIEW NORTH)
SITE AERIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
SITE BOUNDARY
PVL ALIGNMENT
LEGEND
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTRIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONPERRISVALLEYLINERIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIASITEPHOTOGRAPH(VIEWNORTH)NLEGENDSITEBOUNDARYPVLALIGNMENTSITEAERIAL01,000‘FeetAThcTcPROJECTNO.92666KLEINFELDERDRAWN:12/8/09DRAWNBY:JPCHECKEDBY:RMSOUTHPERRISSTATIONFILENAME:92666perrisEIR.MXDFIGURE2.4-16
A01,000‘FeetPROJECTNO.92666FIGUREDRABY12/8/09LAYOVERFACILITY24-18CHECKEDBY:RMENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTRIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION(KLEINFELDERFILENAME:PERRISVALLEYLINE92666IayoverEIR.MXDRIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIASITEPHOTOGRAPH(VIEWNORTH)LEGENDSITEBOUNDARYPVLALIGNMENTSITEAERIAL
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-34 April 5, 2010
2.4.3 Acquisitions and Relocations
The PVL will affect approximately twelve parcels of land. RCTC currently owns the existing
SJBL ROW, however, parcels would be required for the Citrus Connection , Hunter Park Station,
South Perris Station, Layover Facility, and for project related street improvements. Parcels are
in the process of being obtained by the RCTC for the Moreno Valley/March Field and are
already secured for the Downtown Perris Station options.
Citrus Connection
Right-of-way must be acquired to create the connection between the BNSF and SJBL. The
Citrus Connection would require the acquisition of approximately 16.4717.22 acres, comprising
two parcels which are currently vacant. The assessor parcel numbers (APNs) for these parcels
are 247-112-007 and 247-150-040 and are shown on Figure 2.4-20.
Hunter Park Station Options
The location for the Hunter Park Station will be selected from three options, which are generally
adjacent to one another, and described below. Depending on the Hunter Park Station option
selected by RCTC, the required acquisitions would range between 9.34 acres (for the Columbia
Station option) and 24.08 acres (for the Palmyrita Station option). The Hunter Park Station
parcels to be acquired are shown on Figure 2.4-21.
Palmyrita Station option: Located between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues on the east side of
the SJBL, this site is approximately 24.08 acres in area, although planned for development to
include a warehouse, the site is currently vacant. If selected for the Hunter Park Station,
existing improvements would require demolition. The APN for this site option is 249-060-033.
Columbia Station option: Also located between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues, on the west
side of the SJBL, the Columbia site is about 9.34 acres. This site is currently a citrus grove.
The APNs for this site option are 249-060-034 and 249-060-035.
Marlborough Station option: Located on the west side of the SJBL, on a parcel south of
Columbia Avenue and north of Marlborough Avenue, the site is about 9.365 acres. The site is
currently undeveloped. The APNs for this site option is are 249-070-042 and 249-070-043.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
RCTC is currently in the process of obtaining the Moreno Valley/March Field Station site from
March JPA, by donation. This station and associated impacts were evaluated in the March
Business Park (now Meridian) EIR. This station site is about 14.4650 acres, which is currently
undeveloped. The APN is 297-100-036 and is shown on Figure 2.4-22.
South Perris Station and Layover Facility
For the South Perris Station and Layover Facility, approximately 40.0026.50 acres will need to
be acquired by the RCTC. This site is currently undeveloped. The APNs are 327-200-001, and
327-020-009, and 330-110-003 as shown on Figure 2.4-23.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-35 April 5, 2010
Project Related Street Improvements
Two aAdditional parcels will need to be acquired to do project related street improvements in
the City of Perris. One site is on San Jacinto Avenue at C Street, APN 311-100-021, as shown
on Figure 2.4-24. Approximately 0.04 acres will need to be acquired by RCTC. The second site
is located on 11th 7th Street at D Street, APN 313-114-005. at South Perris Boulevard, APN
313-272-009. Approximately 0.0119 acres will need to be acquired by RCTC. Another site is
located along Case Road, APNs 310-140-019 and 310-160-070. Approximately 0.02 and 0.01
acres will need to be acquired by RCTC, respectively. The last site is located along Perris
Boulevard, APNs 310-150-002, 313-272-009, and 313-282-048. Approximately 0.03, 0.01, and
0.01 acres will need to be acquired by RCTC, respectively. These sites are shown on Figure
2.4-24.This site is currently undeveloped and is shown on Figure 2.4 -25.
For any of the facilities identified above, there is currently no need for relocation. Table 2.4-1
summarizes PVL‘s proposed acquisitions, although additional acquisitions may be necessary
based on final engineering. In addition, it should be noted that during construction there may be
a need for temporary access to specific areas depending on the construction activity and the
type of construction equipment. These temporary work areas would be identified as ‗temporary
construction easements‘.
Table 2.4-1
PVL Parcel Acquisitions
Site APN Owner
Parcel
Acres
Acreage
Required
for PVL
Citrus – Parcel 1 247-112-007 Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company
Citrus Business Park,
LLC
5.65 5.65
Citrus – Parcel 2 247-150-040 Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company
Citrus Business Park,
LLC
11.57
10.82
11.57
10.82
Hunter Park Station
Palmyrita Option
249-060-033 MDC Hunter Park, LLC 24.08 24.08
Hunter Park Station
Columbia Option – Parcel 1
249-060-034 Thompson, Kenneth &
Vera Ann
4.78 4.78
Hunter Park Station
Columbia Option – Parcel 2
249-060-035 Thompson, Kenneth &
Vera Ann
4.56 4.56
Hunter Park Station
Marlborough Option – Parcel 1
249-070-042 Grove Business Park,
LLC
9.35 9.35
Hunter Park Station
Marlborough Option – Parcel 2
249-070-043 Grove Business Park,
LLC
6.61 0.01
Moreno Valley/March Field
Station
297-100-036 LNR Riverside II, LLC 14.46
14.50
14.46
14.50
South Perris and Layover Facility
– Parcel 1
327-200-001 Intex Property Perris
Valley
140.51
141.77
37.70
37.47
South Perris – Parcel 2 327-020-009 Intex Property Perris
Valley
104.24
105.60
1.65
2.50
South Perris – Parcel 3 330-110-003 Rodeffer Family Trust 0.41 0.03
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-36 April 5, 2010
Site APN Owner
Parcel
Acres
Acreage
Required
for PVL
7th Street and D Street
Improvements
313-114-005 American Legion Perris
Post 395
0.65 0.01
San Jacinto Avenue
Improvements
311-100-021 County of Riverside 4.89 0.04
Case Road and G Street
Improvements – Parcel 1
310-140-019 Arturo and Isabel Munoz 0.31 0.02
Case Road and G Street
Improvements – Parcel 2
310-160-070 Integrity Capital
Palomar, LLC
3.32 0.01
Perris Boulevard and 11th Street
Improvements – Parcel 1
310-150-002 Orlando and Matilde
Sanchez
0.21 0.03
Perris Boulevard and 11th Street
Improvements – Parcel 2
313-272-009 Pentecostal Church of
God
0.19 0.01
0.19
Perris Boulevard and 11th Street
Improvements – Parcel 3
313-282-048 Apolinar and Florina
Sanchez
0.25 0.01
Parcel Totals 335.63
326.60
113.93
113.97
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2.4-20
92666
12/14/10
JP
RM
92666parcel11EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURECITRUS CONNECTION
PARCEL ACQUISITION
247-112-007
5.65 Acres
247-150-040
11.57 Acres
SOURCE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEM
AND EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, DECEMBER 2009
±
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPERRIS VALLEY LINERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2.4-21
92666
12/14/10
JP
RM
92666parcel12EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREHUNTER PARK STATIONPARCEL ACQUISITION
249-060-03324.08 Acres249-060-0344.78 Acres
249-050-0354.56 Acres
SOURCE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEM,AND EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, D ECEMBER 2009
249-070-0429.35 Acres
249-070-0430.01 Acres
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPERRIS VALLEY LINERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2.4-22
92666
12/14/10
JP
RM
92666parcel13EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREMORENO VALLEY/MARCH FIELD STATIONPARCEL ACQUISITION
297-100-03614.46 Acres
SOURCE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEM AND EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, D ECEMBER 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPERRIS VALLEY LINERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2.4-23
92666
6/22/11
JP
RM
92666parcel14EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURESOUTH PERRIS STATION ANDLAYOVER FACILITYPARCEL ACQUISITION
327-200-00137.70 Acres
327-020-0091.65 Acres
SOURCE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEMAND EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, DECEMBER 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPERRIS VALLEY LINERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2.4-24
92666
12/14/10
JP/KH
RM
92666parcel15EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURESTREET IMPROVEMENTSPARCEL ACQUISITION
311-100-0210.04 Acres
SOURCE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEMAND EPIC LAND SOULTIONS, DEC EMBER 2009
310-150-0020.03 Acres313-272-0090.01 Acres313-282-0480.01 Acres
313-114-0050.01 Acres
310-140-0190.02 Acres310-160-0700.01 Acres
NOT TO SCALE
SAN JACINTO AVE AND C STREET 7TH STREET AND D STREET
PERRIS BLVD AND 11TH STREET CASE ROAD AND G STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPERRIS VALLEY LINERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2.4-25
92666
6/23/11
JP/KH
RM
92666parcel8eir.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURESAN JACINTO AVENUEIMPROVEMENTSPARCEL ACQUISITION
311-100-0210.04 Acres
SOURCE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEM,AND EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, DECEMBER 2009
Proposed Acquisitions
Railroads
Streets
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-43 April 5, 2010
2.4.4 Culvert Replacement and Extension
There are approximately 53 drainage culverts along the SJBL that were evaluated in an Existing
Conditions Report (JL Patterson & Associates, Inc., 2008). Within this evaluation, 30 drainage
culverts were identified for replacement or extension as part of the project, as shown on Figure
2.4-26. Of the 30 identified for replacement on the SJBL, eight treated-wood box culverts would
be replaced with reinforced concrete box culverts.
2.4.5 Bridge Replacements
There are two bridges on the SJBL that require replacement, one at the San Jacinto River (MP
20.70) and a second at the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel (MP 20.8 0), as shown on
Figure 2.4-27. Both bridges will be replaced in-kind and will have a similar appearance as the
original bridges. The current San Jacinto River single-track bridge is an open-deck pile,
wooden trestle of 142 feet in length. The San Jacinto Overflow Channel single-track bridge (MP
20.80) is an open-deck pile, wooden trestle.
2.4.6 Grade Crossings
As required by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), modifications will be made to
several existing grade crossings along the SJBL to ensure public safety, and to facilitate safe
train movements. These modifications include improvements to several grade crossings, as
well as the closure of other grade crossings. The locations of grade crossings to be improved
or closed are shown on Figure 2.4-28.
Improvements are proposed at 15 grade crossings along the SJBL to include: flashing warning
devices and gates, raised center medians, striping, signage and pavement markings, crossing
safety lighting, signalization, and pedestrian safety improvements. Proposed improvements
would reduce the potential for pedestrian and motor vehicle conflict at these grade crossings.
The exact warning device configuration is to be determined by a diagnostic team consisting of
the CPUC, SCRRA, and BNSF representatives. To date, four field diagnostic meetings have
been held to review grade crossings for the PVL, with members from the CPUC, SCRRA,
BNSF, RCTC, County of Riverside, and cities of Riverside and Perris. A list of proposed grade
crossing modifications identified at the meetings, which includes improved crossings and
warning devices, is provided in Appendix C, Grade Crossing Modifications Table.
Two grade crossings would be closed to the public to accommodate the PVL project. The
closings are at Poarch Road (MP 5.02) in Riverside, and at West 6th Street (MP 19.03) in
Perris. It should be noted that the existing grade crossing at Poarch Road is planned to be
closed to the public but will continue to be accessible to emergency vehicles only (with a locked
gate). The existing grade crossing at 6th Street is planned to be closed to vehicles but would
still be accessible by pedestrians to cross. The closure of West 6th Street to vehicular traffic is
in accordance with Riverside‘s Downtown General Plan.
In additionPerris, 5th Street has been temporarily closed by the City of Perris and will be
formally vacated for this project. In addition, the northern end of Commercial Street would be
closed to the public (with locked gates) where it intersects with D Street and Perris Boulevard,
which would allow access to emergency vehicles only. This closure is necessary due to
potential safety issues at the tracks as the turning movements involve an acute angle and can
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-44 April 5, 2010
present the motorist with limited sight distance . Although this closure is expected to affect fewer
than five vehicles during any one hour, 9th Street, which is currently a dirt road, would be paved
to accommodate local property access,
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
#*#*
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside CountyHIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
SAN JACINTO RIVER BRIDGE MP 20.70
SAN JACINTO RIVER OVERFLOW CHANNEL BRIDGE MP 20.80CHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEIRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMP 9.90
MP 9.70
MP 6.70
MP 6.50
MP 6.11
MP 1.40
MP 5.80
MP 6.60
MP 1.30
MP 5.30
MP 16.20
MP 16.16
MP 15.80
MP 15.30
MP 14.90
MP 14.80
MP 14.50
MP 13.43
MP 13.20MP 12.58
MP 12.52
MP 12.40
MP 12.10
MP 11.30
MP 11.13
MP 10.10
MP 18.10
MP 17.10
MP 11.59
2.4-26
92666
1/30/10
JP
RM
92666culvEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREBRIDGE AND CULVERT
IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
BRIDGE
CULVERT!(
#*
10120.5
Miles ±
MP - MILE POST
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Hunter Park
South Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
8
3
1
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRISWEBSTER AVEDowntown Perris
2
4
5 6
7
9CHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXPY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDCACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
2.4-28
92666
1/30/10
JP
RM
92666crossEIR1.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREPVL GRADE CROSSING
IMPROVEMENTS AND CLOSURES
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
!R
!R
!R
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
4TH STREET
§¨¦215
Downtown Perris
ELLIS AVENUEA STREETPERRIS BLVDSAN JACINTO AVENUE
11TH STREET
18
11
1415 16
1312
10
17
CITY OF PERRIS 0 2,000
Feet
!(
!(
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles ±BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
CROSSING PROPOSED FOR CLOSURE:
8 - Poarch Road
11 - 5th Street *
13 - 6th Street
CROSSING TO BE IMPROVED:
1 - Citrus Street
2 - Palmyrita Avenue
3 - Columbia Avenue
4 - Marlborough Avenue
5 - Spruce Street
6 - W. Blaine Street
7 - Mt. Vernon Avenue
9 - River Crest Drive
10 - San Jacinto Avenue
12 - 4th Street
14 - 7th Steet
15 - S. D Street
16 - S. Perris Boulevard
17 - G Street
18 - E. Ellis Avenue
* Grade crossing will be closed by others.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-48 April 5, 2010
Other work to existing grade crossings, located within the PVL corridor, includes grade
separations. Currently there are plans by others to create grade separations at three grade
crossings. These are not part of the PVL project. These three locations are along the BNSF
alignment at 3rd Street, Columbia Avenue, and Iowa Avenue in the city of Riverside.
2.4.7 Communication Systems
The PVL communication systems would consist of communication towers and associated
equipment shelters, and underground cables. This portion of the PVL project would include the
construction of nine communication towers: East Maintenance Facility (outside of the PVL
corridor), Control Point (CP) Citrus (near the Citrus Connection), Hunter Park Station option
microwave tower, CP Marlborough, CP Eastridge (between Alessandro Boulevard and the I-
215/SR-60 interchange), CP Oleander (south of MARB), CP Nuevo (north of Nuevo Road),
South Perris Station communication shelter and tower, and CP Mapes (south of South Perris
Station). Details of the two types of communication towers are described in Section 4.1
Aesthetics.
The electronics at PVL crossings would be upgraded with crossing predictors to sense the
speed and presence of trains. The work would include new or upgraded grade crossing
warning devices and new pedestrian crossing warning devices; signal system upgrades; and
replacement of control cables, housings, and equipment. The crossing predictors would enable
the crossing gates to lower and rise in equal time durations regardless of the speed of
approaching trains. Overlay circuits would be installed at each crossing to detect trains while
they are still at least one crossing away. Rubberized or asphalt crossings would be replaced
with concrete panel crossings.
2.4.8 Noise Barriers
During the analysis of the project noise related impacts were identified in the Watkins Drive area
in the City of Riverside. The feasible and appropriate mitigation for the identified impacts are
the construction of noise barriers. The noise barriers will be located near the outside edge of
the RCTC ROW. In some cases the new barrier would replace the current boundary fencing
between the private residences and the ROW. Additionally, the built environment in this area
has developed with buildings, landscape trees, and fencing such that the addition of noise walls
would not block views of the nearby mountains. Details regarding the noise barriers are
provided in Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration.
2.4.9 Landscape Walls
Landscape walls have been identified for three schools along the SJBL alignment: Highland
Elementary School, Hyatt Elementary School, and Nan Sanders Elementary School. It should
be noted that there are ROW constrictions at Nan Sanders Elementary S chool, therefore, RCTC
will provide funding for the design and construction of the landscape wall on the school‘s
property.
In contrast to noise barriers, landscape walls are not mitigation for any identified impacts.
Instead, landscape walls are primarily aesthetic. In discussions with the Riverside Unified and
Perris Union School Districts, it was mutually agreed that the three schools along the PVL would
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-49 April 5, 2010
receive a benefit from a landscape wallvisual barrier that would provide a screen between the
schools and the railroad ROW.
As such, RCTC agreed that the PVL project will provide landscape walls.The landscape walls
will be located within the PVL ROW adjacent to the school properties as a ―good neighbor‖
gesture to the schools, not as mitigation. The landscape walls are not intended to provide any
function beyond that of a visual screen. They are neither a noise barrier, nor shall they be
construed as a safety measure.
2.4.10 Construction
It is anticipated that project construction would start in 2011, and continue until revenue service
can commence in 2012. The work would be performed in a manner that allows freight deliveries
to continue while the PVL improvements are being undertaken. Freight delivery s chedules
would be adjusted to accommodate the work, balancing the need to support business activity of
the freight shippers/receivers with the need to remove old track and install new track. Some
construction work may be performed at night or on weekends and some train operations may
shift to nights or weekends to accomplish the project schedule. In the event that nighttime and
weekend work are determined necessary, coordination with the affected local jurisdictions will
be undertaken.
Federal regulations and traditional safety practices require that train operations and workers on
or near the tracks be protected from each other. This separation is performed by flagmen who
assure that workers near the track are safe from oncoming trains, direct the workers to retreat to
a place of safety when trains pass, and who assure that the tracks are safe for train operation
before permitting trains to pass.
The core of the PVL work would be to remove the existing track and replace it with new track
components. This work would likely be performed with specialized equipment that can install
about ½ mile of track per day. This equipment is a specialized rail machine that runs on the
track and carries the supplies necessary to complete the rehabilitat ion work. This machine also
makes sure that the two rails are level in relation to each other when the work is complete.
Other tasks include removing and replacing grade crossings, selected culverts, and bridges. All
of these tasks require that the contractor have extended periods (18-96 hours) of exclusive use
of the track. Some of the contractor‘s tasks would not interfere with the operation of trains, and
these tasks would be performed during normal working hours. Examples of non-interfering
tasks include changes to the embankments, station areas, noise barriers, and signal
installations. Segments of wholly new track in the area between Eastridge Avenue and Ramona
Boulevard and the areas of very limited freight operations, roughly Ramona Boulevard to the
South Perris Station, may be constructed without interference with freight train operation.
Construction activities would be generally broken up by three parallel efforts, including
construction of the tracks, crossings, and systems. The construction process would begin with
the relocation of any public utilities along the alignment. This work is to be done by contractors
hired by the utility owners and subject to the control of railroad flagmen. The next step would be
the staging of construction materials and equipment. Where needed, the contractor would
perform rough grading for embankment changes and construction equipment access. Bridges,
selected culverts, and grade crossings would be removed and reconstructed. Replacement of
the San Jacinto River bridges would require pile driving.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-50 April 5, 2010
Once the embankment and culverts are functionally complete, track removal and replacement
would be undertaken. Track removal would be performed by typical construction equipment
including end loaders, dump trucks, and all-terrain cranes. Replacement of the track would
begin with the distribution of a base course of crushed rock ballast. Then, specialized track
equipment would be used to place the concrete ties on the ballast and install the rail. About one
to two miles of track would be reconstructed during each three to four day work period. After
the track is assembled, more crushed rock ballast would be delivered by rail cars and the track
would be lined, surfaced, and welded into its final configuration. This would be followed with
final shaping of the embankment, cleanup, and installation and testing of the signals. Road
crossing work would be coordinated with the train operations and with local traffic authorities to
assure that there is advance public notice and adequate alternate routes.
It should also be noted that any equipment staging areas will be within disturbed areas of the
ROW or RCTC property, and not within 500 feet of environmentally sensitive areas.
2.4.11 Operations
RCTC anticipates the PVL would become operational in 2012. The operation of trains on the
PVL will be the responsibility of SCRRA/Metrolink under agreement with RCTC. The 2012
opening year operating schedules would include four trains from the South Perris Station to the
Riverside Downtown Station, with continuing service on the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 line to LA
Union Station during the morning peak, and one morning train serving reverse commute trips
from LA Union Station to the South Perris Station. In addition, two mid-day, off-peak trains
would operate in each direction. During the afternoon peak, four trains would operate from LA
Union Station to the South Perris Station, and one in-bound train would operate from the South
Perris Station to LA Union Station. In all, it is anticipated that there would be a total of twelve
daily trips. The interval between each peak period run would be approximately 50 to 60 minutes
in the 2012 opening year, as shown in Table 2.4-2.
Table 2.4-2
Preliminary Opening Year Operations Schedule
To Los Angeles 701 703 7X1 7X3 7X5 7X7 91 Line [Perris V, Riverside, Fullerton, Downtown LA] South Perris 3:51 AM
3:48
4:51 AM
4:48
5:51 AM
5:48
6:21 AM
6:18
2:13 PM
2:10
3:55 PM
3:52
Downtown Perris 3:56 AM
3:53
4:56 AM
4:53
5:56 AM
5:53
6:26 AM
6:23
2:18 PM
2:15
4:00 PM
3:57
Moreno Valley/
March Field
4:10 AM
4:07
5:10 AM
5:07
6:10 AM
6:07
6:40 AM
6:37
2:32 PM
2:29
4:14 PM
4:11
Hunter Park 4:19 AM
4:22
5:19 AM
5:22
6:19 AM
6:22
6:49 AM
6:52
2:41 PM
2:44
4:23 PM
4:26
Riverside -
Downtown 4:30 AM 5:30 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 2:52 PM 4:34 PM
Riverside – LA
Sierra 4:40 AM 5:40 AM 6:40 AM 7:10 AM 3:02 PM 4:44 PM
North Main Corona 4:48 AM 5:48 AM 6:48 AM 7:18 AM 3:10 PM 4:52 PM
West Corona 4:54 AM 5:54 AM 6:54 AM 7:24 AM 3:16 PM 4:58 PM
Fullerton 5:19 AM 6:19 AM 7:19 AM 7:49 AM 3:41 PM 5:21 PM
Buena Park 5:26 AM 6:26 AM 7:26 AM 7:56 AM 4:07 PM 5:26 PM
Norwalk/Santa Fe
Springs 5:34 AM 6:34 AM 7:34 AM 8:04 AM 4:15 PM 5:34 PM
LA Union Station 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 4:39 PM 6:00 PM
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-51 April 5, 2010
Table 2.4-2 (cont’d)
Preliminary Opening Year Operations Schedule
To Perris Valley 700 702 704 706 708 710 91 Line [Perris V, Riverside, Fullerton, Downtown LA] LA Union Station 6:15 AM 11:30 AM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:15 PM
Norwalk/Santa Fe
Springs 6:36 AM 11:51 AM 3:51 PM 4:51 PM 5:51 PM 6:36 PM
Buena Park 6:42 AM 11:57 AM 3:57 PM 4:57 PM 5:57 PM 6:42 PM
Fullerton 6:49 AM 12:04 PM 4:04 PM 5:04 PM 6:04 PM 6:49 PM
West Corona 7:12 AM 12:27 PM 4:27 PM 5:27 PM 6:27 PM 7:12 PM
North Main
Corona 7:18 AM 12:33 PM 4:33 PM 5:33 PM 6:33 PM 7:18 PM
Riverside – LA
Sierra 7:27 AM 12:42 PM 4:42 PM 5:42 PM 6:42 PM 7:27 PM
Riverside -
Downtown 7:45 AM 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:45 PM
Hunter Park 7:51 AM 1:06 PM 5:06 PM 6:06 PM 7:06 PM 7:51 PM
Moreno Valley/
March Field
8: 03 AM
8:06
1:18 PM
1:21
5:18 PM
5:21
6:18 PM
6:21
7:18 PM
7:21
8:03 PM
8:06
Downtown Perris 8:17 AM
8:20
1:32 PM
1:35
5:32 PM
5:35
6:32 PM
6:35
7:32 PM
7:35
8:17 PM
8:20
South Perris 8:22 AM
8:25
1:37 PM
1:40
5:37 PM
5:40
6:37 PM
6:40
7:37 PM
7:40
8:22 PM
8:25
2.4.12 Maintenance
Currently, maintenance of the SJBL ROW is the responsibility of BNSF under agreement with
RCTC. RCTC anticipates that project maintenance will be according to SCRRA/Metrolink
standard practices which include: checking/correcting alignment of the rail, checking/correcting
alignment of the ties, controlling vegetation within the ROW, and ensuring drainage pathways
are clear and functioning. Additional maintenance checks include : checking the crossing gates
and associated electronics, and general condition assessment of rail-related facilities.
The trains would receive overnight service at the Layover Facility by SCRRA/Metrolink
personnel or assigned contractors. This service would include cleaning the inside and outside
of the trains, emptying the restroom holding tanks, and a general visual evaluation of the trains.
Heavy maintenance, including engine overall, parts replacement, scheduled lubrication and flu id
replacement, of SCRRA/Metrolink engines and cars would continue to be performed at
SCRRA/Metrolink facilities near Colton.
2.4.13 Freight Usage
As part of the planning effort for the PVL, RCTC commissioned a study in 2008 to inventory the
current freight usage along the SJBL and to determine whether track improvements planned for
commuter rail service would facilitate the expansion of freight service along the SJBL (Wilbur
Smith Associates, 2008). Under the shared use agreement between BNSF and RCTC, freight
usage of the improved SJBL would continue following the start of revenue service of the PVL.
Currently, there are eight shippers between Riverside and Romoland with sidings off of the
SJBL. The existing facilities ship a variety of products , including paper stock, resins, lumber,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-52 April 5, 2010
chlorine, and agricultural products. Many of the freight shippers using the SJBL transport goods
outside of California and the western states, and in some cases, to Canada.
According to the findings of the study, it is unlikely that the improvements would benefit shippers
in any material way. No shippers indicated that the improvements will result in an increase of
their rail shipments. Track improvements and other upgrades proposed as part of the PVL are
aimed at improving operations and safety to accommodate commuter rail service. These
improvements will provide safety benefits that accrue to both commuter and freight operations
(for example, grade and pedestrian crossing improvements and improved communications).
However, rail improvements are not needed to accommodate freight loading, as the existing
SJBL track and sidings can already carry the heaviest car weight of 286,000 pounds. Because
no additional weight capacity would be added, or is even needed for existing users of the BNSF,
PVL-related track improvements would not create conditions that could either increase the
volume of freight shipped per carload or the number of weekly carloads.
Although track upgrades would improve operations and theoretically allow trains to travel at
faster speeds, freight trains are limited to traveling at 20 miles per hour (mph) north of Perris.
Southbound freight trains would continue to operate at lower speeds to maneuver th e climb
through Box Springs Canyon. The current freight inventory indicates that freight shipments
often travel thousands of miles, and therefore any upgrades to the existing 21 -mile-long SJBL
segment to allow for even minor increases in train speed have little overall impact on the total
travel time of the shipment.
Improvements to the SJBL to provide for commuter rail service would not facilitate expansion of
freight volume or the number of freight trains operating along the PVL alignment. While PVL
track improvements would provide for reduction in potential schedule conflicts, upgrades to the
rail line would not result in additional freight demand. The study concluded that economic
factors, rather than rail improvements, dictate freight demand.
The SJBL is already accessible to the BNSF via the existing connection near Center Street in
the community of Highgrove. The existing connection could also be used by commuter rail and
was previously analyzed in the Alternatives Analysis as the Commuter Rail Alternative with
Highgrove Turnback (see Chapter 3.0 for Project Alternatives). However, one of the key factors
for commuter rail viability is travel time. Use of the Highgrove Turnback at Center Street to
move between the BNSF and SJBL would require trains to stop and reverse direction and
undergo a number of safety checks prior to continuing along the alignment. The additional time
required for this maneuver would effectively degrade commuter rail travel time such that its
viability becomes questionable. However, freight operations are not as time sensitive to operate
effectively.
Freight operations are dictated by costumer demand; in turn, customer demand is a function of
economic conditions. The relationship between an improved SJBL alignment and increased
freight operations is tenuous, at best. The business decision to provide freight service along the
SJBL is profit driven. As long as the customer demand for freight service is low, there is no
reason to assume BNSF would increase operations on the SJBL, regardless of track conditions.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 2-53 April 5, 2010
2.4.14 SCRRA/Metrolink Operation Lifesaver
For safety and security reasons, SCRRA/Metrolink has developed a safety education program
as a service to schools and communities along Metrolink lines (11 schools are located within
0.25 miles of the SJBL). This safety education program incorporates Operation Lifesaver, which
is a non-profit international public education program established in 1972 to end collisions,
deaths, and injuries at highway-rail grade crossings and along railroad ROWs. The program
addresses rail safety and teaches students at age-appropriate levels to understand rail signage,
the importance of avoiding the railroad ROW, and safe driving skills in the vicinity of railroads.
Operation Lifesaver provides free presentations to schools and community groups. The
majority of the PVL operations would not occur during the school session because most
scheduled runs occur either before the start of the school day or after its completion (see Table
2.4-1). SCRRA/Metrolink with RCTC encourages school and community group participation in
Operation Lifesaver.
2.4.15 Positive Train Control
Operational safety is a major concern of RCTC and SCRRA, and safety is designed into the
PVL and rail projects starting with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) track safety standards.
SCRRA initiates safety through the design of its locomotives, which are outfitted with light
sources at the lower half of the train to illuminate the track for the safety of the train and
surrounding areas. At the national level, FRA is developing the standards for implementation of
Positive Train Control (PTC) for passenger rail operators. PTC refers to technology that is
capable of preventing train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, and casualties or injuries
to roadway workers (e.g., MOW workers, bridge workers, signal maintainers, contractors)
operating within their limits of authority. PTC systems vary widely in complexity and
sophistication based on the level of automation and functionality they implement, the system
architecture utilized, and the degree of train control they are capable of assuming. Current PTC
system designs act as a safety overlay of existing train control systems. PTC has been
mandated nationally, and reportedly, the SCRRA/Metrolink fleet will be compliant once SCRRA
has finalized the design of the system. Space provisions have been incorporated into the signal
equipment and enclosures to accommodate the PTC upgrade when the SCRRA‘s program is
finalized.
In southern California, installation of PTC is the agency's highest safety priority project. As a
result, SCRRA is developing an accelerated strategy with a goal to have PTC operational on
Metrolink rolling stock by 2012, in conjunction with the BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) freight
railroads aim to complete the implementation of wayside PTC along their ROW in the Los
Angeles basin by 2012. SCRRA's objective is to have the full PTC system in place in advance
of the 2015 federal mandate (Solow, 2009).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-1 April 5, 2010
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 RCTC Responsibilities
State law created the Riverside County Transportation Commission in 1976 to oversee funding
and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County. The
Commission‘s governing board is made up of 32 members including a city council member from
each incorporated city and the five members of the Board of Supervisors and a non-voting
Governor appointee.
RCTC serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for Measure A, a 1/2 cent sales
tax program initially approved by voters in 1988 and subsequently in 2002, and will remain in
place until 2039. Measure A funds highway, street and road, and transit projects throughout
Riverside County. In addition to Measure A funding, RCTC also allocates state and federal
transportation dollars to their local jurisdictions.
The Commission also implements new transportation projects through a Highway and Rail
Delivery Plan. In transit RCTC operates and funds commuter rail services and stations, works
with local employers to provide commuter assistance programs, oversees public transit funding
and providers, and administers the Call Box and Freeway Service Patrol programs.
Additionally, the Commission serves as Riverside County's Congestion Management Agency,
and actively participates in regional goods movement issues. RCTC is also one of a five-county
joint powers authority that makes up the Southern California Regional Rail Authority better
known as Metrolink.
In 2004 RCTC developed goals to identify transportation and community related needs within
western Riverside County and develop transit solutions to meet those needs. Study efforts
have documented a significant increase in population and development within western Riverside
County. The accompanying land use patterns that have shaped this growth have additional
transportation impacts. The suburban low-density residential developments in this area require
an automobile for almost all trips. Even more pronounced is the reduced availability of
employment in Riverside County relative to its population, and as a result many residents must
commute long distances to jobs outside the county. These factors have resulted in significant
burdens on transportation system users, the roadway network, and residents.
RCTC considered existing and projected transportation conditions wit hin the western Riverside
County based upon highway congestion, the growth of population and employment centers, and
planned transportation improvements within the I-215/SR-60 corridor. RCTC determined that
this corridor is severely constrained by several conditions, including:
Both local and regional transportation movement occurs primarily via the already
congested I-215 freeway between the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley;
At the convergence of I-215/SR-60, a bottleneck is created in the region‘s transportation
network, and there are no roadway alternatives that co uld relieve congestion in the
I 215/SR-60 area;
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-2 April 5, 2010
Current and planned freeway improvements will not meet forecasted travel demand;
and,
Potential freeway expansion beyond currently planned improvements would have
substantial adverse impacts on adjoining neighborhoods.
While a number of transportation improvements have been implemented to reduce traffic
congestion, community and transportation related needs have not been fully addressed. The
region‘s existing transportation facilities have not been able to accommodate the growing trip
volumes without experiencing extensive congestion along the corridor. Consideration of the
transportation issues in the study corridor, including the constraints to additional freeway
widening, the existence of underutilized transportation resources, and the need to provide
transit travel options to a growing population and employment centers lead to the development
of project goals and objectives. In order to focus on an appropriate range of transportation
solutions, RCTC developed project related goals and objectives.
3.1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
A set of goals and objectives has been developed from the needs observed, documented, and
expressed through public outreach to affected communities, stakeholders, and concerned
individuals. Defining the project‘s goals and objectives is a key step in determining what is
specifically desired from the project investment. The goals and objectives succinctly define how
the purpose and need for the project will be fulfilled (goals), and where possible, incorporate
quantifiable measures (objectives) that will help in the development of evaluation criteria. Four
goals with objectives were identified to outline the mobility needs of western Riverside County.
These goals were determined in RCTC‘s San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study
Alternatives Analysis (AA) prepared in 2004 (STV Inc., 2004) see Technical Report A.
Goal 1 – Improve the Transportation System with Alternative Travel Choices:
Objectives
To establish and expand the regional transit network within and beyond the study corridor.
To improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commuter alternative to the automobile,
by making it available, reliable and convenient to use.
To reduce highway congestion in the corridor.
To promote a seamless regional transit system.
Goal 2 – Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development:
Objectives
To strengthen the older urban communities as centers of economic opportunity.
To broaden the range and availability of public transportation alternatives between the
various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes.
To encourage transit-friendly communities, at higher densities.
To foster transit-oriented development around transit stations.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-3 April 5, 2010
To provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent.
Goal 3 – Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts:
Objectives
To establish help reduce residential, commercial, and industrial ―sprawl‖ development.
To conform to the State Implementation Plan as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990.
To minimize impacts to the natural and human-made environment.
To reduce the need for new right-of-way resources thereby reducing land use impacts to the
study corridor.
Goal 4 – Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently:
Objectives
To invest resources efficiently.
To improve the productivity and cost effectiveness of transit services in the corridor.
To enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system within the corridor.
To select investments that build upon underused and abandoned transportation resources.
3.1.3 CEQA Guidelines
CEQA Guidelines §15126(d)(2) states that the range of potential alternatives to the proposed
project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the
project and could avoid or substantially lesseon one or more of the significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project. CEQA specifically requires the discussion of a ―No Project‖
alternative. The reasonable range is to include alternatives that focus on the mitigation or
avoidance of significant effects associated with the proposed project, permits a reasoned choice
for the decision makers, and is feasible. §15126(d)(5) states that among the factors which may
be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site availability,
economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, oth er plans or
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably
acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
The treatment of alternatives in an EIR must include an analysis of attainment of the project
objectives, assess the significant environmental effects, develop screening criteria for feasibility
of alternatives, and identify the environmentally superior alternative. This chapter reviews the
transit alternatives and compares each of the transit alternatives, as described in the AA (STV
Inc., 2004). The analysis of alternatives is the process for reaching a broad consensus on
exactly what type of improvement or improvements best meet locally-defined Goals and
Objectives for a specified study area (I-215 corridor).
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
RCTC considered five alternatives in its AA to alleviate existing and future transportation
deficiencies through the use of existing transportation resources in the study corridor. The
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-4 April 5, 2010
alternatives were described and evaluated based upon criteria that measured the ability of each
alternative to satisfy the Goals and Objectives of the study. The five alternatives included:
No Project Alternative – Planned roadway improvements along I-215 because it
represents a continuation of current transportation planning efforts.
Express Bus Alternative – Potential improvements in express bus service on the
highway network as shown in Figure 3.2-1.
Commuter Rail Alternatives – new commuter rail service options that runs parallel to a
substantial portion of the I-215 with different connection options:
o New connection to Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead (UP RIL), as shown in
Figure 3.2-2.
o Connection to BNSF with Highgrove Turnback, as shown in Figure 3.2-3.
o New connection to BNSF at Citrus Street (Citrus Connection), as shown in Figure
3.2-1.
!R
!R
!R !R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
3.2-1
92666
3/9/10
JP
RM
92666busEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE2004 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS -
EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris
Nuevo
Alessandro
LEGEND
EXISTING STATION
EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE STATION
EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE ROUTE
ON I-215 AND LOCAL STREETS
!R
!R
UC Riverside
Ramona
RTA Downtown
Bus Terminal
(Existing)
Box Springs
Perris
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles
NOTE:
STATIONS INDICATED ARE THOSE IDENTIFIED
IN THE 2004 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08 ±
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
3.2-2
92666
3/9/10
JP
RM
92666unionEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE2004 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS -
COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE
WITH NEW CONNECTION TO UP RIL
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris
Perris
Alessandro
LEGEND
EXISTING STATION
COMMUTER RAIL WITH NEW
CONNECTION TO UP RIL STATION
UP RIL CONNECTION ALTERNATIVE
ON SJBL CORRIDOR
!R
!R BNSF MAINLINE / METROLINKR IVER SID E IN D U STR IAL LEAD SAN JACINTO BRANCH§¨¦215
COLUMBIA AVENUE
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
SPRUCE STREETIOWA AVENUECHICAGO AVENUE·|}þ60
UP RIL CONNECTION
Ramona
UC Riverside
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
NOTES:
STATIONS INDICATED ARE THOSE IDENTIFIED
IN THE 2004 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
UP RIL - UNION PACIFIC RIVERSIDE INDUSTRIAL LEAD
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08 ±10120.5
Miles
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
3.2-3
92666
3/9/10
JP
RM
92666hgroveEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE2004 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS -
COMMUTER RAIL ALTERNATIVE
WITH HIGHGROVE TURNBACK
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris
Perris
Alessandro
LEGEND
!R
!R
UC Riverside
!R
BNSF MAINLINE / METROLINKRIVERSIDE INDUSTRIAL LEADSAN JACINTO BRANCH§¨¦215
CENTER STREET
VILLA STREET
COLUMBIA AVENUE
SPRUCE STREETIOWA AVENUECHICAGO AVENUEMARLBOROUGH AVENUE
HIGHGROVE TURNBACK
Center Street
Ramona
Center Street
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles
EXISTING STATION
COMMUTER RAIL WITH HIGHGROVE
TURNBACK STATION
HIGHGROVE TURNBACK
ALTERNATIVE
NOTE: STATIONS INDICATED ARE THOSE
IDENTIFIED IN THE 2004 ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08 ±
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
3.2-4
92666
3/9/10
JP
RM
92666commEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURELOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
COMMUTER RAIL
WITH CITRUS CONNECTION
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
EXISTING STATION
COMMUTER RAIL WITH CITRUS
CONNECTION PROPOSED STATION
CITRUS CONNECTION LOCALLY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA)
!R
!R
Hunter Park
BNSF MAINLINE / METROLINKSAN JACINTO BRANCHVILLA STREET
CITRUS STREET
CITRUS CONNECTION
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles ±
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-9 April 5, 2010
3.2.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would be the continuation of current and long-range plans for
highway improvements, and maintaining the existing rail corridor for continued freight service.
There are several planned and programmed roadway improvements along I -215 to include
widening this freeway between the I-215/SR-60 interchange and Nuevo Road, between Nuevo
Road and Scott Road, and between Scott Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Even with
current and programmed improvements that include additional general purpose and High-
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, I-215 is forecasted to continue to operate at unsatisfactory
service levels. As evidenced by increasing travel times, the I-215 freeway cannot keep pace
with the projected demand resulting from population, employment, and development growth in
the study corridor. With the major transportation facilities in the corridor, I-215 and SR-60,
expected to continue experiencing unsatisfactory levels of service even with programmed
roadway improvements over the coming years, there is a need for a new transportation
alternative to accommodate current and future mobility needs.
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the identified project Goals and Objectives.
This alternative would not provide a different mode of passenger transportation between
Riverside and Perris (auto and bus modes would still be tied to the congested roadway
network). Additionally, it would not reduce highway congestion in the corridor, thus furthering
impacts to the natural environment with increased impacts to air quality within the corridor. The
No Project Alternative would not broaden the range of public transportation alternatives between
the various urban areas along the corridor and region, nor would it build upon an underused
transportation resource within the corridor. Therefore, the No Project Alternative was eliminated
from further evaluation, since it did not meet any of the goals and objectives for the project.
3.2.2 Express Bus Alternative
The Express Bus Alternative consists of low-capital improvements to existing transit facilities
and services that would operate on I-215 HOV lanes between Downtown Riverside and Perris,
as shown on Figure 3.2-1. To support this service, local feeder bus connections are proposed
for the express bus route. Metrolink commuter rail service in Riverside would also benefit from
any additional transfers from the feeder buses. The Express Bus Alternative comprises seven
new stations within the I-215 corridor and two existing stations, including the Riverside
Downtown Metrolink Station and the RTA Downtown Bus Terminal in downtown Riverside. The
express bus service would be coordinated to reach the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station
during peak periods such that connections could be made to departing (AM) and arriving (PM)
trains. In addition, linkages to local bus route services will complement the proposed service.
Several local routes will incorporate an additional ―express bus stop‖ in order to provide greater
connectivity and faster transportation service between the municipalities in the corridor.
This alternative would not adequately meet a majority of the four established project goals and
their respective objectives. While improving the attractiveness of public transit as an alternative
to the automobile this option does not reduce highway congestion in the corridor. The
congested freeways, in particular the I 215/SR-60 interchange, affect the ability for the Express
Bus Alternative to provide congestion relief. The operation of this alternative would require the
buses to continually cross highly congested mixed-flow lanes to use the planned HOV lanes
between the new stations, thus adversely affecting their travel times and ridership. Ridership
growth was projected to be minimal, largely due to longer travel times on the increasingly
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-10 April 5, 2010
congested freeways. Minimizing environmental impacts for this alternative would not be met as
effectively as the commuter rail alternatives. Seven new stations are proposed for the Express
Bus Alternative, the greatest number of stations compared to the other alt ernatives, requiring
more right-of-way acquisition which increases land use impacts to the corridor. As a result of
the longest travel time from increasing highway congestion throughout the forecast years,
impacts to air quality and traffic would be significant. Lastly, while this alternative proves to be
the most cost effective (lowest total capital expenditure) the performance of this alternative was
deemed insufficient to meet the needs of commuters in the corridor.
3.2.3 New Commuter Rail Alternatives
Three build alternatives were identified that would implement commuter rail service in the
corridor between Riverside and Perris. The study corridor includes an existing railroad right-of-
way, the SJBL, which could provide a commuter rail route that would avoid the impediments to
mobility that are found in the corridor and which cannot be adequately addressed by the other
alternatives. The three new commuter rail alternatives are comparable because the alternatives
are similar in terms of operation.
Each commuter rail alternative extends the Metrolink 91 Line service from the existing
Downtown Riverside Station to San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties. The
differences in the three commuter rail alternatives incl ude the various options to connect the
SJBL mainline for service to the existing Metrolink station in downtown Riverside. The
commuter rail service would operate during the peak period and in the peak direction. The
operating schedule will be such that arrival and departure at Los Angeles Union Station would
coincide with typical work schedules, in an effort to make the new service as attractive as
possible to commuters. Different route lengths and operational considerations for each
alternative are described in detail below.
The Commuter Rail Alternatives successfully meet a majority of the project goals and
objectives. Specifically, these alternatives build upon underused transportation resources since
track in the region is currently only servicing freight operations. Commuter rail service expands
not only the regional transit network but also beyond the study corridor and promotes a
seamless transit system. These alternatives would strengthen older urban communities as
centers of economic opportunity by fostering transit-oriented development. Improving mobility
through the corridor without the dependency to rely on and add to the congestion of highways.
Since all three commuter rail alternatives would satisfy the above stated proje ct goals and
objectives the remainder of the discussion will focus on the goals and objectives, specifically in
terms of environmental impacts, that would not be meet by each alternative.
Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL
This commuter rail alternative would connect the SJBL to the existing Riverside Downtown
Station via the Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead (UP RIL) (an active freight service line)
without connecting to the BNSF main line, as shown on Figure 3.2-2. A connection track would
be constructed between the SJBL and the UP RIL near Rustin Avenue in Riverside. The new
connection track would allow for continuous movement between the SJBL and the existing
Riverside Downtown station. This commuter rail alternative with new Connection to UP RIL
would include the construction of five stations.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-11 April 5, 2010
The new connection at Rustin Avenue would require acquisition of one vacant tract and a parcel
that contains an existing building. In addition, a new grade crossing with signal protection would
be required. The new track would require the displacement of a commercial property and
acquisition of new property for a new grade crossing both which would have significant land use
impacts to the corridor. Further, this option resulted in significant vibration and displacement
impacts that neither of the other commuter rail alternatives would induce. Although this
alternative would provide direct access to the existing Downtown Riverside Station with the
shortest travel time, this alternative would require the agreement and purchase of the RIL
alignment from the Union Pacific and the RIL would need to be reconstructed resulting in higher
initial capital costs as compared to the other commuter rail alternatives. While the UP RIL
connection provides an alternative to highway congestion in the corridor and builds upon
underused transportation resources it does not adequately coincide with the other project goals
and objectives.
Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback
The Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative proposes an alignment that follows
existing track along the SJBL and switches over to the BNSF mainline, as shown on Figure 3.2-
3. The existing connection would require trains traveling in either direction to Riverside or Perris
to reverse movement at Highgrove to continue to the next station. This alignment would join the
BNSF main line track to continue on to the existing Riverside Downtown Station. FRA requires
a safety check prior to a train changing direction. This safety check includes a brake check and
a visual inspection by the train engineer, which results in significantly longer travel times. The
connection to the BNSF track to reach the existing station in Riverside requires no new
construction for track, but included in this alternative would be the construction of six new
stations.
The evaluation of this alternative revealed operational issues resulting from a signific ant delay
caused by the turnback movement in Highgrove. The time needed to reverse the train and
conduct the required FRA brake tests results in a significantly longer travel time, and would
likely reduce ridership levels. Because it does not require additional track, the Commuter Rail
with Highgrove Turnback Alternative would not need to acquire any new property to connect the
BNSF and SJBL alignments (only acquisition of station sites). As a result of increased idling
time required for the commuter train to make its reverse movement, travel time increases and
subsequently do does the impacts to air quality. Additionally, the reverse movement will impact
traffic congestion in the Highgrove area with the commuter train blo cking grade crossings as it
sits idle. Although this alternative operates existing track and requires no acquisition for the
track alignments, this alternative would have significant operational issues and environmental
impacts. Therefore, the Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative does not meet the
project goals and objectives.
Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative
The Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative (Citrus
Connection) proposes a new, curved connection track north of Citrus Street between the SJBL
and the BNSF right-of-way, as shown on Figure 3.2-4. The new connection track at Citrus
Street would require a property acquisition, with no displacements. The proposed connection
track would negate the need for a turnback operation as required in the Highgrove Turnback
Alternative. This alignment would utilize the BNSF mainline to access the existing Riverside
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-12 April 5, 2010
Downtown Station. This commuter rail alternative, the Citrus Connection would include the
construction of four stations.
The evaluation of this alternative reveals that it does not have the operational constraints of the
Highgrove Turnback Alternative and would avoid the environmental and acquisition impacts of
the UP RIL Alternative. This alternative would have higher initial capital costs due to a new
track connection at Citrus Street. The utilization of existing transportation resources wo uld be
improved due to the use of the existing and available BNSF and SJBL mainlines. The
Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative provides the best
opportunity to implement a quality transit alternative within the corridor t hat serves the goals and
objectives of the project, and one that is not impeded by either highway congestion o r railroad
operational issues.
3.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives were evaluated based upon the ability to meet the goals and objectives of the
project. The matrix compares the alternatives in order to identify the alternative with the least
environmental impact and best performing operationally and is shown in Table 1.3 -1. RCTC
concluded that commuter rail service would provide the best solution to the specific
transportation problems in the study corridor.
In April 2008, RCTC adopted the Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street
Alternative (―Citrus Connection‖) as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA ). The reasons for
adopting this alternative include minimizing the impacts to the community by reducing business
relocation, reducing air quality impacts, and decreasing the amount of acquisitions without the
need for displacements. This alternative most closely meets the goals and objectives
established for the corridor, therefore, this alternative was selected by the RCTC as the LPA in
April 2008. The LPA has also been identified as the environmentally superior alternative .
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-13 April 5, 2010
Table 3.3-1
Comparison of Alternatives to Proposed Project LPA
Environmental Issue
Areas
Alternatives Considered in Draft EIR Alternatives Considered and Subsequently Rejected(1)
No Project
Alternative Proposed Project LPA
Express Bus
Alternative
Commuter Rail
with New Connection
to UP RIL Alternative
Commuter Rail with
Highgrove Turnback
Alternative
Meets Identified Project
Objectives? No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Aesthetics
No changes to
existing condition
New stations
constructed will be
designed to fit into the
surroundings and
include landscaping
Buses will use the
existing freeway lanes
and once constructed
HOV lanes
New stations
constructed will be
designed to fit into the
surroundings and
include landscaping
New stations
constructed will be
designed to fit into the
surroundings and
include landscaping
Agricultural Resources No changes to
existing condition
No impact No changes to existing
condition
No impact No impact
Air Quality
Commuters will have
increased travel time
in their personal
vehicles as
congestion
increases in the
corridor
Commuter rail option
allows commuters to
decrease their travel
time with shorter travel
distances to PVL
stations
Commuters will have
increased travel times
in the bus as
congestion increases in
the corridor
Commuter rail option
allows commuters to
decrease their travel
time with shorter travel
distances to stations
This commuter rail
option requires trains to
stop to prepare to
reverse directions.
During the stop trains
will continue to run
thereby emitting
additional emissions.
Biological Resources and
MSHCP Consistency
No changes to
existing condition.
Replacement of the
San Jacinto River and
Overflow Bridges will
result in wider openings
for wildlife crossings.
Buses will use the
existing freeway lanes
and once constructed
HOV lanes.
Replacement of the
San Jacinto River and
Overflow Bridges will
result in wider openings
for wildlife crossings.
Replacement of the
San Jacinto River and
Overflow Bridges will
result in wider openings
for wildlife crossings.
Cultural Resources No changes to
existing condition.
Less than significant
impact.
No changes to existing
condition.
Less than significant
impact.
Less than significant
impact.
Geology and Soils No changes to
existing condition.
No impact No changes to existing
condition
No impact No impact
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
No changes to
existing condition.
No impact No changes to existing
condition
No impact No impact
Hydrology/Water Quality No changes to
existing condition
No impact No changes to existing
condition
No impact No impact
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 3-14 April 5, 2010
Table 3.3-1 (cont’d)
Comparison of Alternatives to Proposed Project LPA
Environmental Issue
Areas
Alternatives Considered in Draft EIR Alternatives Considered and Subsequently Rejected(1)
No Project
Alternative Proposed Project LPA
Express Bus
Alternative
Commuter Rail
with New Connection
to UP RIL Alternative
Commuter Rail with
Highgrove Turnback
Alternative
Land Use and Planning
No changes to
existing condition.
Property acquisition will
be needed for station
sites and connecting
track.
More property will be
acquired to construct
multiple stations.
Property acquisition will
be needed for station
sites, connecting track,
and use of the UP RIL.
Property acquisition will
be needed for station
sites, but no connecting
track is required.
Noise and Vibration
No changes to
existing condition.
Noise and vibration
impacts will occur; but
will be mitigated with
noise barriers, welded
track, and installation of
ballast mats. These
measures will also
provide noise and
vibration attenuation for
the existing freight
trains that use the
SJBL.
Noise will not be
discernible due to the
existing noise
conditions with the
freeway.
Noise and vibration
impacts will occur; but
will be mitigated with
noise barriers, welded
track, and installation of
ballast mats. These
measures will also
provide noise and
vibration attenuation for
the existing freight
trains that use the
SJBL.
Noise and vibration
impacts will occur; but
will be mitigated with
noise barriers, welded
track, and installation of
ballast mats. These
measures will also
provide noise and
vibration attenuation for
the existing freight
trains that use the
SJBL.
Transportation and Traffic
Commuters will have
increased travel time
in their personal
vehicles as
congestion
increases in the
corridor
Commuter rail option
allows commuters to
decrease their travel
time with shorter travel
distances to PVL
stations, which
decreases personal
vehicles used in the
corridor.
Compared to the
proposed project this
will have a greater
impact by increasing
the number of vehicles
used to commute
Commuter rail option
allows commuters to
decrease their travel
time with shorter travel
distances to PVL
stations, which
decreases personal
vehicles used in the
corridor.
Commuter rail option
allows commuters to
decrease their travel
time with shorter travel
distances to PVL
stations, which
decreases personal
vehicles used in the
corridor.
Utilities and Service
Systems
No changes to
existing condition.
Less than significant
impact.
Less than significant
impact.
Less than significant
impact.
Less than significant
impact.
Notes:
(1) The Alternatives Analysis was a qualitative analysis prepared in accordance with FTA requirements in 2004.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4-1 April 5, 2010
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Chapter 4.0 provides information on the regulatory setting and affected environment; evaluates
potential environmental consequences of the proposed PVL project; and recommends
mitigation measures, as necessary, for each environmental resource category. The
environmental evaluations are based on preliminary design drawings (30 percent) (STV Inc.,
2009). The intent of the analyses is to identify the types, locations, and magnitudes of potential
environmental impacts and present this information to decision-makers, agencies and the
public. The environmental evaluations also provide a basis for defining mitigation measures in
order to reduce the potential impacts.
The analysis and conclusions provided in this chapter focus on the Citrus Connection, SJBL
alignment, and station sites. The three miles of existing BNSF track between the Downtown
Riverside Station and the proposed Citrus Connection would be used by the PVL commuter rail
service. Aside from making the connection to the existing BNSF alignment, no other
improvements will be completed on the BNSF alignment for the PVL project.
Implementation of the PVL would add additional trains onto the BNSF alignment; however, as
an already heavily traveled rail freight corridor, the addition of twelve commuter trains a day in
the opening year 2012 would not be an impact to the existing environment along the three mi le
stretch or on the BNSF system as a whole. There are no sensitive receptors along the BNSF
that would be further impacted by the addition of twelve commuter trains per day. However, the
technical studies completed for air, and noise and vibration evaluated the entire project
alignment including the BNSF. Only these issue areas were evaluated because there was no
physical improvements that would further impact the environment. It should also be noted that
noise and vibration are not additive to the existing train traffic (since only one train at a time can
use the track and not twelve at one time).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-1 April 5, 2010
4.1 AESTHETICS
Aesthetics pertain to the elements that make a certain view pleasing to the eye. While the
criteria to evaluate this perceived visual quality is subjective, contributing elements may include
a distinct element in a visual setting or open spaces, vegetation, and architecture of a scenic
area. Adverse impacts may occur through the removal, alteration, or addition of these important
visual resources.
This section provides a discussion of the aesthetic resources along the PVL corridor.
4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The PVL project is located in western Riverside County and includes a rail corridor of
approximately 24 miles between the cities of Riverside and Perris. The project area lies within
the Perris, Moreno, and Santa Ana River valleys. Compared to eastern Riverside County, the
western portion of the County contains the greater concentration of population and has
experienced the greatest growth pressures (Riverside County, 2008).
Western Riverside County is bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains and Cleveland National
Forest on the west and the San Jacinto Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest on
the east. Major geographic features of this area include the Santa Ana River watershed, Lake
Perris, Lake Elsinore, and the San Jacinto River.
Local Setting
The proposed PVL corridor is specifically located within the existing BNSF and SJBL alignments
that run from the city of Riverside to south of the city of Perris. These railroads have been in
operation since the 19th century, and both are still being used for freight operations today.
Up until the mid-1950s, the citrus industry played the predominant role in Riverside‘s economy
and much of the land was agricultural. The population growth in the late twentieth century
created pressure to convert this agricultural land to suburban uses. Today, most of the areas
within Riverside have transitioned from agricultural to urban and built-up land.
The BNSF alignment currently intersects the SJBL alignment north of Citrus Street, which is the
northernmost boundary of the PVL corridor. This northern portion of the PVL project, along the
SJBL alignment in the city of Riverside, is developed and characterized by warehouses and
industrial activities. Buildings in this area are of various heights, creating a skyline that is
punctuated with telephone poles, multiple trees, and aircraft passing overhead. Hunter Park
takes up a city block at the corner of Columbia Avenue and Iowa Avenue. The views around
Hunter Park primarily consist of the surrounding industrial and business structures (Figure
4.1-1).
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
MAPES RDWOOD RDCACTUS AVE
SAN JACINTO AVEPIGEON PASS RDPERRIS BLVIRONWOOD AVE
COLUMBIA AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVEUNIVERSITY AVE
3RD ST
14TH ST
WASHINGTON STH
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
D
ALESSANDRO BLV
VAN BUREN BLV
OLEANDER AVE
DAY STRIDER ST
RAMONA EXY
A STIOWA AVENUEVO RDCHICAGO AVERIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
LAKE
PERRIS
2
5
4
1
6
7
3
4.1-1
92666
12/21/09
JP
RM
92666scene.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
SCENIC VISTA LOCATIONS
10120.5
Miles ±
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Hunter Park
South Perris and
Layover Facility
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
!R
!R
9
10
11
8
§¨¦215
SAN JACINTO AVENUE
4TH STREET D STREETA STREETMETZ ROAD
12
Perris
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LEGEND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
HUNTER PARK
HIGHLAND PARK
BOX SPRINGS MOUNTAIN RESERVE
QUAIL RUN OPEN SPACE
SYCAMORE CANYON PARK
RIVERSIDE NATIONAL CEMETARY
MOTTE RIMROCK RESERVE
METZ PARK
FOSS FIELD PARK
BANTA BEATTY PARK
RUSSELL STEWART PARK
HISTORIC PERRIS DEPOT12
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-3 April 5, 2010
The Citrus Connection, at the junction of the BNSF and SJBL alignments, is currently
undeveloped but located north of light industrial buildings. The three sites under consideration
for the new Hunter Park Station are also undeveloped parcels located adjacent to the SJBL
alignment. This area is known as Hunter Business Park, a 1,300 -acre industrial park in the
City's northeast corner. Warehouses and other industrial and business facilities currently
occupy the area, which is developing as a major employment center for the City (City of
Riverside, 2007).
Southeast of Hunter Park Station, the PVL corridor transitions from the light industrial setting of
the Hunter Business Park development to a primarily residential setting with houses, UCR, and
Highland Park. Highland Park is located east of Watkins Drive between Spruce Street and
West Blaine Street. Views to the east of the park include houses, trees, and Box Springs
Mountain Reserve, while views to the west include houses, railroad tracks, Watkins Drive, and
landscape trees. Box Springs Mountain Reserve has elevations over 1,600 feet ASL and views
to the west that include medium-density residential and commercial structures at its base and
most of the areas within the city of Riverside.
Following the SJBL alignment south, the PVL corridor transverses through a light industrial
area, Quail Run Open Space and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. These two parks cover
over 1,550 acres of land west of the PVL corridor and north of Alessandro Blvd. Quail Run
Open Space is adjacent to I-215 and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park is approximately one
mile west of I-215 and the SJBL alignment. Views from these parks looking east include
residential neighborhoods, agricultural lands, light industrial structures, the SJBL alignment, and
telephone poles.
Continuing southerly, the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station would be located in an
existing business park between the SJBL alignment and I-215. Moving further to the south, the
SJBL alignment runs east of the Riverside National Cemetery. The Riverside National
Cemetery must maintain a peaceful, pastoral setting in an otherwise urbanized en vironment, as
such, trees and other vegetation visually screen it from the SJBL. Further south and also west
of the PVL corridor, the Motte Rimrock reserve is situated near scattered warehouses, as well
as industrial and residential properties.
South from Motte Rimrock Reserve, the PVL corridor intersects the city of Perris along the SJBL
alignment and past four City parks. Russell Stewart Park, Metz Park, Foss Field Park, and
Banta Beatty Park are located on both sides of the SJBL alignment and north of downtown
Perris. These parks have views of the alignment and light industrial, agricultural, and residential
structures. Downtown Perris is a developed area with commercial buildings, the SJBL
alignment, and the historic Perris Depot. The City of Perris has approved plans to revitalize
downtown with new walkways, renovated storefronts, and residential land uses surrounding the
Multimodal Transit Facility, which is currently under construction adjacent to the SJBL alignment
and would include the Downtown Perris Station (City of Perris, 2005).
South of downtown Perris, the visual landscape around the PVL corridor is primarily agricultural
with scattered development including an airport and a wastewater treatment complex south of
and across the street from the SJBL alignment at the end of the corridor. The City of Perris
General Plan shows this area as retail commercial and business park uses accessible from I-
215 (City of Perris, 2005).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-4 April 5, 2010
Views from Scenic Highways
Scenic Highways are designated on a national, state, and local level. On a national level they
are identified as National Scenic Byways, on a state level as State Scenic Highways, and on a
local level as Scenic and Special Boulevards (Figure 4.1-2).
A segment of SR-74 listed as an eligible State Scenic Highway is located in the vicinity of the
PVL corridor (Caltrans, 2007). The segment that is considered eligible for designation is
located west of the eastern boundary of the city of Hemet to the I-5 intersection in San Juan
Capistrano, and intersects the PVL corridor in downtown Perris. Known as West 4th Street in
the City, SR-74 runs east, crosses the SJBL alignment, and joins the I-215. The views in this
area include a moderately industrialized downtown with various commercial, business,
industrial, and residential buildings.
The Ramona Expressway is a National Scenic Byway located in the vicinity of the PVL corridor.
(USDOT, 2009) The segment of Ramona Expressway that is designated as a National Scenic
Byway is located west of its intersection with E Main Street in San Jacinto to the east side of I-
215, north of Motte Rimrock Reserve.
Additionally, the City of Riverside has established three Scenic and Special Boulevards within
the project area: Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough Avenue, and Alessandro Boulevard (City of
Riverside, 2007).
Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue are located northeast of downtown Riverside. They
both extend east/west through Riverside and have views of Box Springs Mountain Reserve to
the east. The segment of Palmyrita Avenue that is labeled as a Special Boulevard is between I-
215 and Mt. Vernon Avenue to the east. The segment of Marlborough Avenue that is labeled as
a Special Boulevard is between Chicago Avenue and Northgate Street, which is east of the
BNSF alignment and crosses the SJBL alignment.
Alessandro Boulevard is approximately 1.5 miles south of the I-215/SR-60 interchange and
extends east/west from Riverside through the City of Moreno Valley. The segment of
Alessandro Boulevard that is labeled as a Scenic Boulevard is the portion between the SJBL
alignment and Mission Grove Plaza to the west. Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park can be
seen on either side of the boulevard at this segment.
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
National Scenic Byways Program
The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highways Administration collaborated with
several organizations to create a program for America‘s scenic highways, called the National
Scenic Byways Program (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT], 2009). The U.S.
Secretary of Transportation identifies the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as
the California state agency responsible for implementing the National Scenic Byways Program.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
MAPES RDWOOD RDCACTUS AVE
SAN JACINTO AVEPIGEON PASS RDPERRIS BLVIRONWOOD AVE
COLUMBIA AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVEUNIVERSITY AVE
3RD ST
14TH ST
WASHINGTON STH
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
D
ALESSANDRO BLV
VAN BUREN BLV
OLEANDER AVE
DAY STRIDER ST
RAMONA EXY
A STIOWA AVENUEVO RDCHICAGO AVERIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
LAKE
PERRIS
PALMYRITA AVENUE
ALESSANDRO BOULEVARD
STATE ROUTE 74
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
RAMONA EXPRESSWAY
4.1-2
92666
12/21/09
JP
RM
92666scene1.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
SCENIC ROUTES
10120.5
Miles ±
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Hunter Park
South Perris and
Layover Facility
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAY
STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY
LOCAL SCENIC AND
SPECIAL BOULEVARD
!R
!R
Perris
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-6 April 5, 2010
State Policies and Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA provides for the protection of aesthetic resources and requires that potential impacts,
which could result from the proposed project, be evaluated. The CEQA Guidelines provide four
criteria used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts to aesthetic an d visual quality: (1)
negative effects on a scenic vista, (2) damage to scenic resources within a state scenic
highway, (3) degradation of the visual character or quality of a site and its surroundings, and (4)
creation of a new source of substantial light or glare affecting views. These four criteria will be
discussed in Section 4.1.4.
California Scenic Highways Program
In response to the National Scenic Byways Program, Caltrans established and implemented the
California Scenic Highway Program to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of
California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment (Streets and
Highways Code, §260 et seq).
Caltrans defines a State Scenic Highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public ROW
that ―traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology,
and other unique natural attributes‖ (Caltrans, 2009).
Caltrans also includes ―scenic corridors‖ in the State Scenic Highway Program: ―Scenic
corridors consist of land that is visible from, adjacent to, and outside the highway ROW, and is
comprised primarily of scenic and natural features. Topography, vegetation, viewing distance,
and/or jurisdictional lines determine the corridor boundaries‖ (Caltrans, 2009).
Once a highway has been designated a state or national scenic highway, or a scenic corridor,
special consideration must be made whenever a project proposes to develop the surrounding
area.
Local Policies and Regulations
Riverside County General Plan
The Riverside County General Plan emphasizes concentrating growth near or within existing
urban boundaries, permanently preserving important natural and scenic resources,
incorporating open space within urban areas, ensuring compatibility of historic and new
development, conserving view corridors, skylines, and scenic vistas, and imposing restrictions
on development activities that may adversely affect scenic resources (Riverside County, 2008).
According to the Multipurpose Open Space Element chapter in the Riverside County General
Plan, ―Scenic vistas are points, accessible to the general public, that provide a view of the
countryside‖ (Riverside County, 2008).
Riverside County Ordinance 655
Riverside County Ordinance 655 requires that lighting for new construct ion areas within 45
miles of the Palomar Observatory be shielded and focused in order to minimize spill light into
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-7 April 5, 2010
the night sky and onto adjacent properties (Riverside County, 1988). This ordinance also
applies to parking lots and walkways. This protects the night sky from light pollution which
affects astronomical observation and research.
City of Riverside General Plan
The City of Riverside General Plan lists a number of policies that serve to limit impacts on
aesthetics and visual resources along roadways in the city of Riverside. This plan utilizes the
Caltrans term and definition of State Scenic Highways. For scenic corridors, the City of
Riverside General Plan uses the terms ―Scenic Boulevards‖, ―Special Boulevards‖, and ―Scenic
Parkways‖ (City of Riverside, 2007).
City of Perris Ordinance Number 1051
The City of Perris Ordinance Number 1051 requires the use of certain types of light fixtures on
non-residential properties to reduce glare and the intrusion of unwanted light onto adjoining
properties, the public ROW, and the night sky (City of Perris, 1997).
4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Aesthetics is defined by:
1. Does the project cause substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
2. Does the project cause substantial damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway
3. Does the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings
4. Does the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area
4.1.4 Project Impacts
Does the project cause substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
Citrus Connection
The proposed Citrus Connection would be located on vacant land north of Citrus Street and
near the intersection of the BNSF and SJBL alignments. The Citrus Connection is anticipated
to be approximately 2,000 feet long, and connect with the BNSF and SJBL alignments. This
track will be relatively level with the new railroads placed on ballast rock .
Box Springs Mountain Reserve is about one mile east of the proposed Citrus Connection
location and can be seen in the distance to the southeast, though partially blocked by the
intervening development. The visual landscape of the area consists of existing public roads and
railways, and industrial, commercial, and residential land uses.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-8 April 5, 2010
New track installed as part of the Citrus Connection would closely resemble existing conditions
and therefore would not greatly alter the visual landscape or introduce new visuall y impacting
elements near Box Springs Mountain Reserve. Therefore, there is no impact for this issue area.
SJBL Alignment
The SJBL alignment currently extends south from its intersection with the BNSF alignment in
Riverside to its intersection with I-215/SR-74 south of Perris.
The views around the SJBL alignment transition from the industrialized downtown Riverside, to
agricultural and residential areas in the city of Riverside, to agricultural, industrial, and open
space land in Riverside County. The alignment continues south through the commercial
buildings in downtown Perris to the agricultural and scattered development in the southern
extent of the PVL corridor.
Hunter Park is a block west of the SJBL alignment adjacent to downtown Riverside and cannot
be seen from the track due to the industrial development of the area.
Highland Park is adjacent to the SJBL alignment in a residential area within the city of
Riverside. From the existing SJBL alignment, the park can be seen to the east, in addition to
Box Springs Mountain Reserve and the surrounding educational and residential properties.
Box Springs Mountain Reserve is located to the east and southeast of the SJBL alignment,
though partially blocked by intervening development, including industrial, commercial, and
residential structures.
Further south along the SJBL alignment in Riverside County, the views include Quail Run Open
Space, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, Riverside National Cemetery, and Motte Rimrock
Reserve to the west. Additional views from the SJBL alignment in this area include light
industrial and agricultural facilities.
Russell Stewart Park, Metz Park, Foss Field Park, and Banta Beatty Park are all located
adjacent to the existing SJBL railway in a light industrial area within the city of Perris.
This portion of the PVL project involves upgrading the existing track along the SJBL alignment,
which has been in operation for almost a hundred years, in addition to adding a double track in
certain segments (see Figure 2.4-3). Since only ground-level changes would be made,
proposed development would resemble existing conditions and therefore would not alter the
visual landscape or introduce new visually impacting elements near these sensitive scenic
vistas.
Stations
The four proposed stations would each include a 680-foot-long side platform, a track-side
canopy structure, a ticket kiosk, a shelter comprised of mast-supported roof planes, and a
parking lot.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-9 April 5, 2010
Hunter Park Station Options
The Hunter Park Station would be constructed at one of three proximate sites located adjacent
to the SJBL alignment and south of the Citrus Connection. The Palmyrita Avenue Station option
is north of Columbia Avenue and east of the ROW. This is currently being developed for light
industrial use. The Columbia Avenue Station option is south of proposed Palmyrita Station
option west of the ROW. The site currently hosts industrial facilities and a citrus orchard. The
citrus orchard at the Columbia Avenue station is bordered on three sides by commercial
buildings and Columbia Avenue to the south. There are no sensitive receptors in the area and
the only views of the orchard are from the surrounding building. The Marlborough Station option
is just north of and adjacent to Marlborough Avenue, and is located on cleared, disturbed land
about 1,000 feet south of the Columbia and Palmyrita Station options.
Box Springs Mountain Reserve abuts the existing SJBL alignment and can be seen extending
southeast from the proposed station locations. Hunter Park, meanwhile, cannot be seen from
any of the three proposed sites at the Hunter Park Station due to intervening development. The
views around the proposed station consist of roads, agricultural land, and industrial buildings
with equal or greater vertical heights as the proposed development.
Based upon the current development in the area, the proposed station would be consistent with
existing conditions and would not introduce new visually impacting elements near Box Springs
Mountain Reserve or Hunter Park.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
The March Field/Moreno Valley Station has already been approved as part of the Meridian
Business Park Plan in 2003. The Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan indicated
that Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park would be preserved (March JPA, 2003). Therefore, the
March Field/Moreno Valley Station is not expected to introduce new visually impacting elements
near Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park.
Downtown Perris Station
The site for the Downtown Perris Station is located along the SJBL alignment just north of SR-
74. This station is part of the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility that is currently under
construction adjacent to the SJBL alignment in downtown Perris.
Russell Stewart Park, Metz Park, Foss Field Park, and Banta Beatty Park are located to the
north and are not visible from the proposed Downtown Perris Station. The views around this
station consist of light industrial, agricultural, and residential structures. Additionally, the City of
Perris has approved plans to revitalize downtown with new walkways, renovated store fron ts,
and residential land uses surrounding the Multimodal Transit Facility (City of Perris, 2005).
Based upon the existing conditions and the planned construction, the proposed station would be
consistent with the visual landscape and w ould not introduce any new visually prominent
elements that would negatively impact scenic vistas in the area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-10 April 5, 2010
South Perris Station and the Layover Facility
There are no scenic vistas identified in the vicinity of the proposed South Perris Station and the
Layover Facility.
Bridges
There are no scenic vistas identified in the vicinity of the two proposed bridge replacements.
Communication Towers
The PVL project includes the construction of communication towers and associated equipment
shelters: East Maintenance Facility (outside the PVL corridor); CP Citrus Radio Tower,
Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower; CP Marlborough Radio Tower; CP Eastridge Radio Tower;
CP Oleander Radio Tower; CP Nuevo Radio Tower; South Perris Station Communication
Shelter and Tower; and Control Point Mapes Radio Tower (Figure 4.1-3). A shelter or
equipment box located near the base of these towers would house equipment and electronics
and would be surrounded by a block wall or other type of security fence.
There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the East Maintenance Facility, the South Perris
Station Communication Shelter and Tower, and the Control Point Mapes Radio Tower and
therefore no impacts are anticipated at those three locations.
CP Citrus Radio Tower, Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower, and CP Marlborough Radio Tower
The CP Citrus Radio Tower would be located near the proposed Citrus Connection site and
along the existing railroad tracks. The Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower would be installed
near the proposed Hunter Park Station in Riverside.
Box Springs Mountain Reserve would be seen to the southeast of the proposed towers. This
view of the reserve would also include the agricultural lands, telephone poles, and industrial
structures of varying heights that currently occupy the visual landscape.
The proposed towers would have thin profiles and the proposed shelter would not exceed the
height of structures in the surrounding area. Based upon this and the elevation of the reserve,
development at this segment of the PVL project would be consistent with the existing visual
landscape and would not introduce new visually impacting elements near Box Springs Mountain
Reserve.
CP Eastridge Radio Tower
This tower would be located west of the SJBL alignment between Alessandro Boulevard and the
I-215/SR-60 interchange.
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park would be seen one mile west of the proposed tower.
Agricultural lands, industrial structures, and telephone poles currently exist between this tower
and the park. Despite the intervening development, drivers or train commuters along I-215 or
the SJBL railway can also see the park in the distance to the west, which has elevations rangin g
from 1,100 -1,600 feet ASL.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
CONTROL POINT EASTRIDGE
RADIO TOWER
CONTROL POINT OLEANDER
RADIO TOWER
CONTROL POINT NUEVO
RADIO TOWER
CONTROL POINT CITRUS RADIO TOWER
PALMYRITA STATION MICROWAVE TOWER SITE
CONTROL POINT MARLBOROUGH RADIO TOWER
SOUTH PERRIS
STATION
COMMUNICATION
SHELTER AND TOWER CONTROL POINT MAPES
RADIO TOWER
NUEVO RDIOWA AVERAMONA EXPY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
4.1-3
92666
1/30/10
JP
RM
92666talkEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURECOMMUNICATION
TOWER LOCATIONS
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
!R
!R
Hunter Park
#0
#0
·|}þ10
§¨¦215
RIALTO AVENUE
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
·|}þ60
EAST MAINTENANCE FACILITY
(MICROWAVE, UHF, VHF)
AREA NORTH OF CITRUS CONNECTION
#0
Citrus Connection
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles ±BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
RADIO ANTENNA TOWER
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
MICROWAVE ANTENNA TOWER
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-12 April 5, 2010
Based upon existing conditions and the proposed tower‘s thin profile, it would be consistent with
the visual landscape and would not introduce new visually impacting elements near Sycamore
Canyon Wilderness Park.
CP Oleander Radio Tower
The CP Oleander Radio Tower is located south of the MARB along the PVL corridor.
From this proposed tower, the view of Riverside National Cemetery would consist of moderately
rural land with scattered industrial structures and telephone poles throughout. Trees line the
boundary that is adjacent to the SJBL alignment and mostly block views into the cemetery .
Additionally, business park development has been planned north of the cemetery (March JPA,
2003).
The proposed tower would have a thin profile that is similar to the existing telephone poles.
Therefore the tower would be consistent with the visual landscape and would not introduce new
visually impacting elements around the Riverside National Cemetery.
CP Nuevo Radio Tower
This tower would be located just north of Nuevo Road in Perris and adjacent to the PVL
corridor.
Motte Rimrock Reserve would be seen to the west of the prop osed Nuevo Radio Tower. The
view of the reserve from this proposed tower would also include approximately 1/2 mile of the
agricultural lands, scattered residential and industrial properties, and telephone poles that
currently occupy the visual landscape. In addition to the intervening development, drivers or
train commuters along I-215 or the SJBL railway can see the reserve in the distance to the west,
which has elevations ranging from 1,500 -1,900 feet ASL.
Based upon existing conditions and the proposed tower‘s thin profile, it would be consistent with
the visual landscape and would not introduce new visually impacting elements near Motte
Rimrock Reserve.
Noise Barriers
During the analysis of the project noise related impacts were identified in the Watk ins Drive area
in the City of Riverside. The feasible and appropriate mitigation for the identified impacts are
the construction of noise barriers. The noise barriers will be located near the outside edge of
the RCTC ROW. In some cases the new barrier would replace the current boundary fencing
between the private residences and the ROW. Additionally, the built environment in this area
has developed with buildings, landscape trees, and fencing such that the addition of noise walls
would not block views of the nearby mountains. Details regarding the noise barriers are
provided in Section 4.10 Noise and Vibration.
Landscape Walls
The term ―landscape wall‖ describes a free-standing, masonry block wall that will be deployed
for reasons other than noise mitigation. A landscape wall will be constructed as part of the PVL
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-13 April 5, 2010
project at Highland Elementary School and Hyatt Elementary School, as shown on Figure 4.1-4.
Additionally, RCTC will fund another landscape wall at Nan Sanders Elementary School.
In contrast with noise barriers, landscape walls are not mitigation for any identified impacts.
Instead, landscape walls are primarily aesthetic. In discussions with the Riverside Unified and
the Perris Union School Districts, it was mutually agreed that the three schools along the PVL
would receive a benefit from a landscape wallvisual barrier that would provide a screen between
the schools and the railroad ROW.
As such, RCTC agreed the project will provide landscape walls, 8 -10 ft. in height, as shown in
Figure 4.1-43. The landscape walls will be located within PVL ROW adjacent to the school
properties as a ―good neighbor‖ gesture to the schools, not as mitigation. The landscape walls
are not intended to provide any function beyond that of a visual screen. They are neither a
noise barrier, nor should they be construed as a safety feature.
Landscape Wall near Highland Elementary School
This landscape wall will be located between two of the noise mitigation barriers (see Section 3.4
Noise and Vibration). This location will create a continuous 3,140 foot long wa ll between Spruce
Street Blaine Street. The height of the wall/barrier will vary between 9 and 13 feet.
From the proposed landscape wall location at the school‘s western property boundary, the view
of Box Springs Mountain Reserve currently includes medium-density residential buildings.
Elevations of the reserve are vast compared to the height of even the tallest structures in the
area. Highland Park is also visible from the proposed landscape wall location, though rows of
trees line both sides of the SJBL alignment segment and partially block views into the park.
Since the proposed wall would be to the west of the school, their views of Highland Park to the
northeast and Box Springs Mountain Reserve to the east would not be impacted. For the
residential properties on the west side of the tracks, any views of Box Springs Mountain
Reserve and Highland Park currently include chain link fences, the existing railway, Watkins
Drive, street parking, trees on either side of the road, and intervening buildings. Additionally,
these residential properties are rental units with two floors; units on the bottom floor currently
have no views of the park or the reserve because of the tall wood fence that encircles each
patio. Units on the top floor are elevated and currently have views that look out above the tree
line.
The height of the proposed landscape wall would not exceed the height of existing structures
and trees in the area. Therefore, this proposed landscape wall would not significantly impair
scenic views of the park and reserve, or substantially degrade the existing visual landscape of
the area.
Landscape Wall near Hyatt Elementary School
The landscape wall at Hyatt Elementary School would be placed along the length of the
school‘s eastern frontage with the SJBL alignment.
Box Springs Mountain Reserve is adjacent to the railroad and the school. Other properties in
this area are located to the west of the school and largely consist of medium-density residential
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-14 April 5, 2010
buildings. Hyatt Elementary School is built on a hill that is elevated above the surrounding
buildings; any views of the reserve from these locations are largely obstructed by the school
buildings.
Since this landscape wall would not exceed the height of the existing school buildings, its
construction would not significantly alter the visual landscape or impair scenic views of the
reserve.
Landscape Wall near Nan Sanders Elementary School
It is anticipated that this wall would block views of the ROW as well as views of the I -215. These
are not identified as significant views for this area of the project because the rail alignment
along this portion is not considered valuable scenic resources. It should be noted that there are
ROW constrictions at Nan Sanders Elementary School, therefore, RCTC will provide funding for
the design and construction of the landscape wall on the school‘s property, in lieu of
constructing the wall.
4.1-4
6/14/11
JP
RM
92666lscapeEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
LANDSCAPE WALL LOCATIONS
KEY MAP
Palmyrita Avenue
UC Riverside
RIVERSIDE
MORENO VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCHAIRRESERVEBASE
74
60
60
60
91
215
215
215
215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKEPERRIS
HIGHLAND ELEMENTARYSCHOOLHYATT ELEMENTARYSCHOOL
NAN SANDERSELEMENTARYSCHOOLCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUR EN BLV
ALESSAND RO BLV
HARLEY JO
HN RDWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IR ON WOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES R DNOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFLANDSCAPE WALLS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NOISE BARRIER FOR HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPERRIS VALLEY LINERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
NOT TO SCALE
2 8 0 +0 0
2 8 5 +0 0
275+00
HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
400+00395+00
HYATT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
92666
NOTE:
DUE TO RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRICTIONS AT NAN SANDERS ELEMENTARY SC HOOL, RCTC WILL PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPE WALL.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-16 April 5, 2010
Does the project cause substantial damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway
The segment of SR-74 that is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and the
Ramona Expressway intersect the PVL corridor.
Additionally, the City of Riverside has established three Scenic and Special Boulevards that fall
within the PVL corridor: Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough Avenue, and Alessandro Boulevard.
Citrus Connection
Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue are located one block south of the proposed Citrus
Connection. However, neither avenue would be visible from the connection due to the industrial
and commercial structures that are present throughout the area. No trees, rock outcroppings,
or historical buildings are located at or near this location.
Due to existing development in the area, the proposed Citrus Connection would not introduce
new visually impacting elements that would detract from the views along Palmyrita Avenue and
Marlborough Avenue.
SJBL Alignment
Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue both cross the SJBL alignment northeast of SR-60
and downtown Riverside. Industrial and commercial structures line both sides of Palmyrita
Avenue and Marlborough Avenue, and Box Springs Mountain Reserve can be seen down the
corridors to the east. No trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings are located at or near
this location.
The National Scenic Byway, Ramona Expressway, enters the PVL corridor approximately 1.5
miles south of the MARB and at the east side of the SJBL alignment and I-215. The view from
Ramona Expressway at this location consists of a mixture of agricultural land, light industrial
structures, residential properties, and the existing SJBL alignment. No trees, rock outcroppings,
or historical buildings are located at or near this location.
SR-74 is known as West 4th Street in downtown Perris and passes east through the City,
crosses the SJBL alignment, and joins the I-215. The view of SR-74 in this area includes a
moderately industrialized downtown with various commercial, business, industrial, and
residential buildings. No trees or rock outcroppings are located in this area, but the Perris
Depot is a significant historic building located in the vicini ty (see Downtown Perris Station).
This segment of the PVL project involves upgrading the existing track along the SJBL
alignment, which has already been in operation for a number of decades. Since only ground-
level changes would be made, proposed development would resemble existing conditions and
therefore would not introduce new visually impacting elements to the area or detract from the
scenic views of Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough Avenue, Ramona Expressway, or SR-74.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-17 April 5, 2010
Stations
Hunter Park Station options
Two of the three proposed sites for the Hunter Park Station option are located along Palmyrita
Avenue and Marlborough Avenue. The Columbia Avenue Station option does not share visual
connectivity with either Avenue. Industrial and commercial structures surround the three
proposed sites and line both sides of Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue. Box Springs
Mountain Reserve can be seen down the corridors to the east. No trees, rock outcroppings, or
historical buildings are located at or near the proposed development locations.
The height of the proposed station buildings would not exceed the existing height of structures
in the area. Therefore, the proposed development would be consistent with existing conditions
and would not introduce new visually impacting elements that would detract fro m the scenic
views along Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
This proposed station has already been approved as part of the Meridian Business Park Plan in
2003. The EIR for this Specific Plan indicated that Alessandro Boulevard would be preserved
and therefore would not be negatively impacted by development of the Moreno Valley/March
Field Station option (March JPA, 2003).
Downtown Perris Station
The current view of SR-74 from this station would be of a moderately industrialized downtown
with various commercial, business, industrial, and residential buildings. The SJBL alignment
currently intersects SR-74 as well. No trees or rock outcroppings are located in the area, but
the Perris Depot is a significant historic building located in the vicinity of SR-74 and the
Downtown Perris Station option.
Though the proposed station may be visible from SR-74, it would be part of an existing
transportation center (the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility that is currently under construction)
and would fit with the historical uses of the area (i.e., railroad). The City of Perris also plans to
revitalize downtown with new walkways, renovated store fronts, and residential land us es
surrounding the multimodal facility (City of Perris, 2005). Due to the existing and planned urban
view from SR-74, the addition of the Downtown Perris Station would not introduce new visually
distracting elements to the area or negatively affect the future designation of SR-74 as a State
Scenic Highway.
The historic Perris Depot is a restored train depot converted into a museum and is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is located adjacent to the SJBL alignment and
the proposed Downtown Perris Station and can be viewed from SR-74 (see Cultural section
4.5).
The proposed development of this station would not alter, impair, or diminish the qualities for
which the historic depot is valued. The added activity and station components would be similar
to and supportive of the historical uses of the Perris Depot. Therefore, proposed development
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-18 April 5, 2010
would be consistent with existing conditions and would not introduce a significant visual
intrusion that would obstruct or eliminate architectural views of the Perris Depot.
South Perris Station and Layover Facility
The South Perris Station and Layover Facility are located within the viewshed of SR-74 and the
SJBL alignment. From this proposed location, the view of SR-74 currently includes an airport,
wastewater treatment plant, and various industrial structures. No trees, rock outcroppings, or
historical buildings are located at or near the proposed development locations.
Proposed development of the station and Layover Facility would introduce storage buildings,
parking areas, tracks for parked trains and maintenance, equipment, and landscaped
vegetation. These proposed facilities would be of similar height and shape as the existing
structures and therefore would not stand out in the landscape. Additionally, the surrounding
area has been planned by the City of Perris for business park, residential, and commercial land
uses (City of Perris, 2005).
Therefore, the South Perris Station and Layover Facility would be consistent with existing
conditions and would not introduce new visually impacting elements around SR-74.
Implementation of the proposed project would also not affect the future designation of SR-74 as
a State Scenic Highway.
Communication Towers
There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the East Maintenance Facility, CP Citrus Radio
Tower, and CP Eastridge Radio Control Tower. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at those
three locations.
Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower and CP Marlborough Radio Tower
The Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower and CP Marlborough Radio Tower are located along
Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue, respectively, near the SJBL alignment. Views from
the two towers include telephone poles and the industrial and commercial structures that line
both sides of Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue. No trees, rock outcroppings, or
historical buildings are located at or near the proposed development locations.
The proposed towers have a thin profile that is similar to the telephone poles. Based upon this
and the existing development in the area, the proposed towers would blend in with existing
conditions and would not introduce new visually distracting elements that would detract from the
views along Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue.
CP Oleander Radio Tower and CP Nuevo Radio Tower
CP Oleander Radio Tower is approximately 1.7 miles north of the intersection of the Ramona
Expressway and I-215, and the CP Nuevo Radio Tower is approximately 3 miles south.
Ramona Expressway can be viewed from these towers, in addition to a mixture of agricultural
land, light industrial structures, residential properties, and telephone poles. No trees, rock
outcroppings, or historical buildings are located at or near the proposed development locations.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-19 April 5, 2010
The proposed towers have a thin profile that is similar to the telephone poles. Based upon the
existing development in the area, these proposed towers would blend in with the visual
landscape and would not detract from the scenic view of the Ramona Expressway.
South Perris Station Communication Shelter and Tower and CP Mapes Radio Tower
The South Perris Station Communication Shelter and Tower and the CP Mapes Radio Tower
may be visible to drivers along SR-74, which is about 3,500 feet northeast of the site. The view
of SR-74 from this location includes agricultural fields, a wastewater treatment plant, industrial
facilities, and telephone poles. Additionally, the City of Perris has tentative plans for
development of the area involving business park, residential, and commercial land uses (City of
Perris, 2005). No trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings are located at or near the
proposed development locations.
Since the proposed facilities at this location would not be significantly distinctive relative to other
views from SR-74 in the area, the South Perris Station Communication Tower Facility would
blend in with existing conditions and would not introduce new visually distracting elements
around SR-74. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not affect the fu ture
designation of SR-74 as a State Scenic Highway.
Does the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings
As discussed previously, the proposed tracks, stations, Layover Facility, communication towers,
and landscape walls within the PVL corridor would conform to the current land use of the area
and blend in with existing development. The proposed development would serve only to
upgrade the current railways and construct buildings that are of a similar height to the
surrounding structures. Therefore, the visual character and quality of the area within the PVL
corridor would not be affected by these proposed developments.
Replacing two bridges along the SJBL alignment is also a component to the proposed PVL
project. These existing bridges, which span the San Jacinto River at MP 20.70 and MP 20.80,
would be replaced in-kind. Since they would have a similar visual character as the original
bridges, the current look and quality of the area within the PVL corridor would not be degraded .
Does the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area
Portions of the proposed PVL project would require the addition of lighting that would comply
with local laws. The proposed Citrus Connection, bridges, towers, and landscape walls do not
require lighting and therefore would not create a new source of substantial light or glare.
Development that occurs south of the MARB is within 45 miles of the Palomar Observatory,
which means that Riverside County Ordinance 655 would be taken into account for any
proposed development in those areas.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-20 April 5, 2010
SJBL Alignment
The SJBL alignment runs from Riverside and through the city of Perris to the I-215 interchange
south of downtown Perris. I-215, which parallels much of the SJBL corridor, has lights located
on the overpasses. Existing development in the downtown areas of Riverside and Perris also
emits light.
During construction activities, there is a potential that night work would be necessary,
particularly at the grade crossing locations. The reason that grade crossings are a particular
concern is because of the safety requirement to have them operating prior to the next train
traveling past. If night work is necessary at the grade crossings in a residential area, there is a
potential for light spillover and disrupting the local residents. This is a potential significant
impact and mitigation is required to reduce the level of impact (Mitigation measure AS-1).
Implementation of the PVL project would include the addition of commuter trains, which would
introduce additional sources of light to the areas. Metrolink commuter rail trains are outfitted
with light sources at the lower half of the train and are used to illuminate the track for the safety
of the train and surrounding areas.
Light source from the trains would be mobile and would not exceed the existing light sources in
the area. Therefore, the trains would not result in a substantial increase in light or glare and
would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Stations
The proposed PVL project would involve the construction of four stations with adequate lighting
for station operations, parking lots, and the safety of station patrons. The lights at the stations
would remain on during operating hours. After the last train of the day, the station and parking
area lights would cycle with half of the lights being on at a time. This is an energ y saving
measure. The lights at the Layover Facility would remain on throughout the night. If
construction activities occur at night, the lights used will be in compliance with county and city
ordinances.
Hunter Park Station options
The three options for this proposed station would be located in an urban area with significant
existing sources of light and glare, such as streetlights along roadways, parking lots and
walkways, lighted recreational facilities, and light emitted from non -residential buildings.
Additionally, freight trains with lights are currently running on the adjacent SJBL corridor during
both day and night as deliveries require.
Lighting and glare at the three Hunter Park Station options would be similar to existing light
sources and consistent with the light and glare continuity of the surrounding areas. Therefore,
the development of this station would not result in a substantial increase in light or glare and
would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.1-21 April 5, 2010
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
This proposed station has already been approved as part of the Meridian Business Park Plan in
2003. The EIR for this plan indicated that the development of the Moreno Valley/March Field
Station option is not expected to create substantial light and glare impacts to the surrounding
area (March JPA, 2003).
Downtown Perris Station
This proposed station would be located in an urbanized area with significant existing sources of
light and glare, such as streetlights along roadways, parking lots and walkways, lighted
recreational facilities, and light emitted from residential and non -residential buildings. Trains
with lights are currently running on the tracks during the day and night time hours.
Additionally, the Downtown Perris Station option is required to comply with Riverside County
Ordinance 655 due to the proximity of Palomar Observatory, and the light fixtures used would
adhere to the City of Perris Ordinance Number 1051.
The added light and glare as a result of the development of this station would be similar to
existing light sources and consistent with the light and glare continuity of the surrounding areas.
Therefore, the Downtown Perris Station option would not result in a substantial increase in light
or glare and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
South Perris Station and the Layover Facility
This South Perris Station and Layover Facility would be located in an area comprised of large-
lot residential, agricultural, and commercial properties, as well as a wastewater treatment plant
and industrial structures. The City of Perris General Plan has also designated the surrounding
area for development of community, commercial, and business park facilities (City of Perris,
2005).
The South Perris Station and Layover Facility are required to comply with Riverside County
Ordinance 655 due to the proximity of Palomar Observatory. Also, the light fixtures used at the
proposed station and Layover Facility would adhere to the City of Perris Ordinance Number
1051. Therefore, the light and glare created as a result of the proposed development would be
similar to the lights at the wastewater treatment plant and would be consistent with the light and
glare continuity of the surrounding areas. Based upon this, the proposed facilities would not
result in a substantial increase in light or glare and would not adversely affect day or n ighttime
views in the area.
4.1.5 Mitigation Measures
AS-1: In order tTo limit minimize light spill over into residential areas during construction ,
light attenuating barriers or directed lighting will shall be used.
4.1.6 Mitigation Summary
Barriers, whether solid or thick fabric, are effective at light attenuation thus reducing light
overflow into nearby homes.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-1 April 5, 2010
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Agricultural resources are farmlands that can be used for agricultural purposes. This section
provides a discussion of the agricultural resources along the PVL corridor, analyzes the
potential project impacts, and if appropriate, provides mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, or
minimize potential impacts.
4.2.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The PVL project is located in western Riverside County and extends approximately 24 miles
between the cities of Riverside and Perris. Western Riverside County is bounded by the Santa
Ana Mountains and Cleveland National Forest on the west and the San Jacinto Mountains and
the San Bernardino National Forest on the east. Major features of this area include the Santa
Ana River basin, Lake Perris, Lake Elsinore, and the San Jacinto River. Additionally, it should
be noted that there are no forests adjacent to the area.
The project area lies within the Perris and Moreno valleys, as well as the Santa Ana River
Valley. Compared to eastern Riverside County, the western portion of the County contains the
greatest concentration of population and has experienced the greatest growth pres sures
(Riverside County, 2008).
Approximately 7.3 percent (339,261 acres) of Riverside County (4,627,871 acres) is designated
as agricultural use (Riverside County, 2008). The remaining land is made up of a variety of
uses including residential, commercial, business, and industrial.
Local Setting
The proposed PVL project is specifically located within the existing SJBL alignment that runs
from the city of Riverside to south of the city of Perris. As the area developed, the predominance
of agricultural land both in the cities and surrounding areas, was used primarily to grow citrus.
This citrus industry was serviced by the existing railroads to ship goods to distant markets. As
the local area continued to develop, a growing population in the late twentieth century created
pressure to convert this agricultural land to urban/suburban uses. Today, most of the areas in
Riverside have transitioned from agricultural to urban and built-up land.
At the northernmost portion of the PVL corridor, the BNSF and SJBL ali gnments, Citrus
Connection, and the Hunter Park Station options are located within the Hunter Business Park
area, a 1,300-acre industrial park in the City's northeast corner. Industrial and business
facilities currently occupy much of the area (City of Riverside, 2002).
Southeast of Hunter Park Station area, the SJBL alignment extends through urbanized areas
and open space and runs adjacent to residential neighborhoods, commercial buildings, and city
parks. Continuing south, the SJBL runs along the eastern edge of the Sycamore Canyon
Business Park, which includes approximately 920 acres of commercial and industrial land uses
(south of the junction of I-215 and SR-60).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-2 April 5, 2010
The SJBL transitions into unincorporated land within Riverside County and passes through an
area of recent warehouse and distribution center development. Further south along the
alignment, the SJBL alignment bisects downtown Perris. South of downtown Perris, land use
around the SJBL alignment is primarily agricultural with scattered development. Development
includes the Perris Airport and the wastewater treatment complex across the street from the end
of the corridor.
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
Farmland Protection Policy Act
Congress passed the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) in 1981 in response to a
substantial decrease in the amount of open farmland (7 USC 4201). The purpose of the FPPA
is twofold: one, to minimize the extent to which federal programs cont ribute to the unnecessary
and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses; and two, to assure that federal
programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, will be compatible with
state, local, and private regulations regarding the protection of farmland (7 USC 4201(b)).
FPPA requires that the lead federal agency on a proposed federal project examine the potential
effects that the project may have on farmland, before taking or approving any project that would
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
According to the FPPA, ―farmland‖ is classified as:
Prime Farmland: land that has the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilsee d, and other agricultural
crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable
soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Prime farmland includes
land that possesses the above characteristics but is being used currently to produce
livestock and timber. It does not include land already in or committed to urban
development or water storage (7 USC 4201(c)(1)(A)).
Unique Farmland: land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific
high-value food and fiber crops, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. It has
the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply
needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops
when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Examples of
such crops include citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and vegetables (7 USC
4201(c)(1)(B)).
Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance: farmland, other than prime or unique
farmland, that is of statewide or local importance for the production of food, feed, fiber,
forage, or oilseed crops, as determined by the appropriate State or local government
agency or agencies, and that the Secretary of Agriculture determin es should be
considered as farmland (7 USC 4201(c)(1)(C)).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-3 April 5, 2010
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
In 1981, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then as the Soil
Conservation Service, released a new system model that was designed to provide objective
ratings of the quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The system
model is called Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA).
When employed for federal projects, LESA is used to ensure that the project is in compliance
with FPPA by uniformly identifying and evaluating the project‘s potential impacts on farmland.
LESA includes a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (Form AD-1006) that is completed
to determine the impacts that could occur by the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
uses. For corridor projects like the PVL project, NRCS developed a separate form, the
Conservation Program Application Form (NRCS-CPA-106). Both forms contain two portions:
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment.
The Land Evaluation portion is completed by NRCS and includes factors that measure the
inherent soil-based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The Site
Assessment portion is completed by the lead federal agency and includes factors that are
intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the
overall value of agricultural land (NRCS, 2009).
Based on the results from these portions of the LESA, the lead federal agency of a proposed
project determines whether the project would create significant impacts on farmland that exceed
the recommended allowable level. LESA may also assist in implementing farmland protection
policies.
The use of a formulaic dual rating approach is common to the LESA models. However, a more
individualized land evaluation and site assessment approach can be adapted from LESA to be
used by reigning local and regional governing bodies in order to meet the particular needs and
conditions of the area.
State Policies and Regulations
California Land Conservation Act - Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act,
provides incentives through reduced property taxes, to deter the early conversion of agricultural
and open space lands (California Department of Conservation [CDC], 1965).
Lands defined by the state as "prime farmland," "other than prime farmland," and "open space
land" are eligible for coverage by a Williamson Act contract. Lan d other than prime farmland
and open space land can also be placed under contract if the lands are located in an area
designated by the county or city as an agricultural preserve.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA provides for the protection of agricultural resources and requires that potential impacts,
which could result from the proposed project, be evaluated (Public Resource Code [PRC] §
21071).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-4 April 5, 2010
Until 1997, the only specific mention of agricultural issues in CEQA was contained in Appendix
G of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project would normally have a significant effect
on the environment if it would ―convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair
the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land‖ (14 CCR 3).
The California Agricultural LESA was established as an amendment to Appendix G to clarify the
vague regulations surrounding agricultural resources
California Agricultural LESA Model
The CDC commissioned a study in the early 1990s to investigate the implications of the
conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses in California (CDC, 1991). Among the
findings, the study concluded that a lack of clarity in the CEQA Guidelines on how to address
the impacts of farmland conversion often resulted in an insufficient analysis of the significance
of the impacts. Developed as a result of Senate Bill 850, the California Agricultural LESA Model
was designed to serve as an amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (CDC, 1997).
For projects regulated under CEQA, the California LESA may be used to provide an additional
quantitative method for evaluating the environmental significance of agricultural land
conversions. It is based on six factors: two Land Evaluation factors and four Site Assessment
factors.
The Land Evaluation portion of the California LESA typically includes two factors to assess soil
suitability: (1) the Land Capability Classification and (2) the Storie Index. The Land Capability
Classification rates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops, while the Storie Index rates the
relative degree of suitability for intensive agriculture (CDC, 1997).
The Site Assessment portion typically involves evaluating the site by using four separate
factors: (1) project size; (2) water resource availability; (2) surrounding agricultural lands; and
(4) surrounding protected resource lands.
Each of the six factors is rated on a 100 point scale, weighted, and combined to produce a
single value for the entire project with a maximum score of 100 points. Determinations of
significance under CEQA are based on the scoring thresholds shown in Table 4.2-1.
Table 4.2-1
LESA Model Scoring Thresholds
Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant
40 to 59 Points
Considered Significant only if land evaluation and site
assessment subscores are each greater than or
equal to 20 points
60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either land evaluation
or site assessment subscore is less than 20 points
80 to 100 Points Considered Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-5 April 5, 2010
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The CDC established the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which is a non-
regulatory program, in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands in
California and to provide a uniform and impartial analysis of these lands. The goal of FMMP is
to ―provide land use conversion information for decision makers to use in their planning for the
present and future use of California's agricultural land resources. To meet this goal, FMMP
provides maps and statistical data to the public, and local, state, and federal governme nts on a
biennial basis‖ (CDC, 1998).
The farmland maps created by FMMP identify eight categories of land: (1) Prime Farmland; (2)
Unique Farmland; (3) Farmland of Statewide Importance; (4) Farmland of Local Importance; (5)
Grazing Land; (6) Urban and Built Up Land; (7) Other Land; and (8) Water (CDC, 1998).
Local Policies and Regulations
Riverside County General Plan
The Riverside County General Plan generally emphasizes providing for the expanding
agricultural production in the County by identifying and preserving areas of agricultural
importance. The main goals are to maintain the viability of the agricultural industry and to
preserve the agricultural resources represented by farmland - its productive soils and its
secondary role as an open space amenity (Riverside County, 2008). In addition, the intent of
these policies is to minimize the conflicts between agricultural and urban/suburban uses.
Riverside County General Plan defines Local Important Farmlands as areas of locally significant
economic importance (Riverside County, 2008).
Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission
Policies of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) detail specific
rules and responsibilities for the county government in regards to th e development and
preservation of agricultural resources.
LAFCO was established to coordinate logical and timely changes in local government
boundaries, discourage urban sprawl and encourage orderly and efficient provision of services,
such as water, sewer, fire protection, etc. while protecting agricultural lands. Riverside LAFCO
is a state-mandated legislative agency and is independent of county government (LAFCO,
2009).
Riverside County Ordinance 509
Riverside County Ordinance 509 designated suitable areas within Riverside County as
agricultural preserves that are to be devoted to agricultural and compatible uses. These lands
are to be administered pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act (Riverside County,
1988).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-6 April 5, 2010
City of Riverside General Plan
The City of Riverside General Plan has a specific objective to ―retain functional agricultural
areas within Riverside while allowing for sensitive, low-intensity residential uses‖ (City of
Riverside, 2008).
City of Perris General Plan
The City of Perris is anticipating development in several areas within the City limits to ―generate
revenue and create jobs within the City‖ (City of Perris, 2005). The General P lan states that
―urban and rural residential developments offer greater profits due to the present high demand
for housing in this region, and because Perris‘ climate requires extensive irrigation‖ (City of
Perris, 2005).
4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Agricultural Resources
is defined by:
1. Does the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use
2. Does the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract
3. Does the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to th eir
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
4.2.4 Project Impacts
Does the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use
Farmland designations for the portions of the proposed PVL project area are based on maps
provided by the Riverside County Land Information System (2008) and the CDC‘s FMMP
(2006). Table 4.2-2 details the portions of land within the PVL project corridor that have been
designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Urban
and Built Up land:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-7 April 5, 2010
Table 4.2-2
Farmland Designations of the PVL Project Components
Project Location Farmland Designation Acres
Citrus Connection Farmland of Local Importance 17.23
SJBL alignment
(between the eastern extent of the Citrus Connection
and the Layover Facility)
Urban and built up 350.10
Hunter Park Station – Palmyrita Avenue (Option A) Prime Farmland 24.80
Hunter Park Station – Columbia Avenue (Option B) Prime Farmland 9.26
Hunter Park Station – Marlborough Avenue (Option C) Prime Farmland and Farmland
of Local Importance 9.38
Moreno Valley/March Field Station Farmland of Local Importance 14.50
Downtown Perris Station Urban and built up 12.44
South Perris Station and Layover Facility Farmland of Local Importance 32.00
The SJBL alignment and Downtown Perris Station are not subject to the regulations because
these portions are not designated as farmland and therefore would not involve conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use. However, the Citrus Connection, three proposed options for
the Hunter Park Station, Moreno Valley/March Field Station and South Perris Station Layover
Facility are subject to the regulations, as they are located on farmland and do involve a
conversion to non-agricultural uses (Figure 4.2-1 and Figure 4.2-2).
Since some areas of farmland at the station sites would be converted to non-agricultural uses,
the California LESA Model for a corridor project was completed to evaluate and analyze if
significant impacts would occur as a result of implementation of the entire PVL project. The
LESA calculations and discussion for the PVL project are included in Appendix D, LESA Model
Calculations.
VILLA STREET
TRANSIT STREETW. SPRING STREET
CITRUS CONNECTION
PALMYRITA AVENUE
COLUMBIA AVENUE
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
PALMYRITA
COLUMBIA
MARLBOROUGH
±
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
CITRUS CONNECTION BOUNDARY
PRIME FARMLAND
FARMLAND OF LOCAL
IMPORTANCE
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRISCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
KEY MAP FOR INSET AREAS
±
NOT TO SCALE
4.2-1
92666
12/8/09
JP
RM
92666agresEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
CITRUS CONNECTION
HUNTER PARK
HUNTER PARK ±0 2,000
Feet
0 1,500
Feet
C
A
S
E R
O
A
D
I-215S
O
U
T
H PE
R
RIS
STATIO
N
LA
Y
O
V
E
R FA
CILIT
Y
SOUTH PERRIS STATION/
LAYOVER FACILITY
0 4,000
Feet
±
FARMLAND OF LOCAL
IMPORTANCE
LEGEND
4.2-2
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666agres2EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
ALESSANDRO BLVD.
MORENO VALLEY/
MARCH FIELD STATION
±
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
KEY MAP FOR INSET AREAS
0 2,000
Feet
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRISCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
O
H
N R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
±NOT TO SCALE
SOUTH PERRIS STATION
AND LAYOVER FACILITY
MORENO VALLEY/
MARCH FIELD
STATION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-10 April 5, 2010
The LESA score for the PVL project was calculated using the United St ates Department of
Agriculture (USDA) NRCS Web Soil Survey, recent aerial photographs, and GIS. Conservative
estimates were used to reflect the most realistic impacts of the project. A separate total score
was produced to account for each of the three Hunter Park Station options: Option A (Palmyrita
Avenue); Option B (Columbia Avenue); and Option C (Marlborough Avenue). Table 4.2-3 shows
the final LESA score for each option:
Table 4.2-3
Final LESA Scoresheet for the PVL project
Corridor Option Total LESA Score
Palmyrita (Option A) 32.87
Columbia (Option B) 28.48
Marlborough (Option C) 28.47
The total LESA score for each of the three corridor options is less than 39 points, which,
according the LESA Model Scoring Thresholds indicates that the conversion of farmland would
not be considered a significant impact, regardless of which Hunter Park Station option is
selected. Accordingly, the PVL project would have no impact on agricultural resources.
In addition to having no impact on farmlands according to the California LESA, the segments
within the proposed PVL project are located on sites that have already been slated for
development in the future. The Riverside County General Plan, the City of Riverside General
Plan, and the City of Perris General Plan approved changing land use designations along many
areas of the PVL corridor. These updated land designations and their impacts on segments
within the PVL project are described below.
Citrus Connection
The proposed Citrus Connection is located at the northernmost segment of the PVL, which
connects the BNSF and SJBL alignments. Though this land was designated as Farmland of
Local Importance, the area is now approved for a warehouse/distribution center (City of
Riverside, 2007). Since development of this area will occur regardless of the construction of the
proposed Citrus Connection, construction of this segment of the PVL project would not alter the
planned land use of the area.
Stations
Hunter Park Station options
The three options for the proposed Hunter Park Station would be constructed property within the
Hunter Business Park area. Palmyrita Station option is proposed north of Columbia Avenue and
east of the SJBL ROW. This location is currently being developed for light industrial use. The
Columbia Station option would be located south of Palmyrita Avenue and west of the SJBL
ROW. The site currently contains a citrus orchard. The Marlborough Station option would be
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-11 April 5, 2010
located north of, and adjacent to Marlborough Avenue, and west of the SJBL ROW. The site is
currently undeveloped with quantities of fill dirt located on the site.
Though this land was previously designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local
Importance, the three options are located in an area that has been approved for Business/Office
Park development and is now designated for light industrial uses, consistent with the General
Plan‘s goals to create an economic/job center (City of Riverside, 2007).
Since the land designation for this area has changed to non -agricultural development, the three
options for the proposed Hunter Park Station would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of State/Local Importance to non-agricultural uses.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
The proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station would be located within the boundaries of the
former MARB and on an undeveloped 14.8-acre parcel west of the SJBL, about 750 feet south
of Alessandro Boulevard. Unincorporated areas of Riverside County that are south of the
Moreno Valley/March Field Station option are comprised of warehouses, light industry, and
business park development.
The March Field/Moreno Valley Station has already been approved for development as part of
the Meridian Business Park Plan, which determined that the site for the proposed station is no
longer designated as farmland (March JPA, 2003). Therefore, the proposed PVL project at this
location would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of State/Local
Importance to non-agricultural uses.
South Perris Station and the Layover Facility
The site of the South Perris Station and Layover Facility would be constructed adjacent to one
another north of the intersection of Mapes and Case Roads, and west of I -215. The site is an
undeveloped property east of the Perris Airport and north of the Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD) sewage treatment facility. The surrounding area consists of agricultural fields and
warehouses.
Though this land was designated as Farmland of Local Importance, it is located in an area that
is now approved for Public and Community Commercial Land Use designations (City of Perris,
2005). Additionally, the City has approved the Riverglen and Green Valley Specific Plans.
These developments would convert the now vacant land to commercial, retail and residential
uses (City of Perris, 2005). Therefore, since the land designation for this area has changed to
non-agricultural development, the South Perris Station and Layover Facility would not convert
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of State/Local Importance to non-agricultural
uses.
Does the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract
There are no components of the PVL project, including the Citrus Connection, the proposed
station locations, and the Layover Facility, that are located on lands enrolled in Williamson Act
contracts. Therefore, there are no impacts within this issue area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.2-12 April 5, 2010
Does the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As stated previously there are no components of the PVL project that would convert existing
designated Farmland to non-agricultural use. Additionally, there are no impacts to forest land
resulting from the project. Therefore, there would be no project impact in this issue area.
4.2.5 Mitigation Measures
Based on the very conservative evaluation of farmland conversion impacts, the proposed PVL
project will not have a significant impact on agricultural resources. No mitigation measures are
required.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-1 April 5, 2010
4.3 AIR QUALITY
This section of the EIR describes the air quality of the Riverside/Perris area and the potential
effect that implementation of the PVL may have on the air quality within the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB). Air quality impacts related to construction, operation of the project, and traffic
associated with riders driving to and from stations for the PVL project are analyzed in this
section. This analysis is based on the Air Quality Technical Report (STV Incorporated, 2011) to
this EIR as presented in Technical Report B, Air Quality.
4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The project area is located in western Riverside County, within the SCAB, which includes
Orange County, and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties. Air quality regulation in the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), a regional agency created for the Basin.
The climate in the SCAB is determined by terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is a
coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the
southwestern boundary, and mountains surround the remainder of the SCAB. The region lies in
the semi-permanent high-pressure of the eastern Pacific. The resulting climate is mild and
tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climate pattern is rarely interrupted except by periods of
hot weather, winter storms, and the Santa Ana wind conditions.
The air basin‘s climate and topography are highly conducive to the formation and transport of air
pollution. Peak ozone (O3) concentrations in the last two decades have occurred at the base of
the mountains around Azusa and Glendora in Los Angeles County, and at Crestline in the
mountain area above the city of San Bernardino. Both peak O3 concentrations and the number
of exceedances have decreased everywhere in the SCAQMD throughout the 1990s. In
addition, carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations have lessened throughout the SCAB during the
past decade as a result of strict new emission controls and reformulated gasoline sold in winter
months.
Although Riverside County generates the lowest emissions of any county in the SCAB, air
quality in the county is among the SCAB‘s worst, due to onshore winds that transport pollutants
from Los Angeles and Orange counties inland. Regional wind patterns are dominated by
daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses directio n,
traveling towards the sea. Local canyons alter wind direction, with wind tending to flow parallel
to the canyons. During the transition period from onshore to offshore pattern, the dominant
wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor southerly wind direction. The
frequency of calm winds (less than two mph) is less than ten percent. Therefore, little
stagnation occurs in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours.
Southern California frequently has temperature inversions that inhibit the dispersion of
pollutants. Inversions may be either ground-based or elevated. Ground-based inversions,
sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter
mornings. Under conditions of a ground-based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs,
and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated
inversions act as a lid, or upper boundary, and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated
inversion, dispersion is not restricted. The mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-2 April 5, 2010
the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the SCAB and is
responsible for the high levels of O3 observed during summer months in the air basin.
Local Climate and Meteorological Conditions
Latitude, topography, and the influence of the nearby Pacific Ocean produce a Mediterranean
climate in the project area, consisting of warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. However, at
a local level, the project area exhibits substantial climatic variation. Average January high
temperatures range from 66 ºF in the northwestern project area near Riverside to 63 ºF near
Perris in the southeastern project area. Nighttime lows in January and Februa ry can drop below
freezing throughout the project area. Average July high temperatures range from 94 ºF in the
northwestern project area near Riverside to 97 ºF near Perris in the southeastern project area.
The portions of the study area with lower altit udes (i.e. closer to sea level) have long mid-
summer stretches of daily highs exceeding 110 ºF. Average annual precipitation ranges from
about ten inches in the Riverside and Moreno Valley areas to eleven inches in Perris Valley.
Annual rainfall in the project area typically ranges from ten to 15 inches per year. Annual
average wind speed in Riverside is six mph.
Existing Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD monitors air quality conditions at 37 source receptor areas throughout the SCAB.
The project area extends from the city of Riverside to the city of Perris. The closest air basin
monitoring stations for this area are located in Rubidoux at 5888 Mission Boulevard, in
Riverside at 7002 Magnolia Avenue, and in Perris at 237½ North D Street. The Rubidoux
monitoring station measures ambient levels of O3, particulates, CO, NO2, and SO2. The
Riverside monitoring station measures PM2.5 and CO ambient levels. The Perris monitoring
station measures O3 and PM10 ambient levels. Data from the three monitoring stations,
including two located in receptor areas along the study corridor at Riverside and Perris, were
used to characterize existing conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project, and establish a
baseline for estimating future conditions both with and without the proposed project.
If a pollutant concentration is lower than the state or federal standard, the area is classified as
being in attainment for that pollutant. If a pollutant exceeds a state or federal stand ard, the area
is considered a nonattainment area. If data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is
violating the standard, the area is designated unclassified. The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) has designated the SCAB as nonattainment for O3, PM2.5 and PM10; and the USEPA
has designated the SCAB as nonattainment for O3 (Severe-17 classification for the 8-hour
standard); CO (Serious classification), PM10 (Serious classification) and PM2.5 (refer to Table
4.3-1).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-3 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-1
Regional Criteria Pollutants Attainment Status 2009
Pollutant
Status
Federal State
O3 1-hour: N/A
8-hour: Severe-17 Nonattainment
1-hour: Nonattainment
Not yet rated for 8-hour standard
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment/Maintenance Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Particulates (PM10) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Pb No Designation Attainment
Source: Federal Register and CARB (2009)
Table 4.3-2 summarizes the local levels of these four pollutants for 2006, 2007 and 2008 and
compares them to national and state air quality standards. The Rubidoux monitoring statio n
shows exceedances of the Federal and state standards for O3, PM2.5 and PM10. At the
Riverside monitoring station, the federal standard for PM2.5 was exceeded. The Perris Valley
monitoring station has exceeded the state standa rd for PM10, and the federal and state
standards for O3.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-4 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-2
2006-2008 Air Quality Summary for Project Area Monitoring System
Air-Pollutant Standard Exceedance Rubidoux Riverside Perris Valley
2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.151 0.131 0.146
Not Monitored
0.169 0.138 0.142
Maximum 8-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.117 0.111 0.116 0.123 0.117 0.115
Days >0.09 ppm (State 1-hr. standard) 45 31 54 77 66 65
Days >0.12 ppm (Federal 1-hr. standard)1 8 2 8 12 4 4
Days > 0.075 ppm (Federal 8-hr. standard) 57 46 64 83 73 77
Days > 0.070 ppm (State 8-hr standard) 75 69 89 98 88 94
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Maximum State 24-hr concentration (µg/m3) 106 540 70
Not Monitored
119 1155 87
Maximum Federal 24-hr concentration(µg/m3) 109 559 82 125 1212 85
Days >50 µg/m3 (State 24-hr. standard) 69 65 7 18 25 8
Days >150 µg/m3 (Federal 24-hr. standard) 0 1 0 0 2 0
Calculated >20 µg/m3 (State annual standard) 52.7 57.0 44.8 N/A N/A N/A
Calculated 3-year average 20 µg/m3 (State
annual standard) 53 57 57 37 37 N/A
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hr. concentration (ug/m3) 68.4 75.6 53.3 55.3 68.5 42.9
Not Monitored
Days >65 µg/m3 (Federal 24-hr. primary std.)1 32 33 7 9 8 2
Calculated >15 µg/m3 (Federal annual std.) 20.7 19.6 18.1 18.6 17.7 N/A
Calculated 3-year average 15 µg/m3 (Federal
annual standard) 19 19 16.4 16.9 18.3 N/A
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Maximum 8-hr. concentration (ppm) 2.29 2.93 1.86 2.38 2.16 1.93 Not Monitored Day > 9 ppm (State/Federal 8-hr. standard) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Maximum 1-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.076 0.072 0.092
Not Monitored Not Monitored Days >0.25 ppm (State 1-hr. standard)2 0 0 0
Calculated >0.0534 ppm (Federal annual std) 0.020 0.020 0.019
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 )
Maximum 24-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.003 0.004 0.003
Not Monitored Not Monitored Days >0.04 ppm (State 24-hr. standard) 0 0 0
Days >0.14 ppm (Federal 24-hr. standard) 0 0 0
>0.03 ppm (Federal annual primary standard) 0.003 0.001 0.002
N/A = data not available ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter bold = exceedance of state or federal standard
Source: SCAQMD Air Quality Data 2006-2008 California Air Quality Data Summaries 2006-2008, CARB (2009)
1. National 1-hour ozone standard revoked in all areas as of April 15, 2009
2. California measures its 24-hour PM10 standard using different methods than USEPA therefore 2 different concentrations are reported
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-5 April 5, 2010
Riverside County emissions inventories are presented in Table 4-3.3. These data are collected
by CARB for the South Coast Air Basin.
Table 4.3-3
2008 Emission Inventory for Riverside County - South Coast Air Basin (Tons per Day)
Stationary
Sources
TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5
Fuel Combustion 2.2 0.3 1.8 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
Waste Disposal 3.4 1.2 0 0.1 0 0.4 0.2 0
Cleaning And
Surface Coatings
4.3 3.8 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1
Petroleum
Production And
Marketing
2.4 2.3 - - 0 - - -
Industrial
Processes
2.5 2.3 0 0.1 0 4.5 2.6 1
* Total Stationary
Sources
14.8 10 1.9 3.7 0.4 5.2 3.1 1.4
Areawide
Sources
TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5
Solvent
Evaporation
14.4 12.6 - - - 0 0 0
Miscellaneous
Processes
40.7 4 10.8 2.2 0.1 77.8 38.6 7.2
* Total Areawide
Sources
55.1 16.7 10.8 2.2 0.1 77.8 38.6 7.2
Mobile Sources TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5
On-Road Motor
Vehicles
25.9 23.4 264.5 57.4 0.3 3.2 3.2 2.3
Other Mobile
Sources
14.4 13.3 70.2 22.7 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.3
* Total Mobile
Sources
40.3 36.7 334.6 80.1 0.3 4.8 4.7 3.7
Natural (Non-
Anthropogenic)
Sources
TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5
Natural Sources 27.8 24.1 37.7 1.1 0.3 4 3.8 3.2
* Total Natural
(Non-
Anthropogenic)
Sources
27.8 24.1 37.7 1.1 0.3 4 3.8 3.2
Total Riverside
County In South
Coast Air Basin
138 87.4 385 87.2 1.2 91.8 50.3 15.4
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-6 April 5, 2010
Greenhouse Gases
According to the CEQA Guidelines §15002(a)(1), one of the basic purposes of CEQA is to,
―inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant
environmental effects of proposed actions.‖ Although CEQA is adopting statutes and guidelin es
to determine an approach to analyzing the effects of global warming, the view of the State
Legislature (as expressed in its adoption of Assembly Bill (AB)32, The California Climate
Solutions Act of 2006) that global warming poses significant adverse eff ects to the environment
of the State of California and the entire world. In addition, the global scientific community has
expressed very high confidence (i.e., at least 90 percent) that global warming is anthropogenic
(i.e. caused by humans), and that global warming will lead to adverse climate change effects
around the globe (IPCC 2007).
Atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and clouds with the earth‘s atmosphere influence the
earth‘s temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation risin g from the earth‘s sun-
warmed surface that would otherwise escape into space. The process is commonly known as
Greenhouse Effect. GHGs and clouds, in turn, radiate some heat back to the earth‘s surface
and some out to space. The resulting balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing
radiation from both the earth‘s surface and atmosphere keeps the planet habitable.
However, anthropogenic emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere enhance the Greenhouse
Effect by absorbing the radiation from other atmospheric GHGs that would otherwise escape to
space, thereby trapping more radiation in the atmosphere and causing temperature to increase.
The human produced GHGs responsible for increasing the Greenhouse Effect and their relative
contribution to global warming include; carbon dioxide (CO2) (53 percent), methane (CH4) (17
percent), near-surface ozone (O3) (13 percent), nitrous oxide (N2O) (12 percent), and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (5 percent). The most common GHG is CO2, which constitutes
approximately 84 percent of all GHG emissions in California. Worldwide, the State of California
ranks between the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO2 (the most prevalent GHG) and is
responsible for approximately 2 percent of the world‘s CO2 emissions (CEC, 2006).
The increasing emissions of GHGs, primarily associated with the burning of fossil fuels (during
transport, electricity generation, industry, manufacturing, etc.), deforestation, agricultural activity
and solid waste, have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth‘s temperature, which is
causing changes in the earth‘s climate. This increasing temperature phenomenon is known as
global warming and the climatic effect is known as climate change or global climate ch ange.
The State legislature adopted the public policy position that global warming is, ―a serious threat
to the economic well being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California‖
(Health and Safety Code Section 38501). Further, the State Legislature has determined that
―potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a
reduction in the quality and quantity of water to the State from the Sierra snow pack, a rise in
sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences,
damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences
of infectious disease, asthma, and other human health related problems‖, and that global
warming will have detrimental effects on some of California‘s largest industries, including
agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing and forestry [and]….will
also increase in the strain on electricity supplies necessa ry to meet the demand for summer air-
conditioning in the hottest parts of the state‖ (Health and Safety Code Section 38501). These
public policy statements became law with the enactment of AB32, Statutes of 2006.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-7 April 5, 2010
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
In response to longstanding concerns about air pollution, federal, state and local authorities
have adopted various rules and regulations requiring evaluation of the impact on air quality on a
planned project and appropriate mitigation of air pollution emissions. The following sections
focus on current air quality planning efforts, and the responsibilities of agencies involved in
these efforts. A number of plans and policies have been adopted which address air quality
concerns. The plans and policies relevant to the proposed pr oject are discussed below.
Federal Policies and Regulations
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), enacted in 1970 and amended twice thereafter (including the
1990 amendments), establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The CAA
directs the USEPA to establish ambient air standards for six pollutants: O3, carbon monoxide
(CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2). The standards are divided into primary and secondary standards; the former are set to
protect human health and the latter to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal
life.
The CAA requires states to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas designated as
nonattainment for federal air quality standards. The SIP, which is reviewed and approved by
USEPA, must demonstrate how the federal standards would be achieved. Failure to submit a
plan or secure approval could lead to denial of federal funding and permits. In cases where the
SIP is submitted by the state but fails to demonstrate achievement of the standards, the USEPA
must prepare a federal implementation plan.
Transportation Conformity
The concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the 1977 amendments to the CAA,
which includes a provision to ensure that transportation investments conform to the SIP in
meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Conformity requirements were
made substantially more rigorous in the federal CAA amendments of 1990, and the
transportation conformity regulation that details implementation of the conformity requirements
was first issued in November 1993, with a number of subsequent amendments. The most
recent complete set of amendments to the Transportation Conformity Rule is found at 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 93 (August 15, 1997). Additionally, on July 1, 2004,
USEPA published a set of the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments, amending the
August 1997 regulations, in Federal Register (FR) Volume 69 No. 26. The new amendments
provide regulations for the new 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS. More recently, a March 2006
ruling establishes revised criteria for determining which transportation projects mus t be
analyzed for local particle emissions impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance
areas.
Based on projects included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), transportation -related air
quality analyses are conducted to determine whether the implementation of those projects
would conform to SIP emission budgets or other tests showing that attainment requirements of
the CAA are met. If the conformity analysis is successful, the regional planning organization and
the appropriate Federal agencies make a determination that the RTP is in conformity with the
SIP for achieving the goals of the CAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP must be modified
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-8 April 5, 2010
until conformity is attained. If the design and scope of a proposed project is the same as
described in the RTP, then that project is deemed to meet regional conformity requirements for
purposes of project-level analysis. The General Conformity Rule may also require localized (hot
spot) analyses if an area is nonattainment or maintenance for carbon monoxide and/or
particulate matter.
State Policies and Regulations
Responsibility for achieving California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are more
stringent than federal standards, is placed on the CARB and local air pollution control districts.
State standards are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans that are
incorporated into the SIP. The California CAA requires local and regional air pollution control
districts that are not attaining one or more of the CAAQS, to expeditiously adopt plans
specifically designed to attain these standards. Each plan must be designed to achieve an
annual five percent reduction in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its
precursors.
Recently enacted amendments to the California CAA impose additional requirements designed
to ensure an improvement in air quality within the next five years. More specifically, local
districts with moderate air pollution that did not achieve ―transitional nonattainment‖ status by
December 31, 1997, must implement the more stringent measures applicable to districts with
serious air pollution.
Existing air quality conditions in the project area can be characterized in terms of the ambient
air quality standards that the State of California and the federal government have established for
several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for different
measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some
pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection
of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). Table 4.3-4 shows the 2009 state and
federal standards for relevant air pollutants.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-9 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-4
Ambient Air Quality Standards 2009
Pollutant Averaging
Time
State1 National2
Concentration3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5
Ozone (O3)
1 hour 0.09 ppm -- Same as
Primary
Standard 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard AAM 20 µg/m3 --
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 hours -- 35 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard AAM 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm None 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Same as
Primary
Standard 1 hour 0.18 ppm --
Lead (Pb)6
30 days 1.5 µg/m3 -- --
Calendar
Quarter -- 1.5 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard Rolling 3-month
Average7 -- 0.15
µg/m3
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM -- 0.030 ppm --
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm --
3 hours -- -- 0.5 ppm
1 hour 0.25 ppm -- --
Visibility-Reducing
Particles 8 hours
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer — visibility of ten
miles or more (0.07 — 30 miles
or more for Lake Tahoe) due to
particles when relative humidity
is less than 70 percent. Method:
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through Filter
Tape.
N/A N/A
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 N/A N/A
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) 1 hour 0.03 ppm N/A N/A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-10 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-4 (cont’d)
Ambient Air Quality Standards 2009
Notes:
1. California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, suspended PM10 and PM2.5,
and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or
exceeded. California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) are listed in the Table of Standards in §70200 of
Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
2. National standards (other than O3, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic
mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest
eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10,
the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when
98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
Contact USEPA for further clarification and current federal policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are
based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air
quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in
this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect
the public health.
5. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
6. The CARB has identified Pb and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure
for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at
levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
N/A = standard is not applicable
ppm = parts per million by volume
AAM = annual arithmetic mean
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
torr = unit of pressure equivalent to 1/760 of a standard atmosphere
Source: Ambient Air Quality Standards, CARB, February 22, 2009
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-11 April 5, 2010
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
The Southern California Area Governments (SCAG), as the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) for southern California, is mandated to comply with federal and state transportation and
air quality regulations. SCAG is a six-county region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, and Ventura) that contains four air basins that are administered by five air
districts.
Potential emissions from projects included in a Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
(RTIP) meet the transportation conformity requirements outlined in that RTIP. This means that
the emissions from projects included in the RTIP have been accounted for in the regional
emissions burden. The proposed PVL project is included in SCAG‘s 2008 RTIP (Project ID
RIV520109), as shown in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix A, which means the
project‘s operational emissions (including the O3 precursor emissions reactive organic
compounds [ROC] and NO2) meet the transportation conformity requirements imposed by
USEPA and SCAQMD. As such, a project under these circumstances would normally undergo
a project-level rather than a regional-level air quality analysis. However, a regional assessment
was also conservatively performed for the proposed PVL rail project. SCAG determined that the
PVL is not a Project of Air Quality Concern on April 16, 2010,
http://www.scag.ca.gov/tcwg/projectlist/march10.htm. A copy of the TCWG review form is
shown in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix F.
Local and Regional Requirements
The air quality management agencies of direct importance to the SCAQMD portion of Riverside
County include USEPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD. USEPA has established federal ambient air
quality standards for which CARB and the SCAQMD have primary implementation
responsibility. CARB and the SCAQMD are also responsible for ensuring that state ambient air
quality standards are met. SCAG develops the Regional Transportation Program (RTP) and
RTIP in consultation with local air management districts. The RTP includes projects that strive
to meet the goals and objectives of the NAAQS. The RTP is also in accord with USEPA‘s
Transportation Conformity Rule as it pertains to air quality standards in Riverside County.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines
SCAQMD has published guidance on conducting air quality analyses under CEQA by
establishing thresholds of significance for regional impacts, which are summarized in Table 4.3 -
5. Thresholds are shown for criteria pollutant emissions during construction activities and
project operation. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from
its construction and/or operational activities exceed these thresholds.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-12 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-5
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993)
Mobile Source Air Toxic Regulation
The CAA identified 188 pollutants as being air toxics, which are also known as hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). From this list, the USEPA identified a group of 21 as mobile source air toxics
(MSAT) in its final rule, Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources
(66 FR 17235) in March 2001. From this list of 21 MSATs, the USEPA has identified six
MSATs, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/diesel exhaust organic
gases, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene, as being priority MSATs. To address emissions of MSATs,
the USEPA has issued a number of regulations that would decrease MSATs through cleaner
fuels and cleaner engines.
In the early 1980s, the CARB established a statewide comprehensive air toxics program to
reduce exposure to air toxics. The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act
(Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) created California‘s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The Air
Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) supplements the AB 1807
program by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a
significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks.
Air toxics analysis is a new and emerging issue and is a continuing area of research. Although
much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain
unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques available for assessing project -specific
health impacts from MSATs continue to be developed. Shown in Table 4.3-6 are the SCAQMD
thresholds for the assessment of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is currently preparing guidance as to how mobile source health risks
should factor into project-level decision making. In addition, USEPA has not established
regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the
project development process.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-13 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-6
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)Threshold
TAC Threshold
TACs (including carcinogens and non-
carcinogens)
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10
in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer
cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Hazard
Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993)
Greenhouse Gas Regulations
While climate change has been an international concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by
the establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization‘s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the efforts devoted to GHG emissions reduction
and climate change research and policy have increased dramatically in recent years. In 2002,
with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, California launched an innovative and pro-active
approach to deal with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. AB 1493 requires
CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG
emissions.
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The goal of
this EO is to reduce California‘s GHG emissions to 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) to 1990 levels by
2020 and 3) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The majority of GHG emissions are from
the burning of fossil fuels, and 40 percent of all human-made GHG emissions are the result of
transportation. Enhancing operations and improving travel times in high congestion travel
corridors, such as I-215, would lead to an overall reduction in GHG emissions.
In 2006, the goal of Executive Order S-03-05 was further reinforced with the passage of AB 32
the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets overall GHG emissions reduction goals
and mandates that CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement
rules to achieve ―real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.‖ Executive
Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the
recommendations made by the state‘s Climate Action Team.
4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Air Quality is defined by:
1. Does the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
2. Does the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an exi sting
or projected air quality violation
3. Does the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or
State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-14 April 5, 2010
4. Does the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
5. Does the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
4.3.4 Project Impacts
Does the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan
The proposed PVL commuter rail project is included in SCAG‘s 2008 RTIP (Project ID
RIV520109), (see Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix A) which indicates that the project‘s
operational emissions meet the transportation conformity requirements imposed by USEPA and
SCAQMD.
The project does not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any local or statew ide air
quality plan.
Does the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation
The project does not violate any existing air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation.
The fundamental approach to evaluating project-related air quality is to determine documented
air quality conditions for the study area and assess the anticipated air quality impacts
associated with the proposed project. The evaluation approach assesses the net increases and
decreases in operational and construction air emissions between the No Project Alternative and
the proposed PVL project for the opening year of 2012. The No Project Alternative includes air
quality impacts of proposed I-215 highway improvements, as defined in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement: I-215 Improvements (California Department of Transportation, 2001).
The air quality analysis was prepared to conform to FTA, CARB, SCAQMD, and SCAG criteria.
Investigation methods, modeling protocols, and conformity issues relating to air quality were
developed, discussed, and reviewed with the responsible agencies.
Carbon Monoxide Modeling Protocol—Screening Procedure
The California Department of Transportation, in coordination with the University of California,
Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, has developed the Transportation Project -Level
Carbon Monoxide Protocol (California Department of Transportation, Garza et al., 1997). This
CO Protocol details a qualitative step-by-step screening procedure to determine whether
project-related CO concentrations have a potential to generate new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay attainment of NAAQS for CO. If the screening procedure reveals
that such a potential may exist, then the CO Protocol details a quantitative method to ascertain
project-related CO impacts. FTA has no separate guidance for assessing CO impacts. Based
on this protocol, a potential for air quality impacts was determined to exist and further analysis
was required.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-15 April 5, 2010
Carbon Monoxide Modeling Protocol—Intersection Analysis
Within an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO emissions. Consequently,
the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested
intersection locations (Level of Service [LOS] D or worse). Under typical meteorological
conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (i.e.,
congested intersection) increases. For purposes of providing a conservative, worst-case impact
analysis, CO concentrations are typically analyzed at congested intersection locations, because
if impacts are less than significant in close proximity of the congested inters ections, impacts
would also be less than significant at more distant sensitive receptor locations.
The SCAQMD recommends a hot-spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when
volumes-to-capacity ratios are increased by two percent at intersections with a Level-of-Service
(LOS) of CD or worse. Based on these criteria, four intersections were selected for analysis
based on information provided in the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail - Traffic Technical
Report (STV Incorporated, 2011) to this EIR as presented in Technical Report D. The selected
locations were at the proposed Downtown Perris Station option site, where a large amount of
parking is expected to be located and, thus, a significant number of vehicle trips would be
expected to be generated.
Local area CO concentrations were projected using the CAL3QHC line-source dispersion
model. The analysis of CO impacts followed the protocol recommended by the California
Department of Transportation, as detailed in their publication Transportation Project-Level
Carbon Monoxide Protocol (California Department of Transportation, Garza et al., 1997). It is
also consistent with procedures identified through the SCAQMD ‘s CO modeling protocol, with all
four corners of each intersection analyzed to determine whether project development would
result in a CO concentration that exceeds federal or state CO standards. SCAQMD monitoring
stations, as well as air quality monitoring locations, are shown on Figure 4.3-1.
The project‘s CO concentrations for AM and PM peak hour periods (one - and eight-hour) are
provided in Table 4.3-7 (opening year 2012 concentrations). As shown in this table, the project
would not have a significant impact upon one-hour or eight-hour local CO concentrations due to
mobile source emissions.
Because significant impacts would not occur at the intersections with the highest traffic volumes
located adjacent to sensitive receptors, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur at any
other locations in the study area because the conditions yielding CO hotspots would not be
worse than those occurring at the analyzed intersections. Consequently, the sensitive receptors
included in this analysis would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by the
net changes in traffic that would occur under the project. Because the project does not cause
an exceedance or exacerbate an existing exceedance of an AAQS, the project‘s localized
operational air quality impacts would therefore be less than si gnificant. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
$1
$1
$1
#0
#0#0#0
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino Coun
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
P
NUEVO IOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVEWOOD RDMAPES RD
4.3-1
92666
12/20/09
JP
RM
92666scaqmdEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREAIR QUALITY MONITORING
AND MODELING LOCATIONS
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
Downtown Perris
LEGEND
!R
!R
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Hunter Park
$1
#0
!R
$1
#0
#0
#0 #0A STREETSAN JACINTO
AVENUE
NUEVO RD
WEBSTER AVEPERRIS BLVDPERRIS
·|}þ74
§¨¦215
B STREETD STREETDowntown
Perris
INSET AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
201
Miles ±NOTE: SCAQMD - SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
PVL ALIGNMENT
PROJECT AIR QUALITY
MODELING LOCATION
SCAQMD MONITORING STATION
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
CONNECTING TRACK
Moreno Valley/
March Field
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-17 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-7
Local Area Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis
Location Peak
Perioda
2008
Maximum 1-
Hour Base
Concentration
(ppm) b
Maximum 1-
Hour With-
Project
Concentration
(ppm) c
Significant
1-Hour
Impact? d
Maximum 8-
Hour Base
Concentration
(ppm) e
Maximum 8-
Hour With-
Project
Concentration
(ppm) f
Significant
8-Hour
Impact? d
C St. @
4th St.
AM 4.3 4.3 No 3.1 3.1 No
PM 4.4 4.4 No 3.2 3.2 No
D St. @
4th St.
AM 4.2 4.2 No 3.0 3.0 No
PM 4.4 4.4 No 3.2 3.2 No
D St.@
San
Jacinto
Avenue
AM 4.1 4.1 No 3.0 3.0 No
PM 4.4 4.4 No 3.2 3.2 No
Perris
Blvd @
Nuevo
Road
AM 4.5 4.5 No 3.3 3.3 No
PM 4.7 4.7 No 3.4 3.4 No
Notes:
CAL3QHC dispersion model output sheets and EMFAC 2007 emission factors
ppm = parts per million
a
Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Technical Report prepared by STV Incorporated, 2011.
b SCAQMD 2012 1-hour ambient background concentration (4.1 ppm) + 2012 base traffic CO 1-hour contribution.
c SCAQMD 2012 1-hour ambient background concentration (4.1 ppm) + 2012 with-project traffic CO 1-hour contribution.
d The State standard for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 20 ppm, and the 8-hour average concentration is 9.0 ppm.
e SCAQMD 2012 8-hour ambient background concentration (2.9 ppm) + 2012 base traffic CO 8-hour contribution.
f SCAQMD 2012 8-hour ambient background concentration (2.9 ppm) + 2012 with-project traffic CO 8-hour contribution.
Carbon Monoxide - Parking Lot Analysis
In addition to congested intersection locations, proposed parking lot locations were also
evaluated for CO hot spots. There would be four stations with parking lots. Lot size would
range from approximately 440 spaces (Downtown Perris Station option) to 880 spaces (South
Perris Station option). For purposes of providing a conservative, worst-case impact analysis,
CO concentrations were evaluated for the largest parking lot (880 spaces), because if impacts
are less than significant at the largest parking lot location, impacts would also be less than
significant at each of the smaller parking lot locations. It was conservatively assumed that the
distance from parking areas to sensitive receptors were the same for all parking lots.
The parking lot CO hot spot analysis considered emissions from all three vehicular emissions
categories: engine start, idle time, and vehicle miles of travel. Emissions factors were
ascertained using EMFAC2007 emissions model. Dispersion modeling was conducted using
the EPA SCREEN3 model, using EMFAC2007-generated emissions factors. EMFAC2007
emissions factors, and detailed emissions calculation worksheets are provided in Air Quality
Technical Report B, Appendix B.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-18 April 5, 2010
The analysis of parking lot conditions was prepared to assess the potential impacts to
individuals from ―cold start‖ emissions. Emissions from ―cold starts‖ are those that could occur
when peak hour riders, in this case, return to their vehicles from the train. This would occur
during the evening peak periods for the PVL. The pollutant of conce rn is CO. NOx is primarily a
regional pollutant so localized impacts from parking lot operations would be less than
significant.
The largest parking lot, at the South Perris Station site was evaluated, and if impacts were to be
identified at this location, then the next largest parking lot would be evaluated as well. To
prepare the parking lot analysis, a key modeling assumption was to place sensitive receptors
around the proposed 880-space parking lot perimeter, set back at a model defaul t distance of
25 meters. This assumption is conservative, as there are no sensitive receptors within 200
meters of the proposed parking lot at the South Perris Station option site.
Based on the above-described approach, the maximum off-site CO concentration at any
sensitive receptor location was determined to be 7.9 parts per million and 5.6 parts per million
for the one-hour and eight-hour averaging periods, respectively. These maximum
concentrations occurred at a distance of 100 meters from the propose d parking lot. At the model
default distance of 25 meters, the one-hour and 8 hour-concentrations were 7.2 and 5.0 parts
per million respectively, as shown in Table 4.3-8. These worst-case concentrations are below
the NAAQS of 35 parts per million and 9 parts per million for the one-hour and eight-hour
averaging periods, respectively. They are also below the CAAQS one-hour concentration not
exceeding 20 parts per million (ppm), and the eight-hour concentration of nine ppm.
Accordingly, the project‘s localized operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Table 4.3-8
Parking Lot Carbon Monoxide Analysis
Parking
Lot
1-Hour
Concentration
(ppm)
Significant Impact? 8-Hour
Concentration
(ppm)
Significant Impact?
CAAQS
(20 ppm)
NAAQS
(35 ppm)
CAAQS (9
ppm)
NAAQS (9
ppm)
South
Perris
Station
7.2 No No 5.0 No No
Concentrations measured at model default distance of 25 meters
CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM2.5 and PM10
The proposed project is in an area designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 and PM10. According
to the most recent USEPA Transportation Conformity Guidance, a PM10/PM2.5 hot-spot analysis
is required for Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) in non-attainment areas (40 CFR
93.123 (b) (1)). Projects that are exempt under 40 CFR 93.126 or not POAQC do not requ ire
hot-spot analysis.
The proposed project does not meet the criteria of an exempt project under 40 CFR 93.126.
However, the USEPA specifies in 40 CFR 93.123(b) (1) that only projects considered POAQC
are required to undergo a PM10/PM2.5 hot-spot analysis. USEPA defines POAQC as certain
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-19 April 5, 2010
highway and transit projects that involve significant levels of diesel traffic or any other project
that is identified by the PM2.5 SIP as a localized air quality concern. A discussion of the
proposed PVL compared to POAQC, as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b) (1), is provided below:
1) New or expanded highway projects with greater than 125,000 annual average daily
traffic and 8 percent or more of such annual average daily traffic is diesel truck traffic.
The proposed project is not a new or expanded highway project.
2) New or expanded highway projects affecting intersections that are at LOS D, E, or F with
a significant number of diesel vehicles or those that will change to LOS D, E, or F
because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related
to the project. The proposed project is not a new or expanded highway project.
3) New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel
vehicles congregating at a single location. Although the proposed project has a rail
terminal component, it would not alter travel patterns to/from any existing bus or rail
terminal.
4) Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly incre ase the
number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location. Although the proposed
project would expand service to an existing commuter rail terminal (Riverside Downtown
Station), it would not increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at any single
location. In addition, the proposed Layover Facility in South Perris would only
accommodate a maximum of four SCRRA/Metrolink trains. These trains would receive
overnight light maintenance (cleaning, inspection etc.). Heavy maintenance of these
vehicles requiring excessive engine idling would be done at an existing off -site
SCRRA/Metrolink facility.
5) Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites that are identified in the
PM2.5 and PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as
appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation. The project site is not in or
affecting an area or location identified in any PM2.5 or PM10 implementation plan. The
immediate project area is not considered to be a site of violation or possible violation.
Based on the discussion provided above, the proposed project would not be considered a
project of air quality concern with respect to PM2.5 or PM10 emissions as defined by 40 CFR
93.123(b) (1). Additionally, it should be noted that the existing ROW is hard packed soil, so as
when a train passes dust is not created or ―kicked up‖ by the passing train. Therefore, a
qualitative PM2.5/PM10 hot-spot evaluation is not required, and the proposed project can be
screened from further analysis.
An Interagency Consultation project review form for PM2.5 and PM10 hot spot concurrence is
required to be submitted to the SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for
concurrence with this finding prior to final project approval. On April 16, 2010, the SCAG TCWG
determined that the PVL was not a Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC),
http://www.scag.ca.gov/tcwg/projectlist/march10.htm). A copy of the TCWG review form is
shown in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix F.Once TCWG concurrence is given, CAA
40 CFR 93.116 requirements are met without an explicit hot-spot analysis.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-20 April 5, 2010
Mobile Source Air Toxics—Screening Procedure
The FHWA has issued interim guidance on how MSATs should be addressed for highway
projects and has subsequently developed a tiered approach for analyzing them. FTA has no
separate guidance. Depending on the specific project circumstances, FHWA has identified
three levels of analysis:
1) no analysis for exempt projects or projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT
effects,
2) qualitative analysis for projects with low-potential MSAT effects, or
3) quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT
effects.
For the PVL, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the amount of rail activity,
assuming that other variables (such as traffic and rail activity not associated with this project)
are the same. The rail activity estimated for the proposed project would be higher than that for
the No Project Alternative, because of the additional activity associated with the proposed rail
line extension. This increase in rail activity would mean that the twelve daily train trips between
Riverside and Perris would result in MSAT emissions (particularly diesel PM2.5 and PM10) in the
vicinity of the SJBL alignment. The higher emissions could be offset somewhat by two factors:
1) the decrease in regional automobile commuter traffic due to increased use of commuter rail;
and 2) increased speeds on area highways due to the decrease in automobile traffic (according
to USEPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel
PM2.5 and PM10 decrease as speed increases). The extent to which these emissions decreases
would offset the project-related emissions increases cannot be quantified because of the lack of
an approved and adopted method for analysis.
In addition, even with the PVL in place, emissions would likely be lower than presen t levels in
the design year as a result of USEPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce
MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent from 2000 to 2020. Local conditions may differ from these
national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth
rates, and local control measures. However, the USEPA-projected reductions are so significant
(even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be
lower in the future as well. Therefore the PVL has a low-potential for impacts from MSATs and
only requires a qualitative assessment, per FHWA guidance.
Mobile Source Air Toxics – Health Risk Assessment
To estimate the localized MSAT effect of the new train service, a health risk assessment was
conducted following CEQA air quality guidelines. This health risk assessment takes into account
the effects of air toxic contaminants (specifically diesel PM2.5 and PM10 and acrolein) on human
health. Diesel PM2.5 and PM10, and acrolein were selected for analysis as they are identified by
the USEPA as in the group of priority MSATs. This assessment calculates a health risk index
based on the emission factors of the existing SCRRA/Metrolink diesel locomotives as well as
the running and idle times of the enginesThis assessment calculates a health risk index based
on the emissions from diesel locomotives currently being used by SCRRA/Metrolink on other rail
lines, as well as the running and idle times of the engines. This estimate is conservative since
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-21 April 5, 2010
engines used by the project completion year will be required to meet stricter USEPA emissions
standards.
SCAQMD, in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, identifies an excess individual cancer risk of one
in one million to be minimal and risk levels up to ten in one million are considered less than
significant. The chronic hazard indexes for these two toxics are also calculated to determine
the likelihood of chronic health effects due to exposure. Per SCAQMD, a hazard index less
than 1.0 is considered acceptable. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 4.3-9.
The health risk assessment is presented in full detail in Air Quality Technical Report B,
Appendix C.
Table 4.3-9
Calculated Risk at Point of Greatest Concentration
Pollutant Risk Factor
Maximum
Concentration
(µg/m3)1
Calculated Risk
(Health Index - HI)
Threshold of
Significance
Diesel Exhaust
Particulate
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk 0.01078 3.235/million 10/million
Diesel Exhaust
Particulate Chronic Hazard 0.01078 HI = 0.002 HI = 1.0
Acrolein Acute Hazard 0.005055 HI = 0.004 HI = 1.0
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, STV Incorporated (2010)
1. Represents the maximum calculated pollutant concentrations.
The additional commuter rail activity contemplated as part of the PVL would have a negligible
effect on diesel PM2.5 and PM10 or acrolein emissions in the vicinity of nearby homes, schools
and businesses along the PVL alignment. In addition, on a region-wide basis, USEPA's vehicle
and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would cause substantial reductions over time
so that in almost all cases, the MSAT levels in the future would be significantly lower than today.
Based on the results shown in Table 4.3-9, above, there would be no exceedances of the
impact thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants arising from the operation of the proposed
commuter rail service; no mitigation of long-term impacts is necessary.
As requested by the SCAG TCWG, prior to construction, RCTC would submit a project review
form for the PM2.5 and PM10 hot spot analysis to TCWG for their concurrence with the finding
that the proposed project would not be considered a project of air quality concern with respect
to PM2.5 or PM10 emissions as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b) (1).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
While climate change has been an international concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by
the establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization‘s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the efforts devoted to GHG emissions reduction
and climate change research and policy have increased dramatically in recent years. In 2002,
with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493, California launched an innovative and pro-active
approach to deal with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. Assembly Bill
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-22 April 5, 2010
1493 requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck
GHG emissions.
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The goal of
this EO is to reduce California‘s GHG emissions to 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) to 1990 levels by
2020 and 3) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The majority of GHG emissions are from
the burning of fossil fuels, and 40 percent of all human-made GHG emissions are the result of
transportation. Enhancing operations and improving travel times in high congestion travel
corridors, such as I-215, would lead to an overall reduction in GHG emissions.
While there are many types of GHGs, the most prevalent contributors to the greenhouse effect
in the Earth‘s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), O3, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CO2 is the GHG most closely linked to passenger
car and light truck emissions.
GHGs are considered to contribute to global warming by absorbing infrared radiation and
trapping heat in the atmosphere. Because this is a global effect, it is difficult to ascertain the
effects from an individual project. While there are many types of greenhouse gases, the most
prevalent contributors to the greenhouse effect in the Earth‘s atmosphere are water vapor,
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs). Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most closely linked to passenger car and light
truck emissions and recent studies have shown that carbon dioxide (CO2) accounted for
approximately 84 percent of total GHG emissions in the state of California (California Energy
Commission, 2006). Since CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the project area, it is
assumed that a reduction in CO2 will indicate a reduction in the less prominent GHGs.
According to a recent paper by the Association of Environmental Professionals (Hendrix and
Wilson, 2007), an individual project does not generate enough GHGs to significantly influence
global climate change; rather, global climate change is a cumulative effect. However, for this
project, some baseline quantification of the opportunity to switch from private vehicle to the PVL
was prepared to demonstrate the regional benefits that would accrue with the PVL. The CO2
emissions from the operation of the diesel locomotives is estimated based on national usage
data for commuter rail and compared to the reduction in CO2 emissions expected from the
diverted ridership to the PVL.
On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law filed with the Secretary of State the
amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines providing guidance
regarding the analysis of GHG in CEQA documents. The amendments, which were approved by
the Natural Resources Agency in December 2009 pursuant to Senate Bill 97, became effective
on March 18. The amendments are intended to minimize inconsistencies in the analysis of
GHG going forward and to provide CEQA lead agencies with guidance on the evaluation of
GHG emissions and their associated impacts. Specifically, the new Guidelines confirm that the
method of analysis is left to the sound discretion of the lead agency. (CEQA Guidelines
§15064.4.) Additionally, the new guidelines confirm that a lead agency may use either a
quantitative analysis or a qualitative analysis in determining whether a project may have a
potentially significant impact on climate change. (CEQA Guidelines §15064.4.) The analysis
required by RCTC includes both quantitative and qualitative elemen ts. The results of the
quantitative portions of this assessment are shown in Table 4.3-10. Moreover, and as permitted
by the revised CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G, RCTC has determined that the analysis of
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-23 April 5, 2010
GHGs and Climate Change is more appropriate included in the Air Quality Section rather than
as a stand-alone Section of the EIR. Accordingly, this analysis fully complies with the newly
revised State CEQA Guidelines. In 2009, CEQA included a new section to its guidelines for
determining the significance of GHGs (CEQA Guidelines §15064.4, 2009). This new guidance
accounts for the lack of an established method for the calculation of GHGs and allows for
different methods of calculations provided that substantial evidence is provided to docum ent the
method used. The new guidance also allows the use of a qualitative or performance based
standard to calculate GHGs. In accordance with the new CEQA Guidelines, a qualitative
assessment of GHG emissions was performed. The results of the assessment are shown below
in Table 4.3-10.
The existing and future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projections for the proposed project were
not available. Therefore an approximation of reduced VMT (as shown in Air Quality Technical
Report B, Appendix E) was calculated based on the assumption that the proposed PVL service
would replace the single passenger vehicles driving from South Perris to Riverside to connect to
the existing rail service. The diversion from private car use to PVL ridership is estimated to
reduce VMT by approximately 34 million miles per year in the project area. This estimate
includes vehicle miles traveled from private homes to the proposed stations. Based on emission
factors from EMFAC2007 in the project operation year of 2012, the reduction in VMT was
calculated to result in decreased CO2 emissions of about 160,000 lbs per day. As CO2 is the
most abundant GHG found in automobile emissions, a reduction in CO2 indicates a reduction in
the less prominent exhaust based GHGs. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed PVL project
operations would increase the GHG burden in the region, but would likely result in a quantifiable
reduction in GHG.
Table 4.3-10
Greenhouse Gas Qualitative Assessment
Pollutant Source CO2
pounds/day
Diesel Locomotives 11,400
Passenger Vehicles -158,000
Net change in CO2 -146,600
Construction Period Air Quality Evaluation
Construction is a source of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions that can have substantial
temporary impacts on local air quality causing exceedance of CAAQS for PM10 and/or PM2.5.
Dust emissions would result from earthmoving and use of heavy equipment, as well as land
clearing, ground excavation, and cut-and-fill operations. Dust emissions can vary substantially
from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the p revailing
weather. As the proposed PVL project would not involve extensive soils workHowever, as most
standard dust prevention measures would significantly reduce the level of soil-related dust, a
major portion of the dust emissions for from the proposed project would be caused by
construction-related vehicle traffic on temporary construction roadways. Construction emissions
from vehicular exhaust would result from the movement and operation of vehicles related to
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-24 April 5, 2010
construction activities. Emissions would be generated by both off -site and on-site activities. Off-
site emission producing activesactivities include construction work crews traveling to and from
the work site. They also include on-road emissions from delivery trucks and dump trucks in
addition to locomotive emissions from freight deliveries. On-site emission producing actives
activities include the operation of off-road construction machinery and vehicles. Pollutants of
interest with respect to construction exhaust emissions include; CO, NOx, ROC, SO2, PM10,
PM2.5 and the GHG CO2.
In order to assess construction emissions, daily average emissions were calculated for all
construction activities. These emissions were then compared to the SCAQMD daily construction
emission pollutant thresholds shown below in Table 4.3-11. This reasonable worst-case
construction day included installation of culverts, all road crossings and crossing improvem ents,
embankment work, all track work, turnout work, stations (including parking areas where
applicable) and the Layover Facility, Mapes Road construction, bridge replacement (including
demolition and removal of existing bridges), noise barriers, landscape walls, and installation of
signals and communication. For each activity, the duration of the activity, the number and types
of construction equipment, and equipment horsepower were used as inputs to define daily
emissions. Fuel type was assumed to be diesel, to assure a conservative analysis of particulate
matter. The assessment assumed that low vehicle speeds and fugitive dust suppression
measures (application of dust palliatives, covering of dust piles, etc.) would be strictly enforced
within the construction zones. As a result, fugitive dust emissions of particulate matter were
assumed negligible. Other Key key assumptions include:
As the detailed PVL project construction schedule is not available at this point in the
project (30% engineering drawings), estimates of construction machinery/equipment and
construction duration, work crew trip estimates and delivery estimates using best
professional judgments from a senior railroad professional engineer (see Air Quality
Technical Report B, Appendix D). Estimates are provided for each individual
construction task.
On-site emission come from EPA NONROAD2008 construction model emissions tables
The ―Embankment Construction‖ is the only task with extensive soils work. Therefore, a
fugitive dust analysis was conducted using the 2007 URBEMIS Construction Emissions
Model (see Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix D).
No Some construction sites would require the import/export of soils material. The
amount of soils that would be removed is based on the ―90% Mass Haul Diagram
Exhibit‖ provided in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix D.
Although the overall construction would be approximatelyduration is estimated at 18
months, emissions estimates conservatively assume a peak construction year period for
most construction activities. Emissions estimates for soils exports are based on the first
12 months of construction when the great majority of soils would be removed.
All construction activities are conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously.
The use of a ―Diesel Oxidation Catalyst‖ and ―Aqueous Diesel Fuel‖ will be required for
all non road construction vehicles and equipment. This would reduce NOx emission by
15%.
No idling of off road machinery or trucks would be allowed, which would reduce emission
of exhaust particulate matter.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-25 April 5, 2010
This approach also assumes that process emissions (which include on-site soil movement as
well as fugitive dust emissions) will be negligible (with the exception of Embankment Work) due
to inclusion of dust control measures such as:
Water shall be applied by means of truck(s), hoses and/or sprinklers as needed prior to
any land clearing or earth movement to minimize dust emission. Haul vehicles
transporting soil into or out of the worksite shall be covered.
Water shall be applied to disturbed areas a minimum of 2 times per day or more as
necessary.
On-site vehicles limited to a speed of less than 5 mph.
All visibly dry disturbed soil surface areas of operation shall be watered to minimize dust
emission.
Soil pile surfaces shall be moistened if dust is being emitted from the pile(s). Adequately
secured tarps, plastic or other material shall be employed to further reduce dust
emissions.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires all facilities to use CARB-certified low-VOC paints during
construction of commercial and industrial facilities. In accordance with that requirement,
the project will include special conditions in its design -build specifications to require the
following:
o To the extent practicable, use required coatings and solvents with a VOC content
lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 2113.
o To the extent practicable, use non-VOC paints and architectural coatings.
All paints shall be applied either by hand application or by using high -volume low-
pressure spray equipment.
Other project control measures would include:
The use of a ―Diesel Oxidation Catalyst‖ and ―Aqueous Diesel Fuel‖ will be required for
all non road construction vehicles and equipment. This would reduce NOx emission by
15%.
No idling of off road machinery or trucks. Reduces exhaust PM.
Additions to the project construction plans and documents shall be made for all control
measures.
Analysis background material spreadsheet calculations, in addition to the URBEMIS model run,
are included in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix D. Although not included in the
SCAQMD construction threshold limits, emissions of the GHG CO2. were calculated for the
construction period to help give quantifiable estimate of the overall carbon footprint of the PVL
project.
As shown in Table 4.3-11, based upon the cumulative evaluation of the reasonable worst-case
construction day, the construction of the PVL would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD
CEQA daily construction emission limits. Significant adverse impacts would not occur;
nonetheless, Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented to control localized
emissions. The construction emissions analysis is presented in full detail in the Air Quality
Technical Report B to this EIR.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-26 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-11
Perris Valley Line Predicted Daily Construction Emissions (lbs)
CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOX
PVL Total Emissions 44
40
98
88
49
6
15
5
9
8 2
SCAQMD Construction
Emission Limits 550 100 150 55 75 150
Significant (Yes/No) No No No No No No
In accordance with the new CEQA Guidelines, a qualitative assessment of CO2 emissions was
performed. The results of the assessment indicate that emissions created by construction
activities would total approximately 12,118 10,083 lbs per day during the construction period.
This estimate coupled with the net decrease in operational emissions of 146,600 160,000 lbs
per day indicates that the implementation of the proposed PVL project would not result in
increases in CO2 pollutant emissions.
Construction Best Management Practices
During the construction period, contractors would be required to implement BMPs to control
fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. In addition to these regulatory
requirements, the following construction-phase air quality BMPs would also apply and be
included in RCTC contract documents:
BMP AQ-1: All land clearing/earth-moving activity areas will be watered to control dust
as necessary to remain visibly moist during active operations.
BMP AQ-2: Streets will be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently
than hourly, if visible soils material hashave been carried onto adjacent public paved
roads.
BMP AQ-3: Construction equipment will be visually inspected prior to leaving the site
and loose dirt will be washed off with wheel washers as necessary.
BMP AQ-4: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers, according to
manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from
all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces.
BMP AQ-5: Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads will not exceed 5 mph.
BMP AQ-6: All equipment will be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with
manufacturer‘s specifications.
BMP AQ-7: Contractors will maintain and operate construction equipment so as to
minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and
unloading queues would have their engines turned off when not in use, to reduce vehicle
emissions.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-27 April 5, 2010
BMP AQ-8: Establish an on-site construction equipment staging area and construction
worker parking lots, located on either paved surfaces or unpaved surfaces subject to soil
stabilization.
BMP AQ-9: Use electricity from power poles, rather than temporary diesel or gasoline
powered generators.
BMP AQ-10: Use on-site mobile equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e.,
ultra-low sulfur diesel, methanol, natural gas, propane or butane).
BMP AQ-11: Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not
limited to: (1) consolidating truck deliveries (2) utilizing the existing rail freight line for
materials delivery.
BMP AQ-12: Construction grading on days when the wind gusts exceed 25 miles per
hour would be prohibited to control fugitive dust.
With application and compliance with the construction-period BMPs, potential impacts during
construction would be less than significant. By such avoidance, impacts would be less than
significant.
Summary of Construction Period Impacts
The overall potential for air quality impacts to be cumulatively significant is reduced because the
proposed project would comply with state and regional air quality requirements that construction
projects mitigate their individual impacts to less than significant levels, based on their fore casted
construction schedule and levels of activity. Traffic and construction data pertaining to the
construction of the other projects is a requirement for a quantitative assessment of cumulative
impacts. However, it is assumed that concurrent projects are following the same construction
BMPs or are included in the RTIP (in which the impacts of their emissions would be already
accounted for in the regional burden) and thus their impacts would not be significant.
Construction of the proposed Downtown Perris Station option could occur simultaneously with
the construction of other proposed downtown revitalization projects, which could result in
cumulative construction impacts. One of these, the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility is currently
in the process of being built so there would be no potential for any cumulative impacts since it
would be completed before the PVL project. The extent of the potential impacts with other
projects would depend on the location, magnitude, and duration of construction activities for
each of the projects. CEQA analysis conducted for this proposed project indicates the use of
several pollution control measures to aid in reducing emissions. However, the proposed project
would avoid exceeding SCAQMD criteria thereby would reduce any potential for cumulative
construction period impacts. It is assumed and likely that other construction projects in Perris
would also be conducted with similar mitigation and control measures in place.
Development projects, such as the Meridian Business Park in Moreno Valley (formerly known
as March Business Center), would also be required to impose mitigation measure to address
fugitive dust or exceedances of other criteria pollutants during construction. Since construction
of each element of these master planned developments would also have to include mitigation
measures the overall potential for cumulative air quality impacts would be reduced. However,
the Meridian Business Park would be built over the next 20 to 25 years and as such is unlikely
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-28 April 5, 2010
to interfere with the PVL construction schedule which would be implemented over the next two
years. As such the overall potential for cumulative impacts would be reduced.
Summary of Impacts
The proposed PVL project would reduce some long-distance trip-making that now occurs via
automobile, resulting in a corresponding improvement in air quality. Although the total amount
of air quality improvement is small compared to the region, the introduction of commuter rail
service provides an ongoing opportunity for reducing trips. The proposed rail service would
result in a net decrease in CO, ROC, and SOx emissions. In addition, SCRRA/Metrolink will be
replacing engines over time and the next generation would meet USEPA Stage III requirements,
which have up to 40% lower emissions characteristics than the current fleet. As these new
engines are incorporated into the fleet, air quality benefits would increase.
Riverside County and the study corridor are forecasted to have substantial increases in
population and employment over the coming decades. The general result of such growth would
be increased travel on the existing roadway network, demand for additional capa city on those
existing facilities, demand for new roadways, as well as additional demand for transit services.
The cumulative impacts of increased transportation demands would likely be degradation of air
quality as the volume of travel continues to expand, conversion of land use from
agriculture/vacant to residential and commercial development, a corresponding reduction of
habitats as land uses change, and increased demands on public facilities.
Does the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or
State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)
Table 4.3-12 shows the air quality impacts that would occur during operation of the proposed
PVL, with the following operational characteristics. The proposed project would operate 12 one-
way trains (four from Perris to LA and one from LA to Perris in the morning peak; one round-trip
from LA to Perris to LA midday; four from LA to Perris and one from Perris to LA in the
afternoon/evening). This schedule is executed using six train sets featuring F59PHI
locomotives, which are currently used by SCRRA/Metrolink. Four of the trains would layover at
South Perris to fulfill the morning schedule, while two train sets would reside at LA Union
Station to perform the AM and midday schedule out of LA Union Station. The operational
analysis includes the incremental increase in train service over the approximately 168-mile
round-trip route between South Perris and LA Union Station. In addition, the operational air
quality impacts analysis includes the four new stations anticipated to be in service during the
initial operation, plus Riverside Downtown Station which is already in service. SOx emissions
were calculated by assuming operational times based on the proposed schedule and use of
ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel which will be used exclusively by 2012 as mandated by
USEPA. The operational emissions of the trains are based on fuel consumption during the
entire trip from South Perris to LA Union Station, and thus include fuel consumed during the
train‘s running and idling phases. Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix E, details the
calculation.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-29 April 5, 2010
Table 4.3-12
2012 Net Change in Operational Emissions (in pounds per day)
Source Category
Pollutant
Sulfur
Oxides
(SOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Reactive
Organic
Compounds
(ROC)
Oxides of
Nitrogen
(NOx)
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)1
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)1
Train Emissions2 0.1 30 6 114 4 4
Vehicular Emissions
Reduced 1 1227 26 73 8 8
NET PROJECT
EMISSIONS -1 - 1197 - 20 41 - 4 - 4
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds for
Operation
150 550 55 55 150 55
Significant (Yes/No) No No No No No No
Note: Vehicular Emissions assessed with EMFAC2007, V2.2, July 15, 2009 for summertime.
1. PM2.5 emissions calculated consistent with methodology provided in the SCAQMD guidance document Particulate Matter (PM)
2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology (2006).
2. Assumes 6 F59PHI diesel engines (meeting EPA Tier 2 emission standards) each operating one 168 mile round trip per day
between South Perris and L.A.
3. NOx is primarily a regional pollutant so localized impacts from parking lot operations would be less than significant.
Source: STV Incorporated. (2010).
The proposed PVL project would result in decreased emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile
organic compounds, SOx PM2.5 and PM10. Nitrogen oxide emissions would increase, but the
increase would be less than significant. With the reductions in these pollutants, the proposed
project would produce a cumulative net benefit to the region‘s air quality. As rail passenger
ridership increases over time and the diesel engines continue to meet EPA‘s more stringent
emission standards, there would be ongoing and increasing air quality benefits.
It is also important to note that the proposed project is included in SCAG ‘s 2008 Adopted RTIP
(Project ID RIV520109), which indicates that the project‘s operational emissions meet the
transportation conformity requirements imposed by USEPA and SCAQMD.
Does the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and
less than significant impacts would result.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending
on the types of population groups exposed and the activities involved. According to CARB, air
pollution has an adverse effect on four primary groups of people: (1) children under 14 years of
age, (2) the elderly over 65 years of age, (3) athletes, and (4) people with cardiovascular and
chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations
that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include hospitals,
daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For the proposed PVL
project, the sensitive receptors closest to the alignment are:
Highland Elementary School - located approximately 65 feet (20 meters) 46 meters (150
feet) east of the alignment near the intersection of Watkins Drive and Blaine Street near
the campus of UC-Riverside
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-30 April 5, 2010
Highland Park - located approximately 75 feet (23 meters) 26 meters (85 feet) east of
the alignment
UC-Riverside Child Development Center - located approximately 110 feet (34 meters) 38
meters (125 feet) west of the alignment in Riverside
Hyatt Elementary School - located in the Box Springs area near Watkins Drive
approximately 130 feet (40 meters) 152 meters (500 feet) west of the alignment
Nan Sanders Elementary School - located approximately 100 feet (31 meters) 38 meters
(125 feet) west of the alignment in Perris
City of Perris Senior Center - located approximately 70 feet (21 meters) 24 meters (80
feet) east of the alignment in Perris
None of these sensitive receptors are located near the intersecti ons that are projected to have
the most potential for future congestion, as identified in the traffic analysis in Chapter 4.11. In
addition, these receptors would not be close to any of the proposed parking lots. Potential air
quality impacts at sensitive receptor locations with respect to both intersections and parking lots
are discussed below.
An analysis of the potential for impact to sensitive receptors is performed in circumstances
where CO pollution could be expected to occur, such as at parking facilities where extensive
idling could occur and at intersections where a large volume of automobiles and trucks could be
expected. At the intersections identified in the traffic analysis (refer to Chapter 4.11) as having
the potential for most future congestion, the Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from
Roadway Intersections (USEPA, 1992) was used to determine receptor locations on sidewalks
and near discrete sensitive receptor locations. Consequently, the CO hot spot analysis
evaluated the potential impacts to these sensitive receptors and calculated pollutant
concentrations. Pollutant concentrations decrease as distance from the pollutant source to a
receptor increases; therefore, if the analysis determined that there would be a less than
significant impact at the sensitive receptors closest to the congested intersection, then it is
expected that impacts to receptors located further away from the se intersections (such as the
sensitive receptors listed above) would also be less than significant and would not require
analysis. As mentioned above, none of the specific sensitive receptors listed above would be
near any of these congested intersections.
In addition to the intersection analysis, an assessment of sensitive receptors near the proposed
PVL station parking lots was also conducted. The assessment identified residential receptors
located close to the proposed station parking lots. Specifically, the parking lot for the proposed
commuter rail station at Palmyrita Avenue (one of the Hunter Park Station options) would be
located approximately 35 meters (115 feet) south and east of residences, while the Downtown
Perris Station would be located approximately 65 meters (215 feet) east of a row of homes. At
these locations where receptor distances are nearest to the pollutant source, as shown in the
Carbon Monoxide - Parking Lot Analysis in Section 4.3.4, the proposed station parking lots are
not expected to generate significant CO concentrations, and a less than significant impact
would occur. Other receptors located even further away (such as St. James Catholic School
and Perris Elementary School in Perris) would also experience less than significant impacts.
In addition to potential impacts from intersections and parking lots, a health risk assessment
with respect to diesel emission from PVL locomotive operations was also considered. Emission
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.3 AIR QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.3-31 April 5, 2010
would be from trains traveling along the alignment as well as those idling temporarily with in
layover yards. As a result, air quality modeling was conducted to predict maximum
concentrations of air toxic pollutants. Based on these predicted concentrations, the resulting
assessment indicated that the ―health risk‖ to sensitive receptors within t he project corridor
would be substantially below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the potential
health risk from train operations would be less than significant.
As shown in the above Tables 4.3-7, 4.3-8, 4.3-9, 4.3-10, 4.3-11, and 4.3-12, the expected
project-related emissions are below all established thresholds of significance for pollutant
concentrations and health risks assessments.
Does the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
The project is not expected to create any objectionable odors that will affect a substantial
number of people.
Most of the emissions related with this project are related to odorless pollutants such as CO.
Therefore, the level of project-related odors is not significant.
4.3.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the PVL project would not result in significant impacts with regard to air
quality. No mitigation measures are required.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-1 April 5, 2010
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological resources are terms that describe individual species as well as the habitat types used
by these species. This section addresses biological resources within and adjacent to the PVL.
Additionally, impacts associated with the construction of the PVL are described in the following
sections.
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The existing BNSF and SJBL corridors have been in use for over 100 years and are withi n very
disturbed ROW.1 The land uses adjacent to the ROW vary from industrial, commercial,
residential, undeveloped, and park land. Both the adjacent land and the rail corridor itself are
completely within Riverside County and therefore included in the Western Riverside Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. The following information is derived from
the Western Riverside County MSHCP unless otherwise noted (Riverside County, 2003).
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Areas
Based on a review of the MSHCP Area Plans, the PVL project was determined to be within
multiple Area Plans that include the cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan, Highgrove Area
Plan, March Area Plan, Mead Valley Area Plan, and the Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan .
Portions of an Area Plan contain Area Plan Subunits that have target conservation acreages
that have been established based on planning species, biological issues and considerations,
and criteria for each Subunit.
Within the cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan, the Sycamore Canyon West, Subunit 2 is
located adjacent to the PVL alignment. Within the Highgrove Area Plan, the PVL project bisects
the Sycamore Canyon/Box Springs Central, Subunit 1. Within the Mead Valley Area Plan, the
PVL alignment intersects the San Jacinto River Lower, Subunit 4.
Within the Area Plans are specifically designated habitat blocks and linkages. The MSHCP
identified Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 within the study area crossing the I -125 and SJBL
line at Poarch Road. The Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 would connect Existing
Noncontiguous Habitat Block A to Existing Core D that are both located outside of the study
area. Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A is located approximately 190 feet east of the
SJBL line between Marlborough and Spruce Streets. The MSHCP also identified Proposed
Constrained Linkage 19 that crosses the SJBL line (east and west of I -125) at the San Jacinto
River. A short description of Linkages within the study area, including connections to adjacent
core areas, Habitat Blocks, and species provided for with Live-In and/or movement is provided
below in Table 4.4-1 and shown in Figure 4.4-1.
Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A is located in the Box Springs Mountains, near
the northern boundary of the cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan. This Block includes
two parcels of land connected by Proposed Constrained Linkage 8 and in turn connected to
1 That is regularly maintained with the application of herbicides.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-2 April 5, 2010
other MSHCP conserved lands via Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 and Proposed
Linkage 4. This Block provides Live-In Habitat for species, and it likely contains movement
habitat for common mammals such as the bobcat. It is partially constrained by existing
urban development and is surrounded by a city planned land use designation.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is comprised of upland habitat in the vicinity of Central
Avenue. It is the only connection from Sycamore Canyon Park to Box Springs Reserve.
This Linkage is important for species dispersal and would reduce the likelihood of species
extinction as a result of population isolation. Habitat Planning Species such as cactus wren
and Bell‘s sage sparrow occur within this Linkage. Additionally, this Linkage likely provides
for movement of common mammals such as bobcat. The Linkage is constrained by existing
urban development and roadways.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 8 is comprised of upland habitat in the Pigeon Pass Valley
and connects to two existing Noncontiguous Habitat Blocks in the Box Springs Mountain
area. Planning species such as cactus wren and bobcat may move through the area.
Maintenance of contiguous habitat with appropriate refugia for resting, such as rockpiles,
brushpiles, windfalls, hollow snags and hollow trees, is important for dispersal of juvenile
animals. This Linkage is constrained by planned Rural Mountainous development to the
north.
Existing Core D consists of Sycamore Canyon Park and is the most isolated of the
proposed and existing cores. It is connected to Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A via
Proposed Constrained Linkage 7. This Core provides Live-In Habitat for the granite spiny
lizard and likely provides movement habitat for bobcat. Management control within this
Core includes March Joint Powers Authority and the City of Riverside Park and Recreation
Department.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 (Lower San Jacinto River) is located approximately in
the center of the Mead Valley Area Plan. This Linkage connects Proposed Linkage 7 in the
southwest with Proposed Extension of Existing Core 4 (San Jacinto River Core) in the
northeast. Existing agricultural use and a small amount of existing urban development
constrain the Linkage along much of its length. Although there are plans to channelize the
river to control flooding, the Linkage would nonetheless maintain connectivity along the river
and provide for movement of common mammals such as the bobcat.
Criteria Cells are used to identify potential land for conservation within the Area Plans,
Criteria Cells are identified based on land parcel information. The PVL borders and bisects
a total of five Criteria Cells in two of the five Area Plans (Criteria Cells 545, 362, 721, 3276,
and 3378). Table 4.4-2 summarizes the conservation criteria for each Criteria Cell and the
PVL study area‘s relationship to that particular Cell.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
EXISTING NONCONTIGUOUS
HABITAT BLOCK A
PROPOSED CONSTRAINED
LINKAGE 8
EXISTING NONCONTIGUOUS
HABITAT BLOCK A
EXISTING CORE D
PROPOSED
CONSTRAINED
LINKAGE 7
PROPOSED
CONSTRAINED
LINKAGE 19
PROPOSED
LINKAGE 7
PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF
EXISTING CORE 4
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RD4.4-1
92666
3/31/10
JP
RM
92666landEA2EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
MSHCP CORES AND LINKAGES
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
!R
!R
Hunter Park
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
101230.5
Miles±BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
MSHCP DATA SOURCE: RCTLMA COUNTYWIDE
DATA, JULY 2009
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
EXISTING CORE
EXISTING OR PROPOSED
NONCONTIGUOUS HABITAT
PROPOSED CONSTRAINED
LINKAGE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-4 April 5, 2010
Table 4.4-1
Cores and Linkages related to PVL
Feature Species PVL Relationship Adjacent General Plan Land
Use Designations
Existing
Noncontiguous
Habitat Block A
southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, cactus wren,
loggerhead shrike, Stephens' kangaroo rat
(SKR), bobcat, and Nevin's barberry
1,400 ft east of SJBL Line between
Marlborough and Spruce Streets (Box
Springs Mountain Reserve)
Rural Mountainous, City
(Riverside, Moreno Valley),
Open Space/ Conservation
Proposed
Constrained
Linkage 7
Bell's sage sparrow, cactus wren, and
bobcat
Crosses SJBL Line and I-215 at Poarch
Road
Community Development Open
Space/Conservation
Proposed Constrained
Linkage 8
southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, cactus wren,
loggerhead shrike, and bobcat
1,000 ft east of SJBL Line at Big Springs
Road
Rural Community Mountainous
and Open Space/ Conservation
Existing Core D Wilson's warbler
West of I-215 and SJBL Line at Central
Avenue and Gernert Road; Less than 500
ft south of the Moreno Valley/March Field
Station (Sycamore Canyon Park)
Sycamore Canyon Specific
Plan
Proposed Constrained
Linkage 19
mountain plover, loggerhead shrike, white-
faced ibis, bobcat, Los Angeles pocket
mouse, San Jacinto Valley crownscale,
Davidson's saltscale, thread-leaved
brodiaea, vernal barley, Coulter's
goldfields, spreading navarretia, and
Wright's trichocoronis
Crosses the SJBL Line along the Lower
San Jacinto River
Parks/Recreation/National
Open Space
Riverglen Specific and Green
Valley Plan Areas
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-5 April 5, 2010
Table 4.4-2
MSHCP Cell Number Conservation Criteria
Cell
Number Conservation Criteria PVL Study Area Relationship
Highgrove Area Plan: Sycamore Canyon/Box Springs Central Subunit 1
545 Conservation within Cell# 545 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within
this Cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation to the
south in Cell# 635. Conservation within Cell# 545 will range from 15%-25% of the
southeastern portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically
bisected the cell. Since the existing footprint (only
track upgrades of the existing track, no passing
track in this area) is staying the same, there is not a
conflict with the conservation objectives of the cell.
635 Conservation within Cell# 635 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within
Cell# 635 will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation to the
south in Cell# 721 and to the north in Cell# 545. Conservation within this Cell will range from
25%-35% of the central portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically
bisected the cell. Since the existing footprint (only
track upgrades of the existing track, no passing
track in this area) is staying the same, there is not a
conflict with the conservation objectives of the cell.
721 Conservation within Cell# 721 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat and riparian scrub,
woodlands and forests. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to coastal sage
scrub habitat proposed for conservation to the north in Cell# 635 and to the west in Cell# 719
in the City of Riverside. Conservation within Cell# 721will range from 35%-45% of the
northeastern and central portions of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically
bisected the cell. Since the existing footprint (only
track upgrades of the existing track, no passing
track in this area) is staying the same, there is not a
conflict with the conservation objectives of the cell.
Mead Valley Area Plan: San Jacinto River Lower Subunit 4
3276 Conservation within Cell# 3276 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage
19. Conservation within Cell# 3276 will focus on assembly of grassland habitat associated
with the San Jacinto River. Areas conserved within Cell# 3276 will be connected to grassland
habitat and agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell# 3277 to the east and to
agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell# 3378 to the south. Conservation within
Cell# 3276 will range from 45%-55% of the Cell focusing in the southern portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically
intersected this cell. The project proposes track
upgrades in the area and the replacement of two
bridges over the San Jacinto River and Overflow
Channel. The replacement bridges are planned to
be wider and have fewer piers in the channel. This
would allow for a larger area for animals to pass
underneath and would therefore be an improvement
of the linkage and the related conservation
objectives.
3378 Conservation within Cell# 3378 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage
19. Conservation within Cell# 3378 will focus on assembly of agricultural land associated with
the San Jacinto River. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to agricultural land
proposed for conservation in Cell# 3377 to the west, to grassland habitat proposed for
conservation in Cell# 3276 to the north, and to agricultural land proposed for conservation in
Cell# 3277 to the northeast. Conservation within Cell# 3378 will range from 30%-40% of the
Cell focusing in the northwestern portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically
intersected this cell. The project proposes track
upgrades in the area and the replacement of two
bridges over the San Jacinto River and Overflow
Channel. Bridge opens up linkages fewer
impediments.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-6 April 5, 2010
Stephens‘ Kangaroo Rat Conservation Areas
The Stephens‘ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) established seven
permanent core area reserves for SKR, one of which is in the vicinity of the proposed PVL
project as shown in Figure 4.4-2 (Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency [RCHCA],
2007). The Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base Core Reserve is located west of I-215 and
the existing PVL corridor. The SKR Reserve covers approximately 2,502 acres across two
components. The proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station is located near the SKR
Reserve but outside of the boundaries. During the planning for the Meridian Business Park the
SKR Reserve boundary was relocated so that all of the Meridian Business Park is now outside
the SKR Reserve. This boundary was relocated after negotiations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. All PVL project components are located outside the SKR Core Reserves. However,
the PVL project is still within the SKR Fee Area. Any project located within the fee area is
required to pay a mitigation fee to fully mitigate project impacts.
Habitats within the PVL Corridor
The potential presence of the burrowing owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell‘s vireo,
California gnatcatcher and western spadefoot toad represent the only potentially affected
species within the PVL corridor. Additional sensitive habitat was identified within the Box
Springs Canyon Reserve, but these habitat areas are adjacent to the PVL alignment, and not
anticipated to be directly impacted as part of the project. There is potential burrowing owl
habitat present at the Citrus Connection and at points along the SJBL alignment between MP
3.00 and MP 9.00. The following provides a description of the habitat and vegetation types
within, and adjacent to the PVL ROW as shown in Figure 4.4-3 and described below:
Citrus Connection
The Citrus Connection is located north of Springbrook Wash and will be used for new track to
connect the BNSF main line (in the west), to the SJBL (in the east). Both the BNSF main line
and the SJBL tracks already cross the wash on earthen berms, within existing ROW‘s and the
new connecting track would be completely outside the wash. This land, north of the wash, has
been approved for development as warehouse buildings by a private developer. As part of that
development agreement, the land within the Springbrook Wash has been transferred into a
conservation parcel. This parcel is anticipated to remain a conservation parcel in perpetuity.
The habitat of the Citrus Connection is very poor quality, disturbed non -native grassland as
shown in Figure 4.4-4. This non-native grassland area has been determined to be potential
habitat for burrowing owl by the MSHCP criteria determination and confirmed during a field visit.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RD4.4-2
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666SKratEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURESTEPHENS' KANGAROO RAT
HABITATS AND RESERVES
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
SKR HABITAT
SKR RESERVE
!R
!R
Hunter Park
±10120.5
Miles
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
MSHCP DATA SOURCE: RCTLMA COUNTYWIDE
DATA, JULY 2009
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
MORENO
VALLEY
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
PERRIS
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
RIVERSIDE
UC RIVERSIDE
HIGHGROVE
ROMOLAND
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDSAN JACINTO AVE
MAPES RD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
4.4-3
92666
3/9/10
JP
RM
92666veg.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
HABITAT AND VEGETATION TYPES
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Hunter Park
Citrus Connection
10120.5
Miles ±
LEGEND
!R
!R
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
ALKALI PLAYA
CHAPARRAL
FIELD/CROPLANDS
GROVE/ORCHARD
NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND
OPEN WATER/RESERVOIR/POND
DEVELOPED
RIVERSIDEAN SAGE SCRUB
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
VEGETATION DATA SOURCE: RCTLMA COUNTYWIDE
DATA, JULY 2009
CITRUS CONNECTION
PALMYRITA
COLUMBIA
MARLBOROUGH
±
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
CITRUS CONNECTION BOUNDARY
FIELD/CROPLANDS
GROVE/ORCHARD
DEVELOPED
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRISCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
O
H
N R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
KEY MAP FOR INSET AREAS
±
NOT TO SCALE
4.4-4
92666
3/9/10
JP
RM
92666veg_cit_hp.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREHABITAT AND VEGETATION TYPES
AT STATION SITES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
CITRUS CONNECTION
HUNTER PARK
HUNTER PARK ±
NOT TO SCALE
W. SPRING STREET
VILLA STREET
TRANSIT STREETPALMYRITA AVENUE
COLUMBIA AVENUE
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
NOT TO SCALE
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
VEGETATION DATA SOURCE: RCTLMA COUNTYWIDE
DATA, JULY 2009
SOUTH PERRIS STATION/
LAYOVER FACILITY
±
LEGEND
4.4-5
92666
3/9/10
JP
RM
92666veg_mvly_per.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREHABITAT AND VEGETATION TYPES
AT STATION SITES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
MORENO VALLEY/
MARCH FIELD STATION
±KEY MAP FOR INSET AREAS
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRISCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
O
H
N R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
±NOT TO SCALE
SOUTH PERRIS STATION
AND LAYOVER FACILITY
MORENO VALLEY/
MARCH FIELD
STATION
NOT TO SCALE
ALESSANDRO BLVD.
I
NTERSTATE 215NOT TO SCALE
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
FIELD/CROPLANDS
NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
VEGETATION DATA SOURCE: RCTLMA COUNTYWIDE
DATA, JULY 2009
C
ASE R
O
AD
INTERSTATE 215LA
Y
O
VE
R FACILIT
Y
S
O
UTH P
E
RIS
STATIO
NSAN JACINTORIVER
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-11 April 5, 2010
SJBL Alignment
The SJBL alignment is existing rail ROW and extends approximately 21 miles from the Citrus
Connection to the Layover Facility located south of Pe rris. This ROW has been maintained by
BNSF crews for approximately 100 years, and as a result is highly disturbed. The following
provides a summary of habitat types both within the ROW and immediately adjacent to the
ROW as described in the Habitat Assessment Report (Technical Report E):
Citrus Connection to MP 1.00: The ROW is highly disturbed with hard compacted soil and
occasional ornamental trees, including various species of palm. The area adjacent to the
ROW is industrial/commercial west of the alignment and residential transitioning to industrial
east of the ROW. There is no suitable habitat available for burrowing owl because of the
disturbed nature of the ROW and adjacent areas.
MP 1.00 to MP 2.00: Within the ROW for the first half of this section the ground conditio ns
are highly disturbed and has hard pack soil. The areas adjacent to the ROW transition from
industrial areas to more open uses varying from a large stormwater detention basin (east
side of the ROW), with citrus orchards (west side of the ROW) to undeveloped area. The
second half mile (south of Marlborough) the ROW expands with the area immediately
adjacent to the tracks being disturbed and transitioning into non-native grasslands outside of
the ROW. Nearing MP 2.00, there are residential areas near ROW boundary on both sides
of the alignment. There is degraded habitat both within and adjacent to the ROW until the
ROW expands. After the ROW expands there is higher quality burrowing owl habitat both
within and adjacent to the ROW.
MP 2.00 to MP 3.00: The ROW between MP 2.00 and MP 3.00 is highly disturbed with hard
pack soil. The areas adjacent to the ROW are residential no available habitat for burrowi ng
owl is present.
MP 3.00 to MP 4.00: The ROW between MP 3.00 and approximately MP 3.50 is highly
disturbed with hard pack soil. There is also a concrete drainage channel within the ROW
through this area. After MP 3.50 the ROW enters Box Springs Mountain Reserve and the
track is on an elevated berm and compacted dirt slopes away from the track on both sides to
the ROW limits. The areas adjacent to the ROW are Box Springs Mountain Reserve on one
side, or Islander Park on the other, therefore there is available habitat for burrowing owl , as
well as coastal California gnatcatcher. It should also be noted that through this area are
very small fragments of riparian vegetation centered on the drainage culverts. Additionally,
there would be limited work on the tracks in this area, but there would be noise barriers
installed to shield adjacent residents from the train noise. One of these walls would extend
south of the last residence and is not anticipated to act as a barrier to wildlife use of the park
areas.
MP 4.00 to MP 5.00: The ROW expands again between MP 4.00 and MP 5.00. This is the
distance of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve and beyond into the undeveloped land near
Poarch Road. The area within the ROW is predominately sage scrub with occasional
ornamental trees. West of the ROW is residential and east of the ROW is the Reserve land.
There is potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher,
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Bell‘s sage sparrow.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-12 April 5, 2010
MP 5.00 to MP 6.00: The ROW contracts just south of the MP 5.00 and continues with this
more contained ROW to beyond MP 6.00. Near the MP 5.00 area the soil is eroded near
the tracks and the maintained area appears closer to the ballast rock. From MP 5.0 0 to
approximately MP 5.50 paved roads and freeway on-ramp are located west of the
alignment, and undeveloped land with dirt roads and a cellular communications tower are
located east of the alignment. From approximately MP 5.50 to MP 6.00 the maintained area
is very narrow with riparian habitat located west of the tracks and mixed sage scrub habitat
located east of the tracks. The riparian area is potentially suitable habitat for southwestern
willow flycatcher, and least Bells vireo. The sage scrub habitat is available for coastal
California gnatcatcher, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Bell‘s sage
sparrow. The PVL project would rehabilitate the existing track and replace culverts.
MP 6.00 to MP 7.00: From MP 6.00 to approximately MP 6.25 the riparian area between the
freeway and the ROW continues. East of the ROW there is sage scrub habitat and limited
riparian habitat. At approximately MP 6.25 the PVL corridor passes under the I-215/SR-60.
Below the bridges is concrete lined with no available habitat. Once south of the overpass
the ROW widens and the soil is compacted and disturbed. The area includes scattered
eucalyptus trees, and riparian vegetation associated with the drainage culverts. The area
adjacent to the ROW north of the interstate underpass is undeveloped east of the alignment,
and freeway corridor west of the alignment. South of the interstate underpass the area
adjacent to the alignment to the west is industrial/commercial development and freeway
corridor east of the alignment. Near the MP 7 .00 area there is industrial/commercial
development both east and west of the alignment. There is suitable burrowing owl habitat
along this section of alignment as well as limited riparian areas at the culvert locations.
MP 7.00 to MP 8.00: This area within the ROW is highly disturbed with hard pack soil and
one concrete culvert under the track. The culvert connects two concrete v-ditches, east and
west of the ROW. Both concrete v-ditches are heavily vegetated. The area adjacent to the
ROW consists of industrial/commercial warehouses to the west and the I-215 corridor to the
east. In many cases the warehouse and associated spaces are encroaching into the ROW.
There is limited burrowing owl habitat available along this section of the SJBL.
MP 8.00 to MP 9.00: This area within the ROW is disturbed non-native grassland. Starting
at approximately MP 8.20 there is a concrete v-ditch west of the alignment that continues
south until approximately MP 9.00. Outside of the ROW is the I-215 on the east and
industrial/commercial development to the west. On the west side of the alignment, between
the industrial/commercial development, are small areas of disturbed non-native grassland,
suitable for burrowing owls.
MP 9.00 to MP 10.00: This area within the ROW is disturbed habitat consisting of non-
native grassland and highly compacted soil adjacent to the ballast rock supporting the
tracks. The areas adjacent to the ROW are currently disturbed and do contain suitable
burrowing owl habitat.
MP 10.00 to MP 18.00: This area within the ROW is compacted soil with fragments of
disturbed habitat. In addition, there are culverts that contain small, isolated, riparian areas
that are not suitable habitat. The area east of the ROW is the I-215 and contains no
available habitat. The area to the west of the ROW is highly disturbed with land use varying
from industrial/commercial to disturbed with some large parcels being graded for
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-13 April 5, 2010
construction. There are landscape trees scattered along the ROW boundary that may be
suitable for nesting birds.
MP 18.00 to MP 19.00: This area is within the city of Perris. The ROW is hard compacted
soil, free of any vegetation with no available habitat. The areas adjacent to the ROW are
residential with occasional landscape trees within the private yards.
MP 19.00 to the end: This area starts at the south end of Perris and continues to the end of
the proposed project. The ROW contains dis turbed compacted soil near the ballast and
transitions into non-native grasslands further away from the ballast. There are two bridges
in this section, one that crosses the San Jacinto River and the second that crosses the San
Jacinto River Overflow Channel. These bridges are currently constructed of timber and
would be replaced as part of the project. The areas adjacent to the bridges are highly
disturbed with no riparian habitat associated with the San Jacinto River and San Jacinto
River Overflow Channel. It should also be noted that the river bed is used by trucks and all
terrain vehicles to traverse area. There is no riparian vegetation present, or associated with
the river channel or overflow channel; however, there are both U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional
areas. The quantitative impact of these bridge replacements was also included in the
jurisdictional area calculations.
Stations
The following provides a description of the vegetation and habitat types at the proposed station
sites and shown in Figure 4.4-5.
Hunter Park Station options
Hunter Park Station would be located at one of three proximate sites: Palmyrita Avenue Station
option, Columbia Avenue Station option, or Marlborough Avenue Station option.
Palmyrita Avenue Station: This potential station site is located east of the existing railroad
ROW and consists of highly disturbed land. A relatively new building has been built on a
portion of this site and it appears that the site was gr aded during that construction.
Columbia Avenue Station: The potential station site is located west of the ROW and is
currently an active orange grove. There are small fragments of disturbed non-native
grassland within the site, but no sensitive species habitat present.
Marlborough Avenue Station: This potential station site is located west of the ROW and is
currently highly disturbed by grading and the importation of fill mate rial. There is no
available habitat on this site.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
This station site is located west of the alignment and is currently disturbed non -native grassland.
This station site is part of another project, the Meridian Specific Plan. The Meridian Specific
Plan has completed a project specific EIR. Impacts associated with this station site were
anticipated in this EIR and the appropriate mitigation incorporated. The Meridian project is
preparing the site and would transfer the site to the PVL project for construction.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-14 April 5, 2010
Downtown Perris Station
The Downtown Perris station option is located in downtown Perris in a developed area with no
available habitat.
South Perris Station
The proposed South Perris Station is planned to be located south of the San Jacinto River and
west of the I-215. The station site would be located east of the alignment on land that is
currently under agricultural production. There are small remnants of scrub habitat, but the area
is highly disturbed from the rail operations and the agricultural operations.
Layover Facility
The Layover Facility would be located adjacent to the South Perris Station option on the east
side of the alignment and west of the I-215. The site would be located on former agricultural
land.
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1544)
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs federal agencies to participate in endangered
species conservation. The federal ESA provides protection for endangered and threatened
species, and requires conservation of designated species‘ critical habitats. An ―endangered‖
species is a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range . A
―threatened‖ species is one that is likely to become ―endangered‖ in the foreseeable future
without further protection. Other special status species include ―proposed‖, ―candidate‖, and
―species of concern.‖ Proposed species are those that have been officially proposed in the FR
for listing as threatened or endangered. Candidate species are those for which sufficient
information is available to propose listing as endangered or threatened. ―Species of concern‖
are species for which not enough scientific information has been g athered to support a listing
proposal, but still may be appropriate for listing in the future after further study. A ―delisted‖
species is one whose population has reached its recovery goal is no longer in jeopardy.
The ESA is administered by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). Under the ESA, it is prohibited to take, harm, or
harass species listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. A permit for taking a
federally listed threatened or endangered species may be obtained either through Section 7
consultation (where the proposed action requires approval of a federal agency) or Section 10(a)
(i.e., where the proposed non-federal action requires development of a HCP). Both cases
require consultation with the USFWS and/or NMFS, which ultimately issues a final opinion
determining whether the federally listed species would be adversely impacted by a proposed
project. Under Section 4(d), an alternative permitting approach can be written by the Secretary
of the Interior for use with federally threatened species.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-15 April 5, 2010
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667E)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), authorized the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Commerce to assist and cooperate with Federal and State agencies to protect, rear, stock, and
increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, and to study the effects of domestic
sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife. Amendments to the Act
require consultation with the USFWS, NMFS, and State agencies responsible for fish and
wildlife resources for all proposed federal undertakings and non-Federal actions needing a
federal permit or license that would impound, divert, deepen, or otherwise control or modify a
stream or water body; and to make mitigation and recommendations to the involved federal
agency.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provides special protection for migratory families of birds
(i.e., those avian species that winter south of the U.S. but breed within the U.S.) by regulating
hunting and trade. The MBTA prohibits anyone to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter
any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or
products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). ―Take‖ includes any
disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or
abandonment of eggs or young). Such activity may be punishable by fines and/or
imprisonment. The use of families as opposed to individual species within the Act means that
numerous non-migratory birds are extended protection under the MTBA. Most nesting birds are
covered by the MBTA.
The MSHCP Section 10(a) Permit does constitute a Special Purpose Permit under 50 CFR
§ 21.27, for the Take of Covered Species Adequately Conserved listed under FESA and which
are also listed under the MBTA of 1918.
Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species
The purpose of this Executive Order (EO) is to prevent the introduction and control the spread
of invasive plant and animal species. This law prohibits the Federal government from
authorizing or funding of actions that may cause or promote the introduction and/or spread of
invasive species unless the agency has determined that the action‘s benefits clearly outweigh
potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures would be
taken to minimize risk of harm. This EO also requires federal agencies to consult with the
Invasive Species Council, consistent with the Invasive Species Management Plan.
Natural Community Conservation Plan
The primary objective of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) program of CDFG
is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem level and encourage cooperation between
private and government interests. The plan identifies and provides for the regional or area wide
protection and perpetuation of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible land
use and economic development. An NCCP focuses on the long-term stability of natural
communities. The program is broader in its orientation and objectives than the California and
federal ESAs, which focus on identifying and protecting individual species that have already
significantly declined in number.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-16 April 5, 2010
NCCPs are authorized by the State‘s NCCP Act of 1991, codified as §10 of Division 3 of the
California Fish and Game Code (2800 et seq.). Approved NCCPs provide the basis for
issuance of state authorizations for the take of species specifically identified in the plan, whether
or not a species is listed as threatened or endangered, and may provide the basis for issuance
of federal endangered species permits. A NCCP would be approved by the CDFG for
implementation upon meeting the statutory standards for natural community conservation u nder
Fish and Game Code 2820 et seq. and other applicable laws and regulations. It is important to
note that the NCCP process must ensure consistency with the federal and state ESAs.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional HCP focusing on conservation of species
and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP is a large, multi-
jurisdictional habitat-planning effort with the overall goal of maintaining biological and ecological
diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region. The MSHCP is an element of RCIP to conserve
open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas . It is designed to
protect 146 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in western Riverside County. RCTC is
also a signatory on the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and a permittee under the Plan.
The MSHCP Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles); it
includes the unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto
Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the cities of
Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley,
Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, San Jacinto, and jurisdictional areas of Menifee
and Wildomar. It covers multiple species and multiple habitats within a diverse landscape, from
urban centers to undeveloped foothills and montane forests, all under multiple jurisdictions . It
extends across many Bioregions as well, including the Santa Ana Mountains, Riverside
Lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills, San Jacinto Mountains, Agua Tibia Mountains, Desert
Transition, and San Bernardino Mountains. It would provide a coordinated MSHCP
Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain
the region's quality of life.
The MSHCP serves as a HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA of 1973, as
well as the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP is used to allow the participating jurisdictions to
authorize "Take" of plant and wildlife species identified within the MSHCP area . The USFWS
and CDFG have authority to regulate the take of Threatened, Endangered, and rare Species .
Under the MSHCP, the USFWS and CDFG would grant "Take Authorization" for otherwise
lawful actions, such as public and private development that may incidentally ―take‖ or harm
individual species or their habitat outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, in exchange for the
assembly and management of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area. It should be noted
that compliance with the Plan provides full mitigation for all species and habitat impacts under
CEQA.
The MSHCP identifies habitat generally by Core Areas and Linkages by which species could be
expected to move from one area of conserved habitat to another. These areas comprise the
habitat to which the MSHCP ―criteria‖ are applied. These Criteria Area have been divided into
cells or ―Criteria Cells‖ for organizational and evaluation purposes. The descriptive breakdown
of the separate criteria areas is comprised of a variety of existing and proposed Cores,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-17 April 5, 2010
Extensions of Existing Cores, Linkages, Constrained Linkages, and Non-contiguous Habitat
Blocks. These specific areas are generally referred to as Cores and Linkages:
Core: A block of habitat of appropriate size, configuration, and vegetation characteristics to
generally support the life history requirements of one or more Covered Species . Although a
more typical definition is population-related and refers to a single species, in the MSHCP this
term is Habitat-related because of the multi-species nature of the MSHCP Plan.
Extension of Existing Core: A block of habitat contiguous with an existing Core Area which
serves to provide additional habitat for species in the adjacent existing Core and to reduce an
exposed edge.
Non-contiguous Habitat Block: A block of habitat not connected to other habitat areas via a
Linkage or Constrained Linkage.
Linkage: A connection between Core Areas with adequate size, configuration and vegetation
characteristics to generally provide for "Live-In" Habitat and/or provide for genetic flow for
identified Planning Species. Areas identified as Linkages in MSHCP may provide movement
Habitat but not Live-In Habitat for some species, thereby functioning more as movement
corridors. It is expected that every Linkage would provide Live-In Habitat for at least one
species.
Constrained Linkage: A constricted connection expected to provide for movement of identified
Planning Species between Core Areas, where options for assembly of the connection are
limited due to existing patterns of use.
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
EO 11990 directs that federal agencies provide leadership and take action to minimize
destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands associated with: (1) acquisition, management, and
disposition of federal land and facilities; (2) federally funded or assisted con struction and
improvement; or, (3) federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited
to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.
Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251-1376)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation‘s waters . There are numerous sections
of the CWA that provide guidance related to implementation of this type of project.
Section 401 requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit that allows activities
resulting in discharge to jurisdictional waters (including wetland/riparian areas) of the United
States must obtain a state water quality certification that the discharge complies with other
provisions of CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board‘s (RWQCB) administer the
certification program in California.
Section 402 is regulated by the USEPA and establishes a permitting system for the discharge of
any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States. It establishes a
framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-18 April 5, 2010
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The RWQCBs also administer the
NPDES permits for construction activities and operations.
Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the USACE regulating the discharge
of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, and jurisdictional
non-wetland waters. The USACE has permit authority derived from Section 404 of the CWA (33
CFR 320-330). The permit review process includes an assessment of potential adverse
impacts to wetlands and streambed habitats and determination of any required mitigation
measures. As a condition of the 404 permitting process, a 401 Water Quality Certification or
waiver is required from the RWQCB. Where federally-listed species may be affected, a Section
7 consultation with the USFWS under the federal ESA is required. (Since there maybe federal
involvement with the USFWS consultation, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) is also required).
California Fish and Game Code, 1600 et. seq.
The CDFG Code 1600 requires that any person, state or local government agency or public
utility proposing a project that may result in impacting a river, stream, or lake to notify the
CDFG. In addition to protection of state listed species under CESA, the agency also has
surface water jurisdiction to protect wildlife values and native plant resources associated with
waters of the State. If CDFG determines that the project may adversely affect existing fish and
wildlife resources, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required. Required
conditions within the Streambed Alteration Agreement are intended to address potentially
significant adverse impacts within CDFG jurisdictional limits.
4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Biological Resources is
defined by:
1. Does the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS
2. Does the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by CDFG or USFWS
3. Does the project have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means
4. Does the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
5. Does the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-19 April 5, 2010
6. Does the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan
4.4.4 Project Impacts
Project specific impacts can occur in two forms: direct and indirect. Direct impacts are
considered to be those that involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of plant communities,
which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include
the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which may directly affect regional population
numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations, thereby reducing genetic
diversity and population stability.
Indirect impacts can occur although areas of habitat are not directly removed by project
development. Indirect impacts can involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or
light, unnatural predators (i.e. domestic cats and other non -native animals), competition with
exotic plants and animals, and increased human disturbance such as hiking, bicycling or illegal
dumping. Indirect impacts may be associated with the subsequent day-to-day activities
associated with project build-out, such as increased traffic use, permanent concrete barrier
walls or chain-link fences, exotic ornamental plantings that provide a local source of seed, etc.,
which may be both short-term and long-term in duration. These impacts are commonly referred
to as ―edge effects‖ and may result in a slow replacement of native plants by exotics, changes in
the behavioral patterns of wildlife, and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in existing
habitats adjacent to project sites.
As stated in the project description, no equipment staging will take place within 500 feet of
environmentally sensitive areas and will only occur in previously disturbed areas.
Does the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS
Sensitive Plant Species
Direct Impacts
During the initial evaluation of resources for the preparation of the MSHCP , the potential for
Narrow Endemic Plant Species were identified within the San Jacinto River. However, during
the dry season, the San Jacinto River is used as a four wheel drive access road from east of the
SJBL, under the ROW, under Case Road, and travels to the west. This conflicting use of the
river channel combined with the ROW maintenance activities, caused the areas immediately
adjacent to the bridges to be highly disturbed.
Both the BNSF and SJBL are highly disturbed and no sensitive plant species were identified
during habitat evaluations. The existing SJBL intersects MSHCP criteria cells, 545, 635, 721,
3276, and 3378 as shown on Figure 4.4-6. Cells 545, 635, and 721 are part of Proposed
Constrained Linkage 7, which is considered a wildlife corridor south of Box Springs Park and
north of the freeway. However, cells 3276 and 3378 are within Proposed Constrained Linkage
19, which is located at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-20 April 5, 2010
Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, which in addition to important consideration as a wildlife
corridor is identified as having a potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Because the
MSHCP identifies the area as having a potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species, a habitat
evaluation is required as well as bloom period surveys if appropriate habitat is present. The
bloom period for Narrow Endemic Plants ranges from spring through late summer. Note; an
endemic species is found in a limited geographic area but does not imply rarity, rather
geographic distribution (Mitigation measure BR-8).
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
545
635
721
3378
3276
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
4.4-6
92666
3/8/10
JP
RM
92666MSCHP2.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
!R
!R
Hunter Park
Citrus Connection
PROJECT CRITERIA CELL
MSHCP CRITERIA CELL
10120.5
Miles
±
Basemap Source: STV Incorporated 10-3-08
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-22 April 5, 2010
Indirect Impacts
There are no anticipated indirect impacts to sensitive plant species as a result of the proposed
project.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Direct Impacts
Riverside County identifies biological resources in the general area through the MSHCP and the
SKR HCP. As previously stated, the PVL project is outside the designated SKR Core Reserve
areas but is within the fee area. Therefore, the appropriate fee is required as mitigation to be
paid in order to reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant with mitigation
(Mitigation measure 15).
The Western spadefoot toad has the potential to inhabit the San Jacinto River area, near the
SJBL. The project is proposing to replace the San Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto
River Bridge Overflow Channel. In order to replace the two bridges, there will need to be work
conducted from both within the two channels as well adjacent to the channels. Therefore there
is a potential significant impact to the western spadefoot toad and mitigation is required to
reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant with mitigatio n incorporated (See
Mitigation measure BR-9).
Indirect Impacts
Through the Box Springs Mountain Reserve, and MSHCP criteria cells 545, 635, and 721, the
corridor will stay in the pre-project configuration with a single rail track. Only rehabilitation work
and minor culvert improvements are anticipated within this area. The culvert work proposed for
the area is anticipated to be minor (e.g. wing walls) and related to reducing the potential for
sediment erosion near the culvert outlets. This culvert work is anticipated to be permitted by the
USACE, CDFG, and the RWQCB (See Mitigation measure BR-17).
There are a variety of habitat types adjacent to the ROW within the area. The habitat types
include sage scrub habitat as well as riparian habitat. Based on the potential for sensitive birds
to be associated with these habitats, it is assumed that the following birds will inhabit the area;
coastal California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher and the least Bell‘s vireo.
Therefore there is a potential to indirectly impact these birds and mitigation is required to reduce
the potential significant impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated (See
Mitigation measures 12, 13, 14, 16, 17).
Because of the disturbed nature of the ROW and the ongoing maintenance activities of the
active rail corridors, direct impacts to burrowing owls is not anticipated. However, there is
available nesting habitat for the burrowing owls adjacent to the existing ROW‘s. Protocol
surveys for burrowing owl both within the corridor and in adjacent areas determined that there
are no owls present. Since there is a potential to indirectly impact burrowing owls, mitigation is
required to reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant with mitig ation
incorporated (See Mitigation measure BR-10).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-23 April 5, 2010
Raptor Habitat, Nesting, Foraging
Within the existing BNSF and PVL rail corridors regular maintenance occurs that greatly limits
the growth of any vegetation including non-native grasslands, which would be considered
foraging habitat. In the area of the Citrus Connection, the undeveloped land is very disturbed
from the proposed development activities on the site. There are non -native grasslands in this
area, but the project would only impact a small swath of non-native grassland, less than an
acre, with the installation of the ballast rock, ties, and rail. This impact would not be considered
significant and therefore no mitigation is required.
Further south, along the I-215 corridor, there are a series of large billboards located within the
ROW. Within many of these billboards are raptor nests. It is assumed that the raptors from
these nests utilize the larger undeveloped areas located off of the existing ROW for foraging.
These billboards are planned to be relocated within the ROW, a few feet closer to the edge of
the ROW. There are potential impacts to these raptors and nests and therefore mitigation is
required (Mitigation measure BR-11).
The station locations and Layover Facility are proposed on land that is either highly disturbed
(Palmyrita, Marlborough), developed (Downtown Perris), or disturbed land (Columbia, South
Perris, and the Layover Facility). Since the areas are already disturbed there is a minor impact
to raptor foraging habitat but is a less than significant impact therefore no mitigation is required.
Does the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by CDFG or USFWS
As identified previously there are sensitive habitats, associated with the sensitive species
identified previously that are adjacent to the existing SJBL. In addition to the areas of adjacent
sensitive habitat, there are very small, dislocated areas of riparian habitat, or jurisdictional
areas, within the corridor that are associated with the culverts that pass beneath the track bed.
These culverts allow stormwater to flow from one side of the track to the other. The project
impacts to these small areas of vegetation is discussed further below.
Does the project have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means
The project proposes to extend or replace various culverts on the SJBL ROW. Additionally,
the project is proposing to replace the existing bridges at the San Jacinto River and the San
Jacinto River Overflow Channel.
During the jurisdictional evaluation of the culverts and bridge locations there was a 50 -foot study
area identified surrounding each of the culverts evaluated as identified in the Jurisdictional
Determination Report (Technical Report F). Within this study area there were federally
protected wetlands identified within the ROW at only one work location.
At the remaining work areas there were jurisdictional impacts identified for both USACE and
CDFG. These impacts would be both temporary and permanent impacts as identified in Table
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-24 April 5, 2010
4.4-3. The permanent impacts could occur in areas where new culverts would be placed and
temporary impacts would be related to areas affected by construction at the ends of the culverts
and at the bridge locations.
Table 4.4-3
Jurisdictional Areas of Impact
Jurisdiction Impacts
(Temporary)
Impacts
(Permanent)
USACE 0.145037 acres 0.03822 acres
CDFG 0.335061 acres 0.085039 acres
Mitigation is required of impacts to jurisdictional areas to reduce the potential significant impact
to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Does the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
The project is not located in an area where native, or migratory, fish are located and therefore
fish would not be impacted by the project. However, the MSHCP does identify Cores and
Linkages for wildlife species within western Riverside County. The Linkages are considered
wildlife corridors connecting the identified Core areas. Since the SJBL is located within
Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, there is a concern
that the project has a potential to impact the continued use of these wildlife corridors.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is located south of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve area.
The only proposed project work in this area is the rehabilitation of the existing track, and minor
improvements to existing culverts, with no new improvements proposed. The existing track
configuration, in this area is on a raised track bed, and has not changed in the preceding 100
years since the SJBL was initially constructed. This area is also located near the I-216/60. The
species identified that use this Linkage are bird species and bobcat. It is expected that these
species would continue to cross the ROW as they have done previously when the PVL is in
place. Based on the project improvements proposed for this area, there is no impact to the
continued use of this corridor by the identified species, and therefore no mitigation is necessary.
It should be noted that there is mitigation proposed within the noise section to extend a noise
barrier, within the ROW, from Mount Vernon Avenue towards Box Springs Mountain Reserve
area. This noise barrier is proposed to reduce the train noise impacts to the residential homes
adjacent to the Reserve boundary, north of the ROW. If this mitigation is carried forward, it is
not anticipated to impact the continued use of the Linkage 7 because the noise barrier would be
located adjacent to the residential homes and not impact the open areas of the Reserve.
There is also a landscape wall proposed for the Hyatt School area. Hyatt School is located
within Linkage 7 and concurrently has fencing separating the school property from the ROW.
The landscape wall would replace this fence and therefore not create a new impediment to the
Linkage.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-25 April 5, 2010
Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 is located at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River
Overflow Channel area. The proposed project work in this area is the replacement of the two
rail bridges. The replacement bridges are designed to allow the same volume of water beneath
them and would therefore continue to allow for wildlife movement under the existing bridges
when the water is not present. It should also be noted that this project is not making any
changes outside of the existing ROW, and therefore the existing Case Road Bridge is not
anticipated to change as a result of this project.
Bridge replacement will require construction equipment to work adjacent to and within the
existing channels. This equipment will be removed from the channels at the conclusion of every
work day. It is expected that night time wildlife travel in the river channel can continue
unimpeded both during and after construction. Additionally, it should be noted that ther e is no
ROW fencing in this area so wildlife may continue to cross the ROW without physical barriers.
Once construction is complete the new bridges will have greater clearance underneath than the
existing and therefore have less impediments within the Linkage area.
There will be minor short-term impacts to one Linkage area (#19), but the impacts are not
considered significant because of the short duration and therefore no mitigation is proposed.
Does the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
The County of Riverside, City of Riverside, nor the City of Perris have local policies or
ordinances in addition to the MSHCP. No impact is identified for this issue area.
Does the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan
The project area is within the MSHCP for western Riverside County. RCTC is legally required
to comply with the provisions of the plan. The plan requires that all projects submit a Joint
Projects Review application to the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) for review and
approval. As part of the application the project is expected to show consistency with the various
provisions of the MSHCP. The Consistency Determination is expected to show that the project
is consistent with both the individual criteria cell provisions of the MSHCP, as well as the overall
MSCHP sections for Riparian/Riverine and Urban/Wildlands Interference. The Consistency
Determination also requires completed Narrow Endemic Plant survey‘s prior to the application
being deemed complete. The appropriate season for conducting the surveys is late spring into
the summer months, depending on rainfall. These surveys are currently underway and when
completed will be submitted with the Joint Projects Review materials.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-26 April 5, 2010
4.4.5 Mitigation Measures
RCTC, as a permittee for the MSHCP, will comply with the requirements outlined in the MSHCP
including the need for a 30-day Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey.
BR-1: A The project biologist will shall prepare and conduct a pre-construction training
session for project personnel prior to any grading/construction ground disturbing activities.
At a minimum, the training will shall include a description of the target species of concern, its
habitats, the general provisions of the ESA and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the
provision of the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the ESA,
the general measures that are being implemented to conserve target species of concern as
they relate to the project, any provisions for wildlife movement, and the access routes to and
from project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.
BR-2: Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas will shall be located to minimize the
risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other environmentally sensitive habitats. The
project specific SWPPP will shall identify appropriate construction related BMPs (such as
drip pans, straw wattles, and silt fence) to control anticipated pollutants (oils, grease, etc.).
BR-3: Stockpiling of materials will shall be limited to disturbed areas without native
vegetation, areas to be impacted by project development or in non -sensitive habitats.
These staging areas will shall be approved by the project biologist, and shall be located
more than 500 feet from environmentally sensitive areas.
BR-4: ―No-fueling zones‖ will shall be established within a minimum ofat least 10 meters (33
feet) from drainages and fire sensitive areas.
BR-5: The qualified project biologist will shall monitor construction activities at a minimum of
three days per week throughout the duration of the project to assess if practicableensure
mitigation measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any
target species of concern outside the project footprint. Construction monitoring reports will
shall be completed with applicable describing field conditions and construction activities.
The project biologist will shall be empowered to halt work activity if necessary to confer with
RCTC staff to ensure the proper implementation of species habitat and habitat protection
measures.
BR-6: To avoid attracting predators that may prey upon protected species, the project site
will shall be kept clean of trash and debris. Food related trash items will shall be enclosed
disposed of in a sealed containers and removed from the site with regular trash removal, at
least weekly. Pets of project personnel will shall not be allowed on site.
BR-7: If dead or injured listed species are located, initial notification must be made within
three working days, in writing to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance
California, and by telephone and in writing to the applicable jurisdiction, Carlsbad Field
Office of the USFWS, and the CDFG.
BR-8: Narrow Endemic Plants have the potential to occur in the areas near the San Jacinto
River. If Narrow Endemic Plants are identified 90% of the population will shall be preserved,
as required in the MSHCP.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-27 April 5, 2010
BR-9: There is a potential to impact western spadefoot toads with the work on the San
Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel Bridge. A pre-construction survey for western
spadefoot toads will shall be conducted within 30 days prior to site disturbance to determine
if western spadefoot toads are present within the designated construction area. Should
western spadefoot toads be identified within the construction area, the project biologist shall
prepare a relocation an program that shall be approved by RCA prior to
implementationmitigation program will be implemented.
BR-10: The MSHCP requires both protocol surveys and preconstruction surveys for
burrowing owls. If owls are identified during the preconstruction survey, the appropriate
action will be determined. The appropriate action could include avoidance and passive or
active relocation efforts. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to
ground disturbance to avoid direct take. If owls are found to be present, the following
measures will be implemented: prior to burrowing owl nesting season, passive relocation will
occur and active burrows will be destroyed; after burrows are destroyed, artificial burrows
will be created in suitable habitat that is contiguous with the foraging habitat of affected
owls; a monitoring plan will be implemented to monitor the success of the mitigation
program.
BR-11: If nests are identified at the billboards located on the I-215 corridor, then a qualified
project biologist must shall determine if the nests are active. If the biologist determines a
nest to be active, appropriate buffers will shall be used until the birds have fledged and the
nest will shall be removed with the approval of regulatory agencies.
BR-12: There is a potential for impacts to southwestern willow flycatchers in the southern
area of the Box Springs Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work
proposed for this area will shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (end of April
to early to early September May 15th to July 17th) (SAWA, 2004 2009).
BR-13: There is a potential for impacts to least Bell’s vireo in the southern area of Box
Springs Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work proposed for this
area will shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (end of March to the end of
September April 10th to July 31st) (SAWA, 20042009).
BR-14: The project is within the SKR Fee area. RCTC will shall pay, $500 per acre to the
SKR fund managed by Riverside Habitat Conservation Agency, the required $500 per acre
fee for developing development outside the existing right-of-way. This fee shall be paid at
the time of the grading permit submittal. The fee will include sites for the Citrus Connection,
the Hunter Park Station, Downtown Perris Station, South Perris Station and Layover Facility
(approximately 65 acres).
BR-15: There is a potential for impacts to California horned lark in the area of the South
Perris Station option and the Layover Facility if the agricultural fields are allowed to fallow.
To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, the ground preparation work will shall be
conducted outside of the bird nesting season (March to JulyMarch 1st to July 31st) (County of
Santa Barbara, 2009) and maintained to ensure that no birds then use the area for nesting
prior to construction.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.4-28 April 5, 2010
BR-16: There is a potential for impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher within the Box
Springs Canyon Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work
proposed for this area will shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (mid
February to mid September February 15th to August 30th) (SAWA, 2004 2009).
BR-17: Jurisdictional areas associated with the replacement of culverts would result in
impacts to habitat within both USACE and CDFG jurisdictional areas. Prior to any
construction these impacts would require to jurisdictional areas, RCTC shall obtain permit
approval from the USACE, CDFG and the RWQCB. The mitigation for jurisdictional area
impacts will be to purchase mitigation credits for permanent impacts at a 1:1 ratio (total of
0.085 acres) from a local mitigation bank. The temporary impacts, 0.335 acres, will be
mitigated by restoration/enhancement on land owned by RCTC near or adjacent to the
project area. the Santa Ana River Mitigation Bank. The mitigation ratios are finalized by the
USACE and CDFG during permitting for the project. The permitting application is not
deemed complete until the CEQA document is adopted by RCTC. Therefore, the final
mitigation ratios are not determined until after the CEQA is complete. The appropriate ratio
will be determined during permit negotiations.
4.4.6 Mitigation Summary
The biological mitigation measures identified protect biological resources through a combination
of education, avoidance, and when absolutely necessary habitat replacement. The education
provisions are directed to the contractor and construction personnel so that there is an
awareness of potential sensitive resources in the project area, federal, state, and local
regulations regarding sensitive resources, and the appropriate actions and notifications if an
unexpected biological resource is encountered.
Avoidance of sensitive resources is accomplished through appropriate construction scheduling.
The main objective is to avoid nesting and fledging birds so that reproduction can be successful,
as well as achieve compliance with the MBTA. In compliance with the MSHCP, the project
biologist will evaluate specific construction segments 30 days prior to scheduled work to identify
areas where birds are nesting. Should nesting birds be identified in or adjacent to identified
work areas, then the project biologist will determine the appropriate avoidance measures.
Additionally, RCA, as the administrator of the MSCHP, has found the project to be consistent
with the provisions of the MSHCP through the acceptance of the Consistency Analysis.
Habitat replacement is necessary when permanent impacts to habitat are unavoidable. The
habitat impacted by this project is related to the culvert improvement work along the project
corridor. Potentially jurisdictional riparian habitat has developed over the years because of local
drainage being focused by the culverts. Since these areas are fragmented and not connected
to either larger habitat areas, or part of a natural riparian system, the ecological value is low.
The regulatory agencies require appropriate mitigation for jurisdiction areas prior to issuing
permits for the project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-1 April 5, 2010
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section provides a discussion of cultural and paleontological resources within the PVL
corridor, describes the identified resources, analyzes the potential impacts to those resources,
and provides mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, or minimize potential impacts.
Cultural resources are archaeological, traditional, and built environment buildings, structures,
objects, districts, and sites that are significant to the history o f the United States (16 USC 470).
Cultural resources can generally be broken up into two time periods: prehistoric and historic.
Prehistoric resources were created by humans who lived in a time before the advent of writing.
Historic resources were created by humans who lived after the advent of writing. In the United
States, Native American artifacts that were created before the appearance of Europeans are
considered prehistoric resources. Adverse impacts may occur through the removal, alteration,
or addition of important cultural resources.
Paleontological resources are fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of once -living organisms
preserved in rocks and sediments within the earth‘s crust that provide information about the
history of life on earth. These fossils can include remains such as bones, teeth, shells, wood,
and footprints. (16 USC 470).
Unless otherwise referenced, the information in this section has been adapted from the
Archaeological Resources Report for the Perris Valley Rail Line Project, Riverside County,
California (AE, 2008), the Significance Assessment and Determination of Effects to Historical
Resources Along the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line (AE, 2009), and the Supplement to
Archaeological Resources Report for the Perris Valley Rail Line Project, Riverside County,
California (AE, 2009).
4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Vegetation, Climate, and Geology
Located in western Riverside County, the PVL corridor runs through the Perris and Moreno
valleys, as well as the Santa Ana River Valley.
The primary drainage in the Perris and Moreno valleys is the San Jacinto River, which starts in
the San Jacinto Mountains and flows northwesterly through the San Jacinto and Perris valleys
and then to the west and southwest through Railroad Canyon until it empties into Canyon Lake
and eventually Lake Elsinore. Levees built between 1919 and 1939 altered the course of the
river, shifting it as much as a mile south of its historical course. Prior to historical hydrological
modifications, the San Jacinto River flowed perennially only in the eastern portion of the valley.
Climate, vegetation, and landscape of the inland southern California region have fluctuated
between wet and cool conditions and dry and hot conditions over the last 12,000 years, the
period of confirmed human occupation in California. In prehistoric times, depending on
elevation and climate, various plant species were available from early spring until winter, and
the leaves, stems, seeds, fruits, and tubers from many of these plant species formed an
important subsistence base for the Native American inhabitants of the project area. Herbivores
tolerant of sparse vegetation cover were present, as well as carnivores and omnivores preying
upon the abundant rodents.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-2 April 5, 2010
The PVL corridor lies near the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Province within the
central part of the Perris block, a relatively stable area located between the Elsinore and San
Jacinto fault zones. The land around the PVL corridor is primarily underlain by Cretaceous
plutonic rocks that are part of the Peninsular Range Batholith (Morton and Cox, 2001).
The PVL corridor traverses three main geologic units. Young alluvial and valley deposits are
present in the northern and southern segments of the PVL corridor (Morton, 2003; Morton and
Cox, 2001). Older alluvial fan deposits overlay most of the PVL corridor from the I-215/SR-60
interchange to south of the city of Perris, and the east side of the city of Riverside in the area
near UCR. Cretaceous age, tonalite bedrock underlies the alluvium in the region and is
exposed in outcrops in the Box Springs Mountains and the hills west of the PVL corridor near
the city of Perris.
Additionally, artificial fill is present along the entire length of the PVL corridor that is associated
with the construction of the existing railway. The artificial fill soil within the PVL corridor is
generally less than a few feet thick, but was observed to be up to approximately ten feet thick
(approximately one-mile north of the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station option).
Older alluvium fan deposits found elsewhere in Riverside County and southern California have
been reported to contain locally abundant and scientifically significant vertebrate, plant fossils,
and other paleontological remains (Pajak et al., 1996). Because of the high potential for older
alluvium fan deposits to contain paleontological resources, it is considered to have high
paleontological sensitivity.
Prehistoric Resources
The prehistoric period is characterized by Native American occupation of the inland valleys of
lower southern California and can be divided into six cultural periods: Early Archaic, Middle
Archaic, Late Archaic, Saratoga Springs, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric.
Early Archaic (ca. 9500-7000 B.P.)
Early Archaic archaeological sites documented within the vicinity of the project area are rare,
most likely due to the dry conditions within the interior valley areas. It has been hypothesized
that prehistoric inhabitants traveled through the area in small, mobile groups, carrying easily
portable tool kits in order to gather critical resources. Most likely they traveled seasonally and
stayed close to the few reliable, drought-resistant water sources such as Lake Elsinore, Mystic
Lake, and possibly Cajalco Basin.
Middle Archaic Period (ca. 7000-4000 B.P.)
This time period is also described as the ―Milling Stone Horizon‖ because of the preponderance
of milling tools uncovered in archaeological excavations. It is marked by the technological
advancements of grinding seeds to make flour, and possibly the first use of marine resources,
such as shellfish and marine mammals. Crude hammerstones, stone tools, large projectile
points (arrowheads), beads, and charmstones were also all uncovered during this period.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-3 April 5, 2010
Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000-1500 B.P.)
The Little Pluvial, a period of increased moisture in the region, allowed the prehistoric
inhabitants to flourish during the Late Archaic Period. Trash and refuse deposits suggest that
seasonal encampments were used for longer periods of time and that the prehistoric inhabitants
were widening their food sources. The technological advancement of the mortar and pestle
may indicate the use of acorns, an important storable food source. Also, hunting presumably
gained importance as well, as indicated by the abundance of blades, projectile points, and
terrestrial and aquatic mammal bones.
Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1500-750 B.P.)
During the Saratoga Springs Period, the climate became warm and dry again. Surprisingly,
however, this inhospitable climate did not seem to have a notable effect on the inhabitants.
Plant processing technology made plant foods the primary food source , but inhabitants also
added more animals to their diet. The most abundant evidence of trade also occurs during this
time, suggesting that exchange was another mechanism for dealing with the climate change.
Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 750-410 B.P.)
A moist climate returned to this area and the inhabitants returned to a lifestyle similar to that of
the Late Archaic Period. Evidence of hearth features and rock art suggest that encampments
were occupied on a year-round basis. The amount of projectile points increased while mortars
and pestles decreased, indicating that hunting began to play a larger role as well.
Protohistoric Period (ca. 410-180 B.P.)
The bow and arrow was developed during the Protohistoric Period, which increased hunting
efficiency, and there was a renewed abundance of mortars and pestles. The most striking
change in material culture during this time is the local manufacture of ceramic vessels and
ceramic smoking pipes. Although pottery was known in the Colorado Desert as long ago as 800
B.P., ceramic technology in the project area appears to date to approximately 35 0 B.P. Late in
this period some European trade goods (i.e. glass trade beads) were also added to the previous
cultural assemblages.
Following the Protohistoric Period, there was a brief period (Ethnohistoric) when Native
American culture was initially being affected by Euroamerican culture and historical records on
Native American activities were limited. Archival and published reports from this time suggest
that the current project area is situated on land where the traditional territories of the Serrano ,
Cahuilla, and Gabrielino once overlapped.
Historic Resources
The historic period began in California with the arrival of western Europeans. It can be divided
into three time periods: Spanish Period, Mexican Period, and American Period.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-4 April 5, 2010
Spanish Period (1769-1822)
This period represents: exploration; establishment of the San Diego Presidio, and the San
Diego and San Luis Rey Missions; the introduction of horses, cattle, and agricultural goods; and
a new method of building construction and architectural style.
In 1774, Captain Juan Bautista de Anza crossed the San Jacinto Plains with a party of soldiers,
California Indians, and Mexican civilians in what is now known as the ―de Anza expedition‖. He
reported that the San Jacinto Plain contained great potential for ranching and agriculture, calling
it ―Paradise Valley‖. The establishment of Franciscan outposts and contact with the local native
populations quickly followed.
The Riverside and San Bernardino county areas lacked a mission p roper, but remained
connected to the California presidio and mission system through Franciscan outposts known as
ranchos and asistencias. The Riverside area fell under the authority of the Mission San Luis
Rey, which established a set of ranchos that covered much of what is today Riverside County.
These ranchos included Santa Margarita, Las Flores, San Mateo, San Juan, Pala, San Marcos,
Agua Hedionda, Buena Vista, and the northernmost, San Jacinto.
Mexican Period (1822-1846)
In 1821, after ten years of intermittent rebellion and warfare, Mexico and the territory of
California won independence from Spain. Following the Secularization Act of 1833, which was
essentially legislation calling for the immediate privatization of Franciscan lands, the Mexican
government secularized all of the California Missions. Although several grants of land were
made prior to 1833, after secularization, vast tracts of land were dispersed through land grants.
One such land grant, Rancho Jurupa, passed through several different owners. By 1849, Louis
Rubidoux had acquired 6,700 acres of the Jurupa grant, which became known as the Rubidoux
portion of Rancho Jurupa. The boundary of the Rancho Jurupa as it appeared during post-
mission California is delineated on modern maps and part of it is included in the PVL project
area.
American Period (1846-2002)
Mexico ceded California to the United States in 1848, thus ushering in the American Period.
Terms of the treaty brought about creation of the Lands Commission in response to the Ac t of
1851, which was adopted as a means of validating land ownership throughout the state through
settlement of land claims.
In 1852, San Diego organized into a county; in 1853, San Bernardino followed suit. Riverside
County would be organized 40 years later, but at this time, the area lay within the southern edge
of San Bernardino and the northern third of San Diego counties. Settlement in the San Jacinto
Valley occurred during the 1860s-1890s and, as a result, canals were built and the regional
citrus industry took root. Population rose dramatically as the citrus industry and the railroads
increased.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-5 April 5, 2010
Industrial History
The Riverside Citrus Industry
In 1870, portions of Rancho Jurupa (totaling approximately 10,000 acres) went to the Southern
California Colony Association of Jurupa, an investment company headed by John W. North.
The association named the Jurupa area ―Riverside‖ and in 1870 implemented a colonization
plan that included offering rural and town lots to family oriented investors.
Citrus became the primary agricultural product produced by the Riverside colony. By 1940, the
citrus industry in Riverside had grown into a major economic force and a significant cultural
landscape evolved that consisted of more than 12,000 acres of orange groves. To help meet
the increasing need for larger water transport systems, the Gage Canal was built in 1889 and
reached lands from the Santa Ana River 20 miles distant to the district of Arlington Heights in
the city of Riverside. Other major waterways were eventually constructed, including the
Riverside Canal, the California Aqueduct, and a branch of the Colorado River Aqueduct.
Railroad History
To facilitate the transportation of citrus crops from the grower to the consumer, the railroad
industry routed several main and branch lines into the heart of the region. The Southern
Pacific, the AT&SF, and the UP railroads all laid track in and around Riverside and built or
leased large networks of packing houses, icing plants, and storage.
The Southern Pacific Railroad Company of California was incorporated in December of 1865
and a segment of it (currently operated by the UP) crosses into the project area between
Marlborough Avenue and Massachusetts, and enters downtown Riverside at Riverside Junction.
During the 1880s, AT&SF entered Riverside and established the SJBL throughout Riverside
County, and subsequently the BNSF alignment.
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act was signed into law on March 30, 2009 (Public
Law 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D) and requires federal agencies to manage and protect
paleontological resources on federal land. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
affirms the authority of federal land managing agencies to issue permits for the collection and
curation of paleontological resources by qualified researchers, and maintain the confidentiality
of locality data.
National Natural Landmarks Program
The National Natural Landmarks Program (36 CFR 62) ―identifies and preserves natural areas
that best illustrate the biological and geological character of the United States, enhance the
scientific and educational values of preserved areas, strengthen public appreciation of natural
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-6 April 5, 2010
history, and foster a greater concern for the conservation of the nation‘s natural heritage‖ (36
CFR 62.1). A significant geological resource is a feature known to be characteristic of a given
natural region, including geologic structures and exposures of landforms that record active
geologic processes or portions of earth history (36 CFR 62.5).
Antiquities Act of 1906
The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433) was one of the first federal regulations to address
the preservation of cultural resources. The Antiquities Act of 1906 prohibits the destruction of
―any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity‖ on Federal lands.
Although neither the Antiquities Act nor its implementing regulations (43 CFR 3) specifically
addresses paleontological resources, many federal agencies have interpreted ―objects of
antiquity‖ to include fossils.
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the NHPA states that cultural resources must be taken into consideration before
construction can begin on any federally funded project. Section 106 uses the term ―historic
properties‖ to describe cultural resources.
An historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or
object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, which is maintained by the Secretary of
the Interior. (16 USC 470)
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established in 1966 as the official national listing of important cultural re sources
worthy of preservation. Authorized under the NHPA, NRHP is part of a national program to
coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate and protect significant
cultural resources.
The criteria to determine the significance of a cultural resource is found in 36 CFR 60 of the
NRHP:
―The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and lo cal
importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and:
(a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
(b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction ,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
(d) That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or
history‖
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-7 April 5, 2010
State Policies and Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA Guidelines, cultural and paleontological resources are considered important
components of the environment and should be preserved. Accordingly, CEQA requires that a
proposed project first evaluate the significance of any cultural and paleo ntological resources
located in the project area. If the project will have an impact on any significant resource,
alternative plans or mitigation measures must be provided.
CEQA breaks down the meaning of cultural resources into two terms: ―historical re sources‖ and
―archaeological resources‖.
The definition of a historical resource under CEQA is found in Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations §15064.5. Historical resources are:
(a) A resource listed in, or eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical
Resources (PRC §5024.1).
(b) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in §5020.1(k)
of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the
requirements §5024.1(g).
(c) Any object, building structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or
cultural annals of California.
(d) A resource that is not listed, or eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical
Resources but that is deemed significant by the lead agency.
Archaeological sites are included in the discussion of historical resources (14 CCR 3 §15064.5).
The definition of an archaeological resource includes any archaeological resources, not
otherwise determined to be historical resources that are ―unique‖. A ―unique‖ archaeological
resource meets one of the following criteria (PRC §21083.2):
(a) The resource contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(b) The resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type
or the best available example of its type.
(c) The resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric
or historic event or person.
Under CEQA, a cultural resource shall be considered significant if th e resource is 45 years old
or older, possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association, and meets the requirements for listing on the CRHR.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-8 April 5, 2010
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is the official state listing of important cultural resources that are worthy of
preservation, and is maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office. Properties listed or
eligible for listing on the NRHP are nominated and selected to be listed on the CRHR. Any
resource eligible for the NRHP is also automatically eligible for CRHR. (PRC §5020 et seq.)
Similar to the NRHP, a cultural resource may be considered significant by CEQA if it meets the
following criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC §5024.1):
(a) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California‘s history and cultural heritage; or
(b) It is associated with the lives of persons important to California‘s past; or
(c) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or
(d) Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
Local Policies and Regulations
Riverside County General Plan
The Riverside County General Plan provides a number of policies to ensure the preservation of
cultural resources within the County. These policies include reviewing and analyzing the
potential effects that proposed development could have on significant resources and providing
appropriate mitigation measures (Riverside County, 2008).
Additionally, the Open Space Element of the General Plan includes a Paleontological Sensitivity
map that illustrates areas within the county that are sensitive for paleontological resources.
Areas are designated as ―High A‖, ―High B‖, and ―Low‖ lands of paleontological sensitivity
(Riverside County, 2008).
―High A‖ lands consist of sedimentary rock units that are known to contain or have the correct
age and depositional conditions to contain significant paleontological resources (Riverside
County, 2008).
―High B‖ lands consist of sedimentary rock units with a sensitivity equiv alent to High A, but are
based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface. This category
indicates that fossils are likely to be encountered at or below 4 feet of depth, and may be
impacted during excavation by construction activities.
―Low‖ lands consist of lands for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrates
as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources subject to adverse
impacts.
Policy OS 19.9 requires that when existing information indicates that a site proposed for
development may contain paleontological resources, a paleontologist shall monitor site grading
activities, with the authority to halt grading to collect uncovered paleontological resources,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-9 April 5, 2010
curate any resources collected with an appropriate repository, and file a report with the Planning
Department documenting any paleontological resources that are found during the course of site
grading (Riverside County, 2008).
City of Riverside General Plan
Within Riverside‘s General Plan is a section entitled, the Historic Preservation Element. This
section ―provides guidance in developing and implementing activities that ensure that the
identification, designation and protection of c ultural resources are part of the City's community
planning, development and permitting processes‖ (City of Riverside, 2008). Also included in this
section are policies to protect paleontological resources and to ensure complianc e with all
applicable State and federal laws.
City of Riverside Municipal Code Title 20
Riverside Municipal Code Title 20 (Cultural Resources Code) established the authority for
preserving cultural resources by providing criteria for evaluating projects affecting significant
resources and procedures for protecting and designating these resources. City approval is
required to alter, demolish, or relocate historic resources (City of Riverside, 2008).
City of Perris General Plan
The Conservation Element within the General Plan provides an inventory of cultural resources
and the means to protect and preserve these for the benefit of the Perris community as new
development occurs (City of Perris, 2005). The City of Perris details several specific policies
that ensure compliance with state and federal regulations.
Also included in the Conservation Element section is a Paleontological Sensitivity Map that
splits areas within the City of Perris into five sections. The paleontological sensitivity within
each section ranges from lands with a high potential to contain significant paleontological
resources to lands with a low potential (City of Perris, 2005). In some sections, the potential of
land containing paleontological resources occurs below five feet.
Policy IV.A.4 states that when a proposed project is located on land with a high potential of
containing paleontological resources, a paleontological monitor must be present during
construction (City of Perris, 2005).
4.5.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Cultural Resources is
defined by:
1. Does the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5
2. Does the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5
3. Does the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-10 April 5, 2010
4. Does the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries
4.5.4 Project Impacts
Does the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5
Citrus Connection
No cultural resources were identified within or adjacent to the Citrus Connection parcel s.
Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Citrus Connection are not
expected to adversely change the significance of any historical resources.
However, sediments within the Citrus Connection are of Holocene age and are sensitive for
buried prehistoric cultural deposits. Mitigation measures are required to reduce construction
impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation measure CR-1).
SJBL Alignment
Five cultural resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the SJBL alignment:
the SJBL Railroad; bedrock milling site I; a multi-component site; bedrock milling site II; and a
lithic scatter. These are described below.
SJBL Railroad
The SJBL Railroad is considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criter ion I. There are
three segments along the SJBL alignment within the PVL corridor that are considered
contributing, and therefore significant, components of the historic SJBL Railroad.
SJBL Railroad segments
The first of the three contributing segments of the SJBL Railroad within the PVL corridor is
located in the City of Riverside from Marlborough Avenue south of Spruce Street. The second
contributing segment is located in the city of Riverside from Gernert Road south to the Box
Springs Overpass, while the third contributing segment is located in the city of Perris from the
―D‖ Street off ramp of I-215 southeast along Case Road. These three segments retain integrity
of location, setting, design, and workmanship, and are therefore considered to be contributing
components to the larger SJBL Railroad.
These three segments contain tracks, wood box culverts, and bridges. Since the proposed PVL
project will not modify the setting and engineering of the tracks, and the double track will not be
constructed at these locations, the project will have no significant effect on this portion of the
SJBL Railroad.
However, four wood box culverts (MP 1.60, 5.30, 6.11, and 18.10) and two bridges (MP 20.70
and 20.80) are unique in their construction and are an integral part of the segments of the SJBL
that retain integrity. Mitigation measures are required to reduce construction impacts to a less
than significant level (Mitigation measure CR-2).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-11 April 5, 2010
CA-RIV-2384
This bedrock milling site within the Box Springs Mountain Reserve area, contains several
boulders with milling features and is located on bo th sides of the SJBL alignment in an alluvial
fan on the western slope of Box Springs Mountain.
The proposed development in this area would be upgrading the existing tracks, which would not
impact the features of the site. Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
SJBL alignment at this location are not expected to adversely change the significance of this
historical resource.
CA-RIV-4497/H
At this site there are prehistoric and historic components, including bedrock milling features, a
poorly preserved dam, concrete pads, and a historical refuse scatter consisting of multi -colored
glass, stoneware, metal fragments, railroad debris, etc. The site is located on both sides of the
SJBL alignment in an alluvial fan south of Box Springs Mountain.
The proposed development in this area would be upgrading the existing tracks, which would not
impact the features of the site. Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
SJBL alignment at this location are not expected to adversely change the significance of this
historical resource.
AE-CB-2
This bedrock milling site consists of several milling outcrops and milling features and is located
over 52 feet from the SJBL alignment, near the foot of the slope at the south face of Box
Springs Mountain.
Because of the distance separating this site from the SJBL alignment, the proposed
development at this location will not impact the features of the site. Therefore, the operation,
construction, and maintenance of the SJBL alignment at this location are not expected to
adversely change the significance of this historical resource.
CA-RIV-805
This prehistoric site consists of three flakes and one shell fragment. It is located on agricultural
land in the floodplain of the San Jacinto River in Perris Valley and north of South Perris Station.
The ongoing farming operation that has occurred on the land has likely impacted the integrity of
the upper portions of the site. However, considering that the site is located on a floodplain of
the San Jacinto River (the channel is approximately one-quarter-mile east), and geological
sources specify that the local material is Holocene, the site holds the potential for buried cultural
deposits of an extent greater than the current distribution indicates (Morton and Cox, 2001).
Accordingly, archaeological testing was conducted at the site to determine the spat ial extent
and eligibility for testing on the CRHR. The results of the testing concluded that no intact buried
deposits are present and that surface artifacts represent the only remnants of the site.
Therefore, the site is considered ineligible for the CRHR and no impacts are anticipated for this
issue area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-12 April 5, 2010
Hunter Park Station options
Hunter Park Station would be located at one of the three proximate sites: Palmyrita Avenue
Station option, Columbia Avenue Station option, or the Marlborough Avenue Station option. No
historical resources were identified within or adjacent to any of the three Hunter Park Station
options.
Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Hunter Park Station
option are not expected to adversely change the significance of any historical resource.
However, sediments within the Columbia Avenue Station option and the Palmyrita Avenue
Station option are of Holocene age and are sensitive for buried prehistoric cultural deposits.
Mitigation measures are required to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level
(Mitigation measure CR-1).
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
No historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the proposed Moreno Valley/March
Field Station.
Additionally, this proposed station has already been approved as part of the Meridian Business
Park Plan in 2003. The EIR for this Specific Plan also determined that there are no historical
resources near this location and that therefore there would be no impacts to any such resources
(March JPA, 2003).
Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Moreno Valley/March
Field Station are not expected to adversely change the significance of any historical resource.
Downtown Perris Station
One historical resource was identified near the proposed Downtown Perris Station: The historic
Perris Depot.
The historic Perris Depot is currently listed on the NRHP under Criteria A and C. It is located
east of the SJBL ROW and outside of the construction footprint for the Downtown Perris Station.
The platform for the proposed Downtown Perris Station would be at-grade, and located west of
the existing rail line and north of the historic Depot. Because of this designation, construction
activities of the Downtown Perris Station have been planned to avoid altering, impairing, or
diminishing any of the qualities for which the historic depot is valued. Therefore, the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Downtown Perris Station are not
expected to adversely change the significance of this historical resource.
South Perris Station and the Layover Facility
No historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the proposed South Perris Station
and Layover Facility.
Therefore, the operation and maintenance of this proposed station and facility are not expected
to adversely change the significance of any historical resource.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-13 April 5, 2010
However, sediments within the South Perris Station and Layover Facility are of Holocene age
and are sensitive for buried prehistoric cultural deposits. Mitigation measures are required to
reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation measure CR-1).
Communication Towers
The PVL project includes the development of six radio control tower sites and three microwave
tower sites.
No historical resources were identified in the vicinity of these propo sed communication tower
sites. Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of these towers are not
expected to adversely change the significance of any historical resource.
Landscape Walls
Landscape walls have been identified for three schools along the SJBL alignment. These walls
would be located at the edge of the ROW adjacent to the schools with the exception of Nan
Sanders Elementary School (refer to Section 2.4.8).
No historical resources were identified in the vicinity of any of t hese proposed landscape walls.
Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of these landscape walls are not
expected to adversely change the significance of any historical resource.
Does the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5
No archaeological resources were identified in the vicinity of any of the proposed development
sites within the PVL corridor. Therefore, the operation, construction, and maintenance along
the PVL corridor are not expected to adversely change the significance of any archaeological
resource.
However, as described above in part (a), there is potential for buried prehistoric cultural
deposits to be impacted by ground-disturbing activities greater than four feet associated with
project construction (Mitigation measure CR-1).
Does the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature
A paleontological literature and records review was conducted through the San Bernardino
County Museum. The results of the research indicate that portions of the PVL corridor are
sensitive for paleontological resources, and therefore require mitigation to reduce the impact to
less than significant (Mitigation measure CR-3).
There are no unique geologic features located in the vicinity of the PVL corridor. Therefore, the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the PVL project are not expected to significantly
impact any unique geologic feature.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-14 April 5, 2010
Citrus Connection
The mapped geological formations underlying the Citrus Connection include Holocene -age
young alluvial fan deposits, which are not sensitive for paleontological resources (Scott, 2008).
Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Citrus Connection would not
significantly impact paleontological resources.
SJBL Alignment
The SJBL alignment traverses several types of sediment. Old and very old alluvial fan deposits
are present beneath most portions of alignment. These areas include: MP 1.00 to MP 5.00; and
MP 7.00 to the southern boundary of the project area.
Sediments that comprise the old and very old alluvial fan deposits have been known to yield
paleontological resources (Scott 2008). Construction activities at these locations have the
potential to significantly impact unique paleontological resources and mitigation measures are
required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation measure CR-3).
Hunter Park Station options
Hunter Park Station would be located at one of the three proximate sites: Palmyrita Avenue
Station option, Columbia Avenue Station option, or the Marlborough Avenue Station option.
Marlborough Avenue option
The underlying sediments of the Marlborough Avenue location for the proposed Hunter Park
Station site consist of mostly old alluvial fan deposits and a small area of porphyritic granodiorite
of the Box Springs plutonic complex (Morton and Cox, 2001).
The granodiorite is a Cretaceous rock outcrop, which has no potential for paleonto logical
resources (Scott, 2008). The areas mapped as old alluvial fan deposits have the potential to
yield paleontological resources; however, due to extensive grading and disturbance to native
sediments, the likelihood of uncovering such resources is min imal. Therefore, the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Marlborough Avenue option for the proposed Hunter Park
Station would not significantly impact paleontological resources.
Columbia Avenue option
The mapped geological formations underlying the Columbia Avenue location for the proposed
Hunter Park Station include old alluvial fan deposits, which have been known to yield
paleontological resources (Morton and Cox, 2001; Scott, 2008). Therefore, construction
activities at this location have the potential to significantly impact unique paleontological
resources and mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level (Mitigation measure CR-3).
Palmyrita Avenue option
The mapped geological formations underlying the Palmyrita Avenue location for the proposed
Hunter Park Station include old alluvial fan deposits, which have been known to yield
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-15 April 5, 2010
paleontological resources (Morton and Cox, 2001; Scott 2008). Therefore, construction activities
at this location have the potential to significantly impact unique paleontological resources and
mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (Mitigation
measure CR-3).
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
This station is located in an area mapped as old and very old alluvial fans, which have the
potential to yield significant paleontological resources (AE, 2009; Scott, 2008). Construction
activities at this location have the potential to significantly impact unique paleontological
resources and mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level (Mitigation measure CR-3).
Downtown Perris Station
This station is located in an area mapped as old and very old alluvial fans, which have the
potential to yield significant paleontological resources (AE, 2009; Scott, 2008). Construction
activities at this location have the potential to significantly impact unique paleontological
resources and mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level (Mitigation measure CR-3).
South Perris Station and Layover Facility
This station and facility are located in areas mapped as old and very old alluvial fans, which
have the potential to yield significant paleontological resources (AE, 2009; Scott, 2008).
Construction activities at these locations have the potential to significantly impact unique
paleontological resources and mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less
than significant level (Mitigation measure CR-3).
Does the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries
Implementation of the PVL project is not expected to disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, should human remains be uncovered,
mitigation measures would be required (Mitigation measure CR-5).
4.5.5 Mitigation Measures
CR-1: A qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor will shall monitor ground
disturbing construction activities between MP 3.50 and 4.50, and between MP 5.60 and
6.50. These monitors will shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction
equipment to examine potential resources, assess significance, and offer recommendations
for the procedures deemed appropriate to either further investigate or mitigate any adverse
impacts. CA-RIV-2384, CA-RIV-4497/H and AE-CB-2 sites will shall be avoided during
project construction through the establishment of ESA and delineated by exclusionary
fencing.
CR-2: Replacement of four wood box culverts (MP 1.60, 5.30, 6.11 and 18.10) and two
bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80) along the SJBL alignment shall be mitigated by detailed
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-16 April 5, 2010
documentation according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER)/Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) standards (AE,
2009).
CR-3: Ground-disturbing activities will shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist at the
Citrus Connection, South Perris Station and Layover Facility. The monitor should shall also
be present at locations where excavation is great anticipated to be deeper than four feet.
The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to
allow for removal of specimens. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage any fossils
unearthed during project construction, and shall be prepared to collect sediment samples
that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
To mitigate adverse impacts to any paleontological resources encountered during
construction, recovered specimens will shall be identified, prepared for permanent
preservation, and curated at the San Bernardino County Natural History Museum with
permanent retrievable paleontological storage. A report of findings which that includes an
itemized inventory of specimens will shall accompany the recovered specimens for curation
and storage.
CR-4: In the event that unanticipated cultural or paleontological resources are encountered
during the proposed PVL project construction, ground-disturbing activity will cease in the
immediate area. until the services of a A qualified archaeologist (cultural resources) and/or
paleontologist (paleontological resources) are shall be retained to . The archaeologist or
paleontologist will examine the findingsmaterials encountered, assess their significance, and
recommend offer recommendations for the procedures deemed appropriate to either a
course of action to further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to those resources
that have been encountered.
CR-5: In the event that unanticipated discovery of human remains occurs during project
construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines will shall be
strictly followed. These procedures specify that upon discovery, no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human
remains can occur. The county coroner must be contacted to determine if the remains are
Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will
shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The
NAHC will shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD will shall make
recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any
associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98.
4.5.6 Mitigation Summary
The cultural resource mitigation measures are typical mitigation measures for this type of
project. Typical mitigation within a built environment includes documenting the type,
construction and setting of the desired features. In this case it is four of the wooden box
culverts, and the two San Jacinto River bridges. As is typical, on ce this information is
developed, it is supplied to the local information center (Eastern Information Center at UCR). In
this way, the information is available to future researchers and historians.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.5-17 April 5, 2010
The project area ground surface has been visually inspected as part of the project related
cultural resource studies. During the projects ground disturbing activities, if a cultural resource
artifact, or paleontological resource is encountered, the project specific monitors (cultural
resource and paleontological) can evaluate the find and proceed appropriately without causing
extended delays in the construction.
It should be noted that as part of the cultural resource evaluation for this project, that State
Office of Historical Preservation (SHPO) consultation is required. The consultation takes the
form of presenting the information generated regarding the project site and surrounding areas,
description of any additional research or field investigations, a determina tion of whether any site
is a significant resource and if it will be impacted. This information combined with a summary of
Native American consultation is submitted to SHPO for concurrence that the project will not
impact any cultural resources. SHPO then has 30 days to agree or disagree with the
conclusion.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-1 April 5, 2010
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section of the EIR presents the findings of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Report, Perris Valley Line Corridor Project (Kleinfelder, 2009) and an assessment of the
potential impacts related to geology and soils within the PVL corridor project area. This section
evaluates the effect of geological hazards within the PVL including seismicity and faulting;
liquefaction and seismically induced settlement potential; lands lides, rockslides, and debris flow;
and subsidence, corrosivity, and expansiveness of soils. Also included is a discussion of the
existing environment that could be affected, including regional and local geology and soils.
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Geologic Setting
The State of California is made up of eleven geomorphic provinces as defined by the CDC
California Geologic Survey (CGS, 2002). California Geomorphic Provinces are distinctive,
generally easy to recognize natural regions in which the geologic record, types of landforms,
pattern of landscape features, and climate in all parts are similar (CGS, 2002). The PVL corridor
study area is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular
Range province is a series of mountain ranges separated by northwest-trending valleys running
parallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges extend south to
Mexico and are bordered by the Transverse Range on the north, the Colorado Desert on the
east, and the Pacific Ocean on the west.
Regional Geology
The PVL corridor traverses three main geologic units consisting of young alluvial fan and valley
deposits, older alluvial fan deposits, and granitic rock of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. A
batholith is a large emplacement of igneous intrusive (also called plutonic) rock that forms from
cooled magma deep in the earth's crust (Plummer et al, 1999). Sandstone is also mapped
approximately 0.25-miles south of Box Springs Road and I-215, but is limited in depth and
lateral extent. Additionally, artificial fill (Qaf) is present, essentially along the entire length of the
PVL corridor that is associated with the construction of the existing railway. The PVL corridor
geology is mapped in Figure 4.6-1.
Young alluvial and valley deposits are present in the northern and southern segments of the
PVL corridor (Morton and Miller, 2006). The older alluvial fan deposits overlay most of the PVL
corridor from the I-215/SR-60 interchange to south of the city of Perris, and the east side of the
city of Riverside in the area near UCR. Cretaceous age, igneous intrusive tonalite phase
bedrock underlies the alluvium in the region and is exposed in outcrops in the Box Springs
Mountains and the hills west of the PVL corridor near the city of Perris.
The artificial fill soil within the PVL corridor is generally less than a few feet thick, but was
observed to be up to approximately ten feet thick (approximately one-mile north of the proposed
Moreno Valley/March Field Station). These soils are generally derived from the adjacent or
underlying alluvial materials and composed of silty sand, sandy silt, clayey sand and clean sand
with silt. The materials generally range from loose and medium dense, fine to medium grained,
and dry to moist.
!!!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
Moreno Valley/March Field
Kvt
Qvof
Qof
Qv
Qof3
Qof1
Kvem
Qvof
Qyf1
Kgt
Kt
Khg
Katg
Qyv
Kgtf
Kt
Qof3
Trmu
Kvt
Qvof
Khg
Qya Kbt
Qyf
Kbfg
Kgt
Kt
Kcgd
Trms
Qof3
Kbfg
Kqd
Klmt
Trmq
Qov
Kgti
Kbg
Lake Perris
Qvof
Kcgd
Qvoa
Kbg
Kgb
Qaf
Kvem
Kbhg
Kgg
Qvof
Qof3
Qof
Downtown
Perris
Riverside
Downtown
Hunter Park
Qaf
PVL CORRIDOR GEOLOGY
92666
12/20/09
JP
RM
92666geoEIR.MXD
FIGUREPROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
4.6-1
LEGEND
Symbol
Geologic
Unit Description
Young alluvial-fan deposits
Very young alluvial-valley deposits
Very old alluvial-fan deposits
Old alluvial-fan deposits, unit 3
Box Springs plutonic complex. Subunit:
Porphyritic granodiorite; Peninsular Range
Val Verde Pluton. Subunit: Val Verde tonalite;
Peninsular Range.
Tonalite, undifferentiated; Peninsular Range
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
!R
!R
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
±South Perris
and Layover Facility
Citrus Connection
Trmq
Trms
Qyv
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!Qya
Qyf1
Qvoa
Qof
Qof1
Qaf
Kqd
Klmt
Khg
Kbfg
Kbhg
========Kbt
Kbg
Kt
Kvt
Qvof
Qyf
Qv
Qof3
024
Miles
NOTE: Due to specific observations made in the
field during a previous geotechnical study by
Kleinfelder, some specific geology/soil types may
not be included on this map
SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, California
Geological Survey; U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report: OFR 2005-1305; version 1.0
Monzogranite of Burnt Flats; San Bernardino
Mountains
Box Springs plutonic complex. Subunit:
Heterogeneous porphyritic granodiorite;
Peninsular Ranges
Box Springs plutonic complex. Subunit: Biotite
tonalite; Peninsular Ranges
Heterogeneous granitic rocks; Peninsular Ranges
Lakeview Mountains pluton. Subunit: Tonalite;
Peninsular Ranges
Quartz diorite, undifferentiated; Peninsular Ranges
Artificial Fill Soil
Old alluvial-fan deposits
Old alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 1
Very old axial-channel deposits
Young axial-channel deposits
Young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 1
Young alluvial-valley deposits
Rocks of Menifee Valley. Subunit:
Quartz-rich-rocks; Peninsular Ranges
Rocks of Menifee Valley. Subunit: Schist;
Peninsular Ranges
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-3 April 5, 2010
Project Soils
The NRCS has previously conducted soil mapping in Western Riverside County (NRCS, 1971).
This mapping characterized the types and distribution of soils within the PVL corridor. Soil
descriptions were developed from the soil survey publications (NRCS, 1971 and National
Cooperative Soil Survey [NCSS], 2008) and from the Official Soil Descriptions (NRCS, 2008).
Site soils within the PVL corridor and adjacent properties have been mapped on Figure 4.6-2.
Specific site soils and their characteristics are noted below and in Table 4.6-1.
Two soil mapping units are present within the Citrus Connection of the PVL corridor, (HcC)
Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam and (TeG) Terrace Escarpments, in the Springbrook Wash
area. HcC (2 to 8 percent slopes) is prime farmland with slow runoff and slight erosion
hazard, while TeG (30 to 75 percent slopes) may present a severe water erosion hazard.
There are 38 soil mapping units present within the SJBL alignment. The majority of the soil
types (approximately 80 percent) are classified as sandy loams, which generally have slow
to moderately slow runoff and exhibit slight erosion hazard; however, some hydric soils have
formed in local areas due to soil saturation indicating the potential presence of wetland
areas. Two soils mapping units with a high susceptibility to erosion, Cieneba rocky sandy
loam (CkF2) and Terrace escarpments (TeG) are located within the SJBL alignment. One
soil series, willow silty clay (Wf, Wg, Wm, and Wn), found within one mile radius of the San
Jacinto River crossing has a high shrink-swell potential.
There were five soil mapping units present within the Hunter Park area, all loams: Arlington
fine sandy loam (AoC), Buren fine sandy loam (BuC2), Cieneba rocky sandy loam (CkF2),
Greenfield sandy loam (GyC2), and Hanford coarse sandy loam (HcC). Three soils (AoC,
BuC2, and CkF2) present moderate or moderate to severe erosion hazard. All types are
classified as two to eight percent slopes, except for CkF2, which is 15 to 30 percent slope
and present only at the Hunter Park - Marlborough Station option site.
There were four soil mapping units present on the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field
Station site, all loams: Cieneba rocky sandy loam (CkF2), which presents a moderate to
severe erosion hazard, and Monserate sandy loams (MmB, MmC2, and MmD2), for which
erosion hazard is slight. Slopes range from 15 to 30 percent with the Cieneba rocky sandy
loam, and are 15 percent or less in the Monserate sandy loams.
Exeter very fine sandy loam (EwB) was the only soil mapping unit present on the Downtown
Perris Station site. Characteristics of this soil mapping unit are described as a slight to
moderate erosion hazard with very slow to moderate runoff and 0 to 2 percent slopes.
There were three soil mapping units present on the proposed South Perris Station site,
which are all Willows silty clays (Wg, Wm, and Wn). While water erosion hazard is slight,
these poorly to very poorly drained soils have high shrink-swell potential.
There were two soil mapping units present on the proposed Layover Facility site, both
loams, are Exeter very fine sandy loam (EwB) and Madera fine sandy loam (MaA). Both
present slight to moderate erosion hazard. EwB exhibits very slow to moderate runoff, and
MaA, which exhibits slow to moderate runoff, is an NRCS classified hydric soil (soil that
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-4 April 5, 2010
formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic, or oxygen poor, conditions in the upper part [NRCS, 1983]).
Seismicity and Faulting
Two of California's most active faults, the San Andreas and the San Jacinto faults, tra verse
Riverside County. Both of these faults, as well as the Elsinore fault zone, have the potential to
generate future earthquakes within Riverside County and the PVL corridor. The seismic hazards
that have the greatest potential to severely affect Riverside County are seismic ground shaking,
liquefaction, and surface fault rupture. Secondary hazards such as seismically induced
settlement, seismically induced slope instability, and (non-damaging) seiches may also occur as
the result of a significant seismic event (Riverside County, 2003).
The PVL corridor is located in the highly seismic southern California region within the influence
of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. The terms
―sufficiently active‖ and ―well defined‖ are used by the CGS as criteria for catego rizing faults
under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act. A ―sufficiently active‖ fault is one that shows
evidence of Holocene (a geologic epoch which began approximately 11,700 years ago and
continues to the present [Roberts, 1998]) surface displacement along one or more of its
segments and branches, while a ―well-defined fault‖ is a fault whose trace is clearly detectable
by a trained geologist as a physical feature at, or just belo w, the ground surface. The definition
―inactive‖ generally implies that a fault has not been active since the beginning of the
Pleistocene Epoch (older than 1.7 million years old). Locations of the officially delineated active
and potentially active regional faults are shown on Figure 4.6-3.
These active and potentially active faults are capable of producing seismic shaking along the
PVL corridor, and it is anticipated that the PVL corridor would periodically experience ground
acceleration as the result of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. The approximate
distances to the nearest faults from the PVL corridor considered to have the greatest impact to
the PVL corridor are presented in Table 4.6-2 and Table 4.6-3.
An east-striking potentially active fault splay, a series of minor faults at the extremities of an
associated major fault (Ailsa et al., 1999), of the Elsinore fault, the Murrieta Hot Springs fault, is
located approximately 14.3 miles south of the South Perris Station site (Riverside County,
2003).
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
Downtown Perris
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Hunter Park
PVL CORRIDOR SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666usda_EIR.MXD
FIGURE
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
4.6-2
92666PROJECT NO.
0 2.5 5
Miles
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
!R
!R
±
AnC
AoC
BuC2
ChF2
CkF2
Dv
Dw
EnA
EnC2
EpA
EpC2
EwB
FbF2
HcD2
HgA
MaA
MmB
MmC2
MmD2
MmE3
MnD2
PaA
PaC2
RaA
RaB2
RaB3
RaD2
RtF
TeG
Wf
Wg
Wm
Wn
FkD2
GyA
GyC2
GyD2
HcC
SOURCE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GIS METADATA, 2009.
USDA SOILS DATA, CA679
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-6 April 5, 2010
Table 4.6-1
SJBL Alignment Soil Mapping Units
Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name
AnC Arlington fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
AoC Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes (H)
BuC2 Buren fine sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes (H)
ChF2 Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded
CkF2 Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes eroded (H,M)
Dv Domino silt loam, saline-alkali, hydric
Dw Domino silt loam, strongly saline-alkali, hydric
EnA Exeter sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EnC2 Exeter sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
EpA Exeter sandy loam, deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EpC2 Exeter sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (D)
EwB Exeter very fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes (H)
FbF2 Fallbrook fine sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded
FkD2 Fallbrook fine sandy loam, shallow, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
GyA Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (H)
GyD2 Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
HcC Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (C)
HcD2 Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
HgA Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
MaA Madera fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, hydric (L)
MmB Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes (M)
MmC2 Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (M)
MmD2 Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (M)
MmE3 Monserate sandy loam, 15 to 25 slopes, severely eroded
MnD2 Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
PaA Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PaC2 Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
RaA Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
RaB2 Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
RaB3 Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded
RaD2 Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
RtF Rockland
TeG Terrace escarpments (C)
Wf Willows silty clay
Wg Willows silty clay, saline-alkali (S)
Wm Willows silty clay, deep, saline-alkali (S)
Wn Willows silty clay, deep, strongly saline-alkali (S)
Notes: All soils are found throughout the corridor along the SJBL alignment, except where
indicated by an asterisk; such soils are found only at the indicated locations; Hunter Park Station
options (H), Downtown Perris Station (D), Moreno Valley/March Field Station (M), South Perris
Station (S), Layover Facility (L), and the Citrus Connection (C).
Sources: Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area California (NRCS, 1971) and National
Cooperative Soil Survey Website (NCSS, 2008).
@@ @@
@@
@@@@!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
LAKE
PERRIS
LAKE
MATHEWS
Riverside
Downtown
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Downtown
Perris
Hunter Park
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Citrus Connection
e
S
a
n J
a
cinto F
a
ult Z
o
n
e
Elsinore Fault Zone
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
FAULT, ACCURATELY LOCATED
FAULT, APPROXIMATELY LOCATED
FAULT, INFERRED
FAULT CONCEALED
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
RIVER OR STREAM
LAKE
LEGEND
!R
!R
@@
4.6-3
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666faultsEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
REGIONAL FAULTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
±048
Miles
SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report: OFR 2005-1305; version 1.0
FIGURE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-8 April 5, 2010
Table 4.6-2
Summary of Significant Faults
Fault Name
Approximat
e
Fault
Length
(Miles)
Approximat
e Median
Distance
to Site
(Miles)
Magnitude
of Maximum
Earthquake*
Slip Rate
(in/yr)
Average
Recurrence
Interval
(years)
San Jacinto-San Jacinto
Valley Segment 27 11 6.9 0.47 83
Elsinore-Temecula
Segment 27 12 6.8 0.20 240
Elsinore-Glen Ivy Segment 22 12 6.8 0.20 340
San Jacinto-Anza
Segment 57 17 7.2 0.47 250
San Jacinto-San
Bernardino Segment 22 17 6.7 0.47 100
Chino-Central Avenue 17 21 6.7 0.04 885
San Andreas-San
Bernardino Segment 66 24 7.5 0.95 433
San Andreas-All Southern
Segments 317 24 8.1 0.95-1.34 220
Whittier 24 25 6.8 0.10 641
Elsinore-Julian Segment 47 29 7.1 0.20 340
San Joaquin Hills Thrust ** 17 29 6.6 0.02 2500
Notes:
* Moment Magnitude is an estimate of an earthquake‘s size by utilizing rock rigidity, amount of slip, and area of
rupture.
** A blind thrust fault.
Table 4.6-3
Approximate Distance to Nearest Faults (Miles)
PVL Corridor Site
(Approximate Station Nos.)
Approx. Distance
to San Jacinto
Fault Zone
(miles)
Approx. Distance
to San Andreas
Fault Zone
(miles)
Approx. Distance
to Elsinore
Fault Line, Glen
Ivy Section
(miles)
Citrus Connection 4.1 northeast 11.3 northeast 18.0 southwest
SJBL Alignment – North End 4.3 northeast 11.5 northeast 18.2 southwest
SJBL Alignment – South End 9.9 northeast 22.0 northeast 9.8 southwest
Palmyrita Option 4.3 northeast 12.8 northeast 18.2 southwest
Columbia Option 4.3 northeast 12.8 northeast 18.2 southwest
Marlborough Option 4.7 northeast 13.3 northeast 18.0 southwest
Moreno Valley/March Field Station 7.0 northeast 17.3 northeast 16.5 southwest
Downtown Perris Station 11.6 northeast 21.0 northeast 10.1 southwest
South Perris Station 11.5 northeast 21.0 northeast 10.1 southwest
Layover Facility 11.5 northeast 21.0 northeast 10.1 southwest
Source: Kleinfelder (2009)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-9 April 5, 2010
Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Potential
Liquefaction and seismically induced settlement potential refer to another type of geologic
hazard, in which loose sand and silt that is saturated with water behaves like a li quid when
shaken by an earthquake.
Seismically induced soil liquefaction generally occurs in loose, saturated, cohesionless soil
when pore pressures within the soil increase during ground shaking. The increase in pore
pressure transforms the soil from a solid to a semi-liquid state. The primary factors affecting the
liquefaction potential of a soil deposit are: 1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking, 2)
soil type and relative density, 3) overburden pressures, and 4) depth to groundwater.
Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine -grained sands,
and non-plastic silts that are saturated. Silty sands have also been shown to be susceptible to
liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction has been mapped as shown on Figure 4.6-4.
Portions of the rail corridor are in areas subject to high potential for liquefaction (Riverside
County, 2003). Those areas particularly susceptible include the vicinity of the MARB and the
proposed March Field/Moreno Valley Station.
Landslides, Rockslides, and Debris Flow
Landslides, rockslides, and debris flow constitute another category of geologic hazards.
Landslide refers to the lateral displacement of earth materials on a slope or hillside; whi le
rockslides refer to a geological phenomenon which includes a wide range of ground movement,
such as falling rocks, deep failure of slopes and shallow debris flows. Landslides commonly
occur in connection with other major natural disasters such as earth quakes, volcanoes,
wildfires, and floods. Steep, bare slopes; clay-rich rock; deposits of stream or river sediment;
and heavy rains can also cause landslides (Kleinfelder, 2008).
The annual precipitation in western Riverside County is low, about 15 inches per year, which is
one component generally associated with low risk of debris flow disaster. The PVL corridor,
because of the low annual precipitation, limited presence of clay soils, and relatively level
topography, is at a low risk overall for landslides (Riverside County, 2003).
The PVL corridor and adjacent properties are relatively level except for the area between Box
Springs Mountain Reserve and Moreno Valley Freeway/I-215, between MP 3.50 to MP 6.30,
where the Box Springs Mountains form steep bedrock terrain adjacent to the east side of the
PVL corridor.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
OO
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
4.6-4
92666
12/20/09
JP
RM
92666LIQ_EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
South Perris and
Layer Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
VERY LOW LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
LOW LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
MODERATE LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
HIGH LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
VERY HIGH LIQUEFACTION
POTENTIAL
!R
!R
Hunter Park
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles ±BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-11 April 5, 2010
Subsidence
Ground subsidence results from fluid (e.g. groundwater, petroleum) withdrawal in weakly
consolidated materials. The loss of fluid causes consolidation of the empty pore spaces, which
means that any voids in the soil previously filled with fluid are compressed by the mass of the
overlying materials, effectively decreasing the soil volume and resulting in land subsidence.
The PVL corridor is susceptible to subsidence; According to the County of Riverside General
Plan, special circumstances for mitigation are only given to areas of documented subsidence
(Riverside County Land, 2003).
Expansive Soils
Certain soils, known as ―expansive soils,‖ are subject to changes in volume and settlement in
response to wetting and drying, often resulting in severe damage to structures. Expansive soils
have a significant amount of clay particles which can exude water (shrink) or absorb and hold
water (swell). The resultant changes in soil volumes exert stress on buildings and other loads
placed on these soils. The distribution of expansive soils may be widely dispersed, and they
may be present on hillsides as well as in low-lying alluvial basins (Riverside County, 2003).
Based on published soil survey soil descriptions, one soil series, Willow silty clay (Wf, Wg, Wm,
and Wn), is characterized as having a high shrink swell potential. The Willow soil series is
present on the SJBL alignment in an area within one-mile of the San Jacinto River crossing, in
either direction (NRCS, 1971; NCSS, 2008; NRCS, 2008) (Figure 4.6-2).
Corrosive Soils
The corrosivity of soils is related to several key parameters: soil resistivity, presence of
chlorides and sulfates, oxygen content, and pH. Typically, the most corrosive soils are those
with the lowest pH and highest concentration of chlorides and sulfates. High sulfate soils are
corrosive to concrete and may prevent complete curing reducing its strength considerably. Low
pH and/or low resistivity soils could corrode buried or partially buried metal structures.
Soils with a moderate to high corrosion potential are present around the Hunter Park station
options and South Perris Station option. These soils have the potential to corrode concrete and
steel.
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
Uniform Building Code
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) was first enacted by the International Conference of Building
Officials (ICBO) on October 18-21, 1927. Revised editions of this code are published
approximately every three years (ICBO, 1997). The California Building Code (CBC) was
approved and incorporated into the UBC in 1988. The regulatory environment for design and
construction consists of building codes and standards covering local, state, federal, land use,
and environmental regulations which are developed specifically for the purpose of regulating the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-12 April 5, 2010
life safety, health and welfare of the public. Once adopted, building codes become law (ICBO,
1997). The building code (which covers all new building construction, additions and renovations)
is where the applicable seismic provisions are typically enforced. In addition to structural design
requirements, the building code also covers fire resistance, disabled access and other life safety
requirements (Fennie, 2005).
National Engineering Handbook
The National Engineering Handbook (NRCS, 1983), Sections 2.0 and 3.0 provide standards for
soil conservation during planning, design, and construction activities. The PVL corridor would
need to conform to these standards during grading and con struction to limit soil erosion. These
measures would be defined and outlined within the Project‘s specific stormwater plans.
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association Manual for Railway
Engineering
The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association Manual (AREMA)
was formed on October 1, 1997, as the result of a merger of three engineering support
associations, namely the American Railway Bridge and Building Association, the American
Railway Engineering Association and the Roadmasters and Maintenance-of-Way Association,
along with functions of the Communications and Signal Division of the Association of American
Railroads (AREMA, 2009). The AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering is an annually updated
publication that explains the development and advancement of both technical and practical
knowledge and recommended practices pertaining to the design, construction and maintenance
of railway infrastructure.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly referred to as the CWA following
amendment in 1977, establishes requirements for discharges of stormwater or wastewater from
any point source that would affect the beneficial uses of waters of the United States (USEPA,
2009). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted one statewide NPDES
General Permit that would apply to stormwater discharges associated with construction,
industrial, and municipal activities. RWQCB is the administering agency for the NPDES permit
program. The CWA‘s primary effect on adjacent agriculture areas and soils within the PVL
corridor consists of control of soil erosion and sedimentation during construction, including the
preparation and execution of erosion and sedimentation control plans and measures for any soil
disturbance during construction (SWRCB, 2009).
State Policies and Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PA) was enacted in 1975 and amended in
1993. The intent of the A-PA was to provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and
state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of d evelopments and
structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The A-PA only addresses the
hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Further, it
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-13 April 5, 2010
is the intent of the A-PA to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to
minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes (CGS, 2003).
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act came into effect June 1, 1998, and requires that sellers of real
property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a "Natural Hazard Disclosure
Statement" when the property being sold lies within one or more State-mapped hazard areas.
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was enacted by the California legislature in April 1997,
primarily as a result of the Northridge earthquake of 1994. The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
requires the creation and publication of maps showing areas where earth quake induced
liquefaction or landslides could occur (CGS, 2003). If a property is located in a Seismic Hazard
Zone as shown on a map issued by the State Geologist, the seller or the seller's agent must
disclose this fact to potential buyers (CGS, 2007).
Disaster Recovery Reconstruction Act
The Disaster Recovery Reconstruction Act of 1986 authorizes local governments to prepare for
expeditious and orderly recovery before a disaster and reconstruction afterward. It enables
localities to prepare pre-disaster plans and ordinances that may include: an evaluation of the
vulnerability of specific areas to damage from a potential disaster; streamlined procedures for
appropriate modification of existing General Plans or zoning ordinances affecting vulnerable
areas; a contingency plan of action; organization for post-disaster, short-term and long-term
recovery and reconstruction; and a pre-disaster ordinance to provide adequate local
authorization for post-disaster activities (CGC, 1986).
California Building Code
The California Building Standards Commission approved a series of amendments to the UBC,
which was published in 1998, and known as the CBC. This is the Building Code used
throughout California. Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than the CBC, but are
required to be no less restrictive (Fennie, 2005).
Local Policies and Regulations
Riverside County Building and Fire Codes
The Riverside County Department of Building and Safety reviews and enforces the Building and
Fire Codes. These codes establish site-specific investigation requirements, construction
standards, and inspection procedures so that development does not pose a threat to the health,
safety, and welfare of the public. Every three years , the County's Building and Fire Codes are
adapted from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. The Uniform Building and Fire Codes
contain minimum baseline standards to guard against unsafe development (Riverside County,
2003).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-14 April 5, 2010
Riverside Municipal Code (Title 14, §14.08.030)
The Riverside Municipal Code Title 14, §14.08.030 states all homes and any other structures
must be properly connected to a public sewer whenever the property abuts upon a ROW in
which there exists a public sewer to which connection may be made (City of Riverside, 2007).
Ordinance 1253 (City of Perris)
This Ordinance, added to the Perris Municipal Code in March 2009, has adopted Chapter 7 of
the CBC and relates to fire protection building standards and the adoption of a Fire Hazard
Severity Zone Map (City of Perris, 2009).
City of Riverside General Plan Public Safety Element (Seismicity and Faulting)
Policy PS-1.2, part of the City of Riverside General Plan, was written to physically locate public
facilities of City importance outside of geologically hazardous areas (City of Riverside, 2007).
County of Riverside General Plan Public Safety Element (Hazard Reduction)
A Hazard Reduction Program has been written within the Safety Element of the County of
Riverside General Plan. Hazard reduction programs are designed to impro ve the safety of
existing development. For example, older structures, built to before Code standards, may need
seismic upgrading. Other examples of the Program include strengthening pipelines and
developing emergency back-up capability by public utilities serving the County; conducting
regular fire safety inspections and fire flow tests to identify areas with cracked or damaged
water lines; encouraging the construction of auxiliary water systems to supplement existing
water lines; planning for emergency response at the government and individual level to reduce
the risk to the public from hazards; and identifying unsafe structures and posting public notices.
Several policies pertaining to landslides, subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils are
included in the Riverside County General Plan Public Safety element as noted below (Riverside
County, 2003):
Landslide Potential
S 3.6: Require grading plans, environmental assessments, engineering and geologic technical
reports, irrigation and landscaping plans, including ecological restoration and revegetation
plans, as appropriate, in order to assure the adequate demonstration of a project‘s ability to
mitigate the potential impacts of slope and erosion hazard s and loss of native vegetation.
Subsidence, Expansive, and Collapsible Soils
S 3.8: Require geotechnical studies within documented subsidence zones, as well as zones that
may be susceptible to subsidence. Within the documented subsidence zones of the Coac hella,
San Jacinto, and Elsinore valleys, the studies must address the potential for reactivation of
these zones, consider the potential impact on the project, and provide acceptable mitigation
measures.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-15 April 5, 2010
4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Geology and Soils is
defined by:
1. Does the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42)
II. Strong seismic ground shaking
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
IV. Landslides
2. Does the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil
3. Would the project be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that w ould
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse
4. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property
5. Does the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater
4.6.4 Project Impacts
Does the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42)
According to the 2007 Interim Revision to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
(CGS, 2007), western Riverside County is a seismically active region. The project boundaries
themselves are not within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The northern portion of the PVL corridor is
located approximately 6 miles southwest of the San Jacinto fault zone, while the southern
portion of the corridor is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the Elsinore fault zone.
Because no known faults intersect the existing rail corridor, implementation of the PVL
commuter rail service would not expose people or structures to adverse effects related to
surface fault rupture. Therefore, there would be no impacts from a known earthquake fault.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-16 April 5, 2010
II. Strong seismic ground shaking
The PVL corridor is located within the seismically active southern California region. Project
elements including track, bridges, and stations would be designed in accordance with
appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices
and methods per the CBC, the National Engineering Handbook, current AREMA guidance
documents, and existing SCRRA standards. Therefore, there would be no impacts from seismic
shaking.
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
Portions of the rail corridor are in areas subject to high potential for liquefaction. Those areas
particularly susceptible include the vicinity of the MARB and the proposed March Field/Moreno
Valley Station. Project elements including track, and stations would be designed in accordance
with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction
practices and methods per the CBC, County of Riverside, the National Engineering Handbook,
current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. These industry
recommendations will be followed during design and construction activities at the proposed
March Field/Moreno Valley Station. Therefore, there would be no impacts for seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction.
IV. Landslides
The Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan indicates that the northern portion of
the PVL corridor adjacent to the Box Springs Mountain Reserve is highly susceptible to
seismically induced landslides (Riverside County, 2003). Limited track work relating to
construction is proposed for this area; therefore, there would be less than significant impacts
during the construction of the PVL. Moreover, while the steep terrain around Box Springs may
be subject to rock fall, igneous tonolite and granodiorite bedrock generally is not susceptible to
landslides. Therefore, the PVL corridor is considered to have a low landslide potential
(Kleinfelder, 2009). Engineering and design would comply with CBC, Riverside County Building
and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance
documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of engineering recommendations before and
during construction, there would be no impacts during the operations and maintenance of this
within the PVL corridor.
Does the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil
Because the PVL commuter rail service would be implemented within an existing railroad
corridor and adjacent properties, earth moving activities would be limited to the construction of
the proposed stations and associated parkin g lots, communication equipment shelters and
towers, and Layover Facility. Site preparation and excavation activities associated with
construction of the new facilities may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil because of local
precipitation and runoff.
In accordance with the requirements of the SWRCB, which administers the State‘s construction
stormwater program, the proposed project, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, must
obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit [CGP]). The CGP requires the preparation
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-17 April 5, 2010
and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce or eliminate
soil loss. The SWPPP would identify BMPs to minimize erosion and sediment loss. SWPPP
requirements are discussed in the Hydrology/Water Quality section of the report. (Section 4.8.2 ,
Regulatory Setting). With implementation of a project specific SWPPP soil erosion would be no
impact.
Would the project be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse
The underlying geology of the PVL corridor extends through three geologic units. The northern
portion of the corridor, which includes the Citrus Connection, and Hunter Park Station options,
to the I-215/SR 60 interchange, is underlain by foliated or fractured igneous rocks. A portion of
the PVL corridor extending south from the I-215/SR-60 interchange is underlain by Pleistocene-
age, fine-grained unconsolidated to moderately consolidated sediments. The San Jacinto River
and its vicinity is made up of Holocene-age, fine-grained unconsolidated alluvial sediments,
including stream channel, floodplain, alluvial fan, and lacustrine sediments. Collapse typically
occurs in recent soils, such as Holocene deposits.
The PVL corridor is not located within the ―Documented Area of Subsidence,‖ based on a review
of the County of Riverside Subsidence Map; therefore there would be no impact regarding
subsidence for the project.
Project elements including track, bridges, and stations will be designed in accordance with
appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices
and methods per the CBC, County of Riverside, the National Engineering Handbook, current
AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of the industry standards for
engineering, and guidance recommendations before and during construction, there would be no
impact during the operations and maintenance of this within the PVL corridor.
Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property
Soils within the project corridor and the proposed station locations are generally well -drained
sandy loams, which do not tend to be expansive. However, expansive soils (Willow series) are
present along the SJBL alignment in the area around both San Jacinto Riv er bridges and South
Perris Station. Changes in soil volumes due to shrink-swell potential could result in adverse
impacts to buildings at these locations. Impacts from expansive soils associated with the project
in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River and proposed South Perris Station are reduced to no
impact by engineering design based on site-specific geotechnical and geologic analysis along
the PVL corridor. Construction of PVL including portions of the SJBL alignment, both bridges
and South Perris Station will comply with CBC, Riverside County Building and Safety
Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and
SCRRA standards. Because of the industry standards for engineering, and guidance
recommendations during design and construction, there would be no impact during the
operations and maintenance of this within the PVL corridor.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.6-18 April 5, 2010
Does the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater
A wastewater connection is proposed at the Layover Facility for the project; and therefore, a
septic system is not necessary for the project.
4.6.5 Mitigation Measures
Engineering design will address site specific conditions and therefore no mitigation measures
are identified related to geology and soils.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-1 April 5, 2010
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes the potential presence of hazardous materials within the PVL corridor,
the potential for exposure to hazardous materials during and following construction , and the
specific measures that would be employed to protect public health, worker safety, and the
environment. A ―hazardous material‖ is generally defined as any substance that poses a threat
to human health or the environment. It is often used interchangeably with ―contaminated
material,‖ but should not be confused with the term ―hazardous waste,‖ which is a regulatory
term (Davis, 2006). ―Hazardous waste‖ is defined in the USEPA regulations (40 CFR 261) and
refers to a subset of solid wastes that are either specific wastes listed in the regulations (listed
wastes) or solid wastes possessing the characteristic of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity or
toxicity (characteristic wastes) (Davis, 2006). Information within this section is based on the
Hazardous Materials Corridor Study (HMCS) SJBL Alignment (Technical Study G), unless
otherwise specified.
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The PVL corridor is an existing rail corridor that goes through light industrial, commercial,
residential, and undeveloped areas. Adjacent land uses include residential, schools , parks,
commercial, light industry, agriculture, and an active airport. Other infrastructure in the area
includes natural gas and jet fuel pipelines. It should be noted that the freight trains may carry
hazardous materials for delivery to existing clients on the corridor. However, freight train
operations on the PVL are not part of this project, but are an existing condition of the railway .
The project is not anticipated to increase freight train traffic because the freight train deliverie s
are market driven and not related to track condition. Additionally, it should be noted that RCTC
has no control over the type of freight being transported along the corridor.
Pipelines
According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration‘s National Pipeline
Mapping System, hazardous material pipelines located within the PVL corridor include a six-inch
jet fuel transmission pipeline operated by Kinder Morgan. A portion of the jet fuel pipeline
extends from the Colton Terminal (2359 South Riverside Avenue) to the MARB (Cactus
Avenue). Additional segments of the Kinder Morgan pipeline are located within the SJBL ROW
from Service Road southward to Watkins Drive, and then reconnecting near Box Springs
Boulevard to Cactus Avenue. A portion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, within the PVL corridor,
runs parallel to Highland Elementary School, within approximately 50 feet to the west.
A natural gas pipeline, operated by Kinder Morgan, transects the SJBL alignment at Columbia
Avenue. Two other natural gas transmission pipelines operated by Southern California Gas
Company intersect the PVL corridor near Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard.
Airport Hazards
The PVL corridor has two airports zoned within or near the project area. They are March Global
Port/MARB (over one mile east) and the Perris Valley Airport (less than 0.25 miles west).
The PVL corridor and the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station are located within the
boundaries of the airport land use plan of the MARB. The proposed station would be located
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-2 April 5, 2010
predominantly within Accident Potential Zone (APZ) II, to the west of the airport, which allows
for industrial and transportation uses. As currently designed, a small southerly segment of the
station parking lot would be located within APZ I, to the west, which prohibits dense
concentrations of people, but allows for parking lots (City of Perris, 2005).
In addition, the privately owned Perris Valley Airport is located approximately 500 feet
southwest from the PVL corridor. The PVL corridor lies within the Perris Valley Airport Influence
Area, from west of Goetz Road, along SJBL alignment, to just east of Murrieta Road.
Emergency Response Plans and Emergency Evacuation Plans
Riverside County and the City of Riverside have Emergency Operations Plans written to
address the planned emergency responses associated with natural disasters and technological
incidents. Each specifies its own level of response within their jurisdiction. Effective emergency
management relies on thorough integration of emergency plans at all levels of government and
non-government involvement.
The Emergency Management Office within the Riverside Fire Department coordinates
emergency response and has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for the City of
Riverside (Riverside Fire Department, 2002). Currently the City of Riverside is updating their
EOP and associated evacuation plan (Anthony Coletta, Program Administrator for the Riverside
UASI Regional Homeland Security Program).
The Riverside County Operational Area EOP, which is an extension of the State Emergency
Program, focuses on defining and coordinating the appropriate departments that are directly
involved with Riverside County emergency response activities (Riverside County, 2006). This
plan is a multi-agency plan and also serves as a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan for the City of
Perris. Along with setting forth emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans,
the EOP addresses terrorist strikes against MARB (City of Perris, 2004).
Wildland Fires
The Western Riverside County Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map) provided by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) was reviewed to determine the
susceptibility of the PVL corridor to forest fire risks and hazards (CDFFP, 2000). According to
the Fire Map, a section of the PVL corridor, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue to the I-215/SR-60
Interchange (near Box Springs Mountain) is shown to be in a wildland area that may contain
substantial forest fire risks and hazards. Pursuant to Section 4125 of the PRC and
requirements of maintenance listed in Section 4291 of the same code, the owner of the property
is the responsible party for maintaining fire protection services unless CDFFP has entered into a
cooperative agreement with a local agency for this area pursuant to Section 4142 of the PRC.
This area of Box Springs Mountain has been incorporated into a Wildfire Management Plan, and
is under State of California responsibility for fire protection. The remainder of the PVL corridor
and adjacent properties are located in developed areas not shown within substantial fire risks or
hazards.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-3 April 5, 2010
Schools
There are fifteen schools located within one-quarter mile of the SJBL ROW. Safety is the first
consideration in the selection of school sites, and certain health and safety criteria are
necessary including proximity to power lines, presence of toxic and hazardous substances,
hazardous air emissions and facilities with a quarter mile, proximity to railroads, proximity to
high pressure natural gas lines, gasoline lines, and proximity to propane tanks. The schools
and their addresses are listed below:
Riverside Community College – 1155 Spruce Street, Riverside, CA
University Middle School – 1155 Massachusetts Avenue, Riverside, CA
University of California Riverside – 1000 West Blaine Street, Riverside, CA
Highland Elementary School – 700 Highlander Drive, Riverside, CA
Vineyard Christian School – 533 Massachusetts Avenue, Riverside, CA
Seneca Elementary School – 11615 Wordsworth Road, Moreno Valley, CA
Apple Tree Learning Center and Riverside Child Day Care – 220 West Big Springs
Road, Riverside, CA
Hyatt Elementary School – 4466 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA
Red Maple and Sierra Vista Elementary School – 975 Morgan Street, Riverside, CA
Val Verde Student Success Academy – 972 Morgan Street, Riverside, CA
Nan Sanders Elementary School – 1461 North A Street, Perris, CA
California Military Institute School – 755 North A Street, Perris, CA
St. James School – 250 West 3rd Street, Perris, CA
Perris Elementary School – 500 South A Street, Perris, CA
Perris Community Day School – 515 East 7th Street, Perris, CA
Sites of Potential Environmental Concern
A site located on or adjacent to a facility, or former facility, which is of potential environmental
concern may pose a hazard to public health and safety. An environmental concern is defined
as anything that poses a potential risk to the quality of the groundwater in the area and to the
health of individuals drinking from the groundwater (USEPA, 2000). A number of locations of
potential environmental concern were identified within and adjacent to the PVL corridor, along
the SJBL alignment (Figure 4.7-1).
A number of properties adjacent to the PVL corridor were identified as locations subject to
unauthorized releases of substances from Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Above
Ground Storage Tanks (ASTs). The Environmental Database Report (EDR) records indicate
that the releases may have impacted soil and groundwater (Kleinfelder, 2008).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-4 April 5, 2010
6400 Fischer Road, Riverside - diesel AST release
13260 Highway 215, Riverside - gasoline UST release
2 South D Street, Perris - gasoline UST release
24 D Street, Perris - gasoline UST release
101 and 102 South D Street, Perris - gasoline UST release and waste oil release
210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris - gasoline and diesel UST release
Other sites of potential environmental concern include:
The proposed Palmyrita option for the Hunter Park Station. Hazardous materials impacts
associated with this parcel include: a former UST, a remote fill port, ASTs, a 55-gallon drum
containing an unidentified substance, a cooling tower, a sump and soil staining. This site is
currently undergoing development by a private developer; and it is not known at this time if
the Phase I environmental recommendations were followed during site preparation.
Three 55-gallon drums were observed within the PVL corridor, but outside the construction
area, at the base of a ravine adjacent to the SJBL alignment at the Manfield Street eastern
terminus. Due to the steep terrain leading to the drums, the contents of the drums are
presently undetermined, and will not be disturbed during construction.
According to the EDR contained in the HMCS, approximately 75 gallons of diesel were released
onto the railroad tracks during an automobile accident in 2001, to the south of Fair Isle Drive. It
is possible that residual diesel is currently present on the railroad tracks.
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) in 1980. The purpose of CERCLA is to identify and clean
up chemically contaminated sites that pose a significant environmental health threat. Under
CERCLA, the USEPA maintains a list, known as CERCLIS, of all contaminated sites in the
nation that have to some extent or are currently undergoing clean -up activities. CERCLIS
contains information on current hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and
remedial activities. This includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being
considered for the NPL. The Hazard Ranking System within the CERC LIS database is used to
determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for cleanup activities (USEPA, 2000).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-5 April 5, 2010
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) pertain primarily to emergency
management of accidental releases. Passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986, it requires formation
of State and local emergency planning committees, which are responsible for collecting material
handling and transportation data for use as a basis for planning. Chemical inventory data is
made available to the community at large under the "right-to-know" provision of the law. In
addition, SARA also requires annual reporting of continuous emissions and accidental releases
of specified compounds. These annual submissions ar e compiled into a nationwide Toxics
Release Inventory (USEPA, 2000).
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
#0#0#0
#0
#0#0#0#0
12
3
4
5 6 78
#09,10,11,12 #0#0#0
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLVD
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVDPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
4.7-1
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666envconEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREAREAS OF POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
LEGEND
!R
!R
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Hunter Park
1 Proposed Citrus Connection
2 Proposed Palmyrita Station -
990 Palmyrita Avenue
3 Proposed Marlborough Station
4 3401 Watkins Drive
5 Northbound I-215 South of
Fair Isle Drive
6 6400 Fischer Road
7 Eastridge Avenue and Box
Springs Boulevard
8 13260 Highway 215
9 210 West San Jacinto Avenue
10 2 South D Street
11 24 D Street
12 101 and 102 South D Street
#0
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
CONNECTING TRACK
DOUBLE TRACK
REHABILITATED TRACK
AREA OF POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
#0 #0#0
#0
SAN JACINTO AVENUE
EAST 1ST STREETSOUTH C STREET9 10
11
12
PROPOSED
DOWNTOWN
PERRIS
STATION
SOUTH D STREETDOWNTOWN PERRIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
10120.5
Miles
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08 ±
NOT TO SCALE
±
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-7 April 5, 2010
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
The Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act was enacted by Congress as the
national legislation on community safety in 1986, under Title III of the SARA. This law is
designed to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from
chemical hazards. To help Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act be put into
action, Congress requires each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission.
The State Emergency Response Commissions are required to divide their states into
Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee for each
district. Fire fighters, health officials, government and media representatives, community groups,
industrial facilities, and emergency managers help make sure that all necessary elements of the
planning process are represented (USEPA, 2000).
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is the statutory basis for the extensive body of
regulations aimed at ensuring the safe transport of hazardous materials on water, rail,
highways, through air, or in pipelines. It includes provisions for material classification,
packaging, marking, labeling, placecarding, and shipping documentation (County of Riverside ,
2003).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C addresses hazardous waste
generation, handling, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. It includes requirements
for a system that uses hazardous waste manifests to track the movement of waste from its site
of generation to its ultimate disposition. The 1984 amendments to RCRA created a national
priority for waste minimization. Subtitle D establishes national minimum requirements for solid
waste disposal sites and practices. It requires states to develop plans for the management of
wastes within their jurisdictions. Subtitle I requires monitoring and containment systems for
USTs that hold hazardous materials. Owners of tanks must demonstrate financial assurance for
the cleanup of a potential leaking tank.
State Policies and Regulations
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) is the primary hazardous waste statute in the State
of California. The HWCL implements RCRA as a "cradle-to-grave" waste management system
in the State of California. HWCL specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine
whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure their proper management. The HWCL also
establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or reused as raw
materials. The HWCL exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning,
and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also
regulates a number of types of wastes and waste management activities that are not covered by
Federal law with RCRA.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-8 April 5, 2010
California Code of Regulations
Most State and Federal regulations and requirements that apply to generators of hazardous
waste are listed within the CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5. Title 22 contains the compliance
requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. Because California is a fully authorized State according to RCRA, most
RCRA regulations (those contained in 40 CFR 260 et seq.) have been duplicated and integrated
into Title 22. However, because the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates
hazardous waste more stringently than the USEPA, the integration of California and Federal
hazardous waste regulations that make up Title 22 do not contain as many exemptions or
exclusions as does 40 CFR 260. As with the California Health and Safety Code, Title 22 also
regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities tha n does the RCRA
regulations in 40 CFR 260. To aid the regulated community, California compiled the hazardous
materials, waste and toxics-related regulations contained in CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23,
24, and 27 into one consolidated CCR Title 26 ‗T oxics.' However, the California hazardous
waste regulations are still commonly referred to as Title 22 (DTSC, 2009).
State Aeronautics Act (CPUC, §21670 et seq.)
The State Aeronautics Act created the requirement for an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
in each county and establishes statewide requirements for the conduct of airport land use
compatibility planning. State statutes require that, once an ALUC has adopted or amended an
airport land use compatibility plan, the county—where it has land use jurisdiction within the
airport influence area—and any affected cities must update their General Plans and any
applicable specific plans to be consistent with the ALUC‘s plan (CGC, §65302.3). The California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is published by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and
its purpose is to support and amplify the State article (City of Perris , 2005).
CPUC Guidelines for the Federal Aid At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossing Program (§130 Program)
The purpose of Section 130 Program is to reduce the number, severity and potential of hazards
to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians at crossings. The Section 130 Program is a cooperative
effort between the FHWA, Caltrans, CPUC, railroad companies and local agencies. Eligible
grade crossings are taken through a prioritization process in which they are ranked by hazard
potential, put onto a final priority list, and the associated projects are contracted by Caltrans for
abandonment, closure, or updating (CPUC, 2006).
California Education Code (§17210 et seq.)
The California Education Code (CEC) (§17210 et seq.) describes the requirements of school
facilities near or on known or suspected hazardous materials sites , or near facilities that emit
hazardous air emissions, handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste (5 CCR 13). The code requires that, prior to commencing the acquisition of property for a
new school site, an environmental site investigation be completed to determine the health and
safety risk (if any) associated with a site. All proposed school sites must be suitable for
residential land use, which is DTSC‘s most protective standard for children (City of River side,
2007).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-9 April 5, 2010
CCR, Title 5, §14010 (School Site Selection Standards), and CEC, §17212
Within the CCR Title 5, and under the existing Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (5
CCR 13), there are certain criteria described for selecting or siting schools in regards to power
line setbacks, railroad track setbacks, pipeline and fuel storage tanks, and hazardous waste
setbacks (California Department of Education, 2009). The following is a partial list of minimum
setback distances for school sites:
1. Power lines - 1,500 feet
2. Railroad tracks - 1,500 feet
3. On site fuel tank storage
4. On site hazardous pipelines or hazardous pipeline easements - 1,500 feet
Local Policies and Regulations
Ordinance No. 615.3
This ordinance has been implemented for the purpose of monitoring establishments where
hazardous waste is generated, stored, handled, disposed, treated, or recycled and to regulate
the issuance of permits and the activities of establishments where hazardous waste is
generated. This ordinance designates the Riverside County Department of Environmental
Health (RCDEH) to enforce the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter
6.5, Division 20, §§25100 et seq., and the Environmental Health Standards for the Management
of Hazardous Waste as specified in Title 22 of the CCR, Division 4.5 pertaining to the
generation, storage, handling, disposal, treatment, and recycling of hazardous waste (Riverside
County, 2003).
Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Safety Policies
The Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan has established policies, programs,
and criteria to minimize the effect of prospective growth on the use and generation of hazardous
materials. These plan policies have been adopted as ―Safety Policy 6.1‖ in the County of
Riverside General Plan and are described below:
1. Compliance with the Federal and State laws pertaining to the management of hazardous
wastes and material;
2. Public participation in hazardous waste and hazardous materials management decisions
in Riverside County;
3. Coordination of hazardous waste facility responsibilities through the Southern California
Hazardous Waste Management Authority; and,
4. Encouragement and promoting the programs, practices, and recommendations
contained in the Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, giving the
highest waste management priority to the reduction of hazardous waste at its source.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-10 April 5, 2010
Safety Policy 7.3
This Riverside County General Plan policy requires commercial businesses, utilities, and
industrial facilities that handle hazardous materials to install automatic fire and hazardous
materials detection, reporting, and shut-off devices; and install an alternative communication
system in the event that the power is out or telephone service is saturated following an
earthquake (Riverside County, 2003).
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan designates zones of airport
influenced areas for airports in Riverside County and proposed a series of policies and
compatibility criteria to ensure that both aviation uses are surrounding uses may continue and
are compatible (Riverside County, 2003).
City of Riverside Municipal Code
Title 14 Public Utilities of the Municipal Code, Chapter 14.12 Discharge of Wastes into the
Public Sewer and Storm Drain Systems, §14.12.315, prohibits waste discharges by a person or
user into a collection system of the City or a Community Services District (City of Riverside ,
2007).
Emergency Operations Plans
Emergency Operations Plans for the City of Riverside and Riverside County have been written
to address the planned emergency responses associated with natural disasters and
technological incidents. Each specifies its own level of response within their jurisdiction.
4.7.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Hazards and Hazardous
Materials is defined by:
1. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
2. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment
3. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school
4. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-11 April 5, 2010
5. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
6. Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
7. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
8. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands
4.7.4 Project Impacts
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
The PVL corridor is an existing rail corridor that goes through light industrial, commercial,
residential, and undeveloped areas. Adjacent land uses include residential, schools , parks,
commercial, light industry, agriculture, and an active airport. Other infrastructure in the area
includes natural gas and jet fuel pipelines.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of small
volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The use of these substances is
governed by existing hazardous materials regulations, and would not adversely affect on-site
construction workers or the public.
As a commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger only. As such, there would never be an
occasion when hazardous materials would be transported on commuter trains. Any such
materials incidental to construction and operational activities, including routine maintenance,
would be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state,
and local hazardous materials regulations, and would not adversely affect on-site construction
workers or the public.
Each communication equipment shelter within the PVL corridor would contain a 250-gallon
propane AST. Several arrays of batteries containing regulated heavy metals wo uld also be
located within the equipment shelters. The propane tanks would be used to operate emergency
generators in the equipment shelters. Each of the tanks would be mounted on a concrete pad
and permitted through the RCDEH. The ASTs would also be included in the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan for the PVL project, which is kept on file with RCDEH. The storage and
use of the heavy metals is regulated by federal, state, and county hazardous materials
regulations.
The proposed Layover Facility would include portable track pans at each track to catch drips
during emergency fueling. Routine fueling of the trains will not take place within the PVL project
corridor. Regular or routine fueling will be at either the Colton (north of project area) or Taylor
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-12 April 5, 2010
Yard (north of LA Union Station), outside of the project area. It is expected that up to four trains
would be stored at this facility overnight and could receive routine maintenance. Drip pans
would be installed where engines are located, in order to catch any dripping or leaking fuel oil,
lubrication, or hydraulic fluid from engines laid-up in the yard. There would be a train inspection
pit located under one of the tracks. The pit allows train mechanics to inspect the undercarriage
of the train and perform any minor maintenance that may be necessary. Drainage from the drip
pans and inspection pit would be directly connected to an oil/water separator system for
treatment prior to discharge into the sanitary sewer system.
A construction SWPPP will be prepared and put into place during the construction of the entire
project including the Layover Facility. As part of the Construction General Permit (CGP)
requirements, the SWPPP will also include BMPs to minimize the potential for leaks and spills
during operations (Kleinfelder, 2009). The SWPPP preparation is discussed in the
Hydrology/Water Quality Section of this report
Because only small volumes of hazardous materials anticipated to be used during construction
operations, and maintenance, there will be no impacts due to the implementation of the project.
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of small
quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials will be required to be stored, used, and
disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local agency hazardous materials
regulations.
Operation and maintenance activities associated with the proposed project would also involve
the use of small quantities of hazardous materials. As previously stated, hazardous materials
would be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state,
and local agency hazardous materials regulations.
The pipelines located within the existing rail ROW were installed in accordance with the safety
requirements of the owners. The pipelines are buried at a minimum of three feet below ground
surface, or deeper if they are closer than 40 feet to the rail line, and/or are encased. There have
been no reported leaks from the previously mentioned pipelines within or adjacent to the PVL
corridor. There would not be an adverse effect on the environment, on-site workers, or the
public during operation and maintenance of the PVL trains in these areas; therefore, there will
be less than significant impacts through the implementation of the project from these pipelines.
Derailment could cause an accidental spill from the SCRAA/Metrolink train engines or diesel
fuel tanks. It should be noted that the BNSF freight history has about 4.5 million freight train
miles since 1993 (first full year of operation) and during this time, there have been only three
freight train derailments. This equates to about one derailment per 1.5 million train miles or
0.000000667 (STV, 2009).
On the SJBL, BNSF operates 11,440 train miles per year. The annual derailment risk is then
the product of 0.000000667 (risk per train mile) and 11,440 miles, or 0.00801. This derailment
risk equates to about once every 124 years. (STV, 2009).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-13 April 5, 2010
The numbers noted above represent an extremely low risk of derailment. This analysis, coupled
with the PVL track improvements being made to the latest standards as dictated by FRA and
SCRAA/Metrolink design criteria, will further decrease the ris k of derailment potential.
SCRAA/Metrolink would also regularly inspect the track to ensure safe operating conditions.
Due to the small volumes of hazardous materials anticipated to be used, safety practices,
inspections, and design criteria for the PVL project, there would be no impacts.
Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school
Construction activities associated with the PVL project, near the schools, would involve the use
of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The us e of these
substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations. The construction of the
PVL project would not include power lines or propane tanks within a 1,500 -foot setback of the
schools, nor would the project introduce newly constructed high pressure natural gas lines or
gasoline lines.
Currently, the BNSF operates freight service along the SJBL corridor. The train engines contain
oil and diesel fuel, in order to operate. Additionally, it should be not ed that, on occasion, freight
trains carry hazardous material for delivery to customers along the corridor , however, the PVL
commuter trains would only contain oil and diesel fuel, in order to operate.
Section 4.3 Air Quality of this report notes that sensitive receptor sites, including schools are
near mobile source emissions generated from freight trains using the SJBL, and from vehicles
using the adjacent SR-60 and I-215 corridors. It is also noted that most PVL trains would pass
by the schools either prior to the beginning of the school day or after the end of the day,
resulting in less potential exposure to emissions. Simultaneously, vehicle emissions would be
reduced with a shift of modes from private vehicles to the PVL and other reductions in mobile
source pollution through increased vehicular speeds on the major vehicular corridors. Using the
available interim guidance from the FHWA, the project is categorized as having low potential
emission effects.
Exposure to MSATs as a risk to schools would result from the sitting of a new fixed,
continuously operating point source of pollution, such as a stack from a factory. With an engine
and the proposed train sets for the PVL, exposure to PM10 in diesel exhaust from passing
commuter trains would be limited. The trains would pass by schools very quickly, for only
several seconds along the PVL between stations. For most PVL movements, schools would not
be in session, as most scheduled runs occur either before the start of the school day or after its
completion. Opportunity for exposure to emissions is limited in occurrence and duration and is
therefore no impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-14 April 5, 2010
Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
The HMCS has identified locations of potential environmental concern within and adjacent to
the PVL corridor. The sites of potential environmental concern are shown on Figure 4.7-1. The
locations appearing on hazardous material site lists that pose an environmental concern to the
PVL rail corridor are summarized below.
The Citrus Connection and selected Hunter Park Station options at Palmyrita and Marlborough
were historically used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it is possible that increased amounts
of pesticides and/or herbicides are present at these sites. Soil excavation activities are
proposed to take place at this site prior to the construction phase of the project and, as such,
there may be hazards related to the soil for construction workers and the environment.
According to the EDR contained in the HMCS, approximately 75 gallons of diesel were released
onto the railroad tracks during an automobile accident in 2001, to the south of Fair Isle Drive. It
is possible that residual diesel is currently present on the railroad tracks. Since track
rehabilitation is proposed for this segment, it is not anticipated that soil would be disturbed or
excavated, and therefore, the health and safety of the construction workers would not be
affected. The health and safety of the general public and railroad workers would not be affected
during the operation and maintenance of the PVL. Therefore, there would be no impacts from
the release by the implementation of the project.
A number of properties adjacent to the PVL corridor were identified as locations subject to
unauthorized releases of substances from USTs and ASTs. The EDR records indicate that the
releases may have impacted soil and groundwater. These releases may have an adverse effect
to workers during excavation and dewatering activities in the construction phase. The following
sites may have negative effects to the health and safety of construction workers during
construction activities of the project, due to the proposed disturbance or excavation of soil within
the PVL corridor:
6400 Fischer Road, Riverside - diesel AST release
13260 Highway 215, Riverside – gasoline UST release
2 South D Street, Perris - gasoline UST release
24 D Street, Perris - gasoline UST release
101 and 102 South D Street, Perris - gasoline UST release and waste oil release
210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris – gasoline and diesel UST release
Because of the potential for soil contamination at the sites discussed above, there is a potential
for significant impacts within the PVL project area (Mitigation measure HHM-1).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-15 April 5, 2010
Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
The PVL corridor and the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station are located west of I -215
and MARB airport, and within the boundaries of the airport land use plan of MARB. The
proposed station would be located predominantly within APZ II, which allows for industrial and
transportation uses. As currently designed, a small southerly segment of the proposed parking
lot associated with the station would be located in APZ I, which prohibits dense concentrations
of people, but allows for parking lots (March JPA 2003). The Riverside County ALUC and March
JPA will has reviewed RCTC‘s application to construct to ensure zone compatibility. On October
14, 2010 the Riverside County ALUC determined that the Moreno Valley/March Field Station to
be consistent with airport land use plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, RCTC shall convey an avigation easement
(airports require easements to protect the airspace used by aircraft during takeoff and
landing) to the March Inland Port Airport Authority.
2. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage
of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
3. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or
amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an
initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight
final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved
navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged
in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a
straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
c. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large
concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within
the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture,
livestock operations, production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops,
artificial marshes, wastewater management facilities, composting operations,
trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers
containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly
ash disposal, incinerators, and landfills.)
d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to
the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
e. Children‘s schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and highly noise-sensitive outdoor
nonresidential uses.
4. Any ground-level or aboveground water retention or detention basin or facilities shall be
designed so as to provide for a detention period for the design storm that does not
exceed 48 hours (may be less, but not more), and to remain totally dry between rainfalls.
Vegetation in and around such facilities that would provide food or cover for bird species
that would be incompatible with airport operations shall not be utilized in project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-16 April 5, 2010
landscaping. Landscaping shall utilize plant species that do not produce seeds, fruits, or
berries. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy
when mature.
5. Any proposed use identified on the site plan as a future use shall be reviewed by ALUC
for consistency when proposed for a specific development.
The conditions of approval set by the ALUC for the Moreno Valley/March Field Station are
included in the PVL project Specifications. Because the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field
Station is within appropriate zoning uses, impacts would be no impact.
Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
The Perris Valley Airport is located immediately sout h of Ellis Avenue and southwest of Case
Road, approximately 500 feet southwest from the existing rail corridor. The airport is largely
used for skydiving. The PVL corridor lies within the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area, from
west of Goetz Road, along SJBL, to just east of Murrieta Road, including the South Perris
Station. In this Influence Area, only residential uses ―are to be limited to areas not in the actual
flight path and to areas where aircraft have gained sufficient altitude so as to no longer pose a
relative safety threat‖ (City of Perris, 2005). Implementation of the PVL is not expected to result
in a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the project area. The Perris Valley
Airport is currently drafting a land use plan.
1. The Riverside County ALUC has reviewed RCTC‘s application to construct to ensure
zone compatibility. On October 14, 2010 the Riverside County ALUC determined that the
South Perris Station to be consistent with airport land use plan subject to the following
conditions:
2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, RCTC shall convey an avigation easement to
the March Inland Port Airport Authority.
3. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spil lage
of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
4. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or
amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an
initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight
final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved
navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged
in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a
straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
c. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large
concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within
the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture,
livestock operations, production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops,
artificial marshes, wastewater management facilities, composting operations,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-17 April 5, 2010
trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers
containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly
ash disposal, incinerators, and landfills.)
d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to
the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
e. Children‘s schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and highly noise -sensitive outdoor
nonresidential uses.
5. Any ground-level or aboveground water retention or detention basin or facilities shall be
designed so as to provide for a detention period for the design storm that does not
exceed 48 hours (may be less, but not more), and to remain totally dry between rainfalls.
Vegetation in and around such facilities that would provide food or cover for bird species
that would be incompatible with airport operations shall not be utilized in project
landscaping. Landscaping shall utilize plant species that do not produce seeds, fruits, or
berries. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy
when mature.
6. Structure height shall not exceed 40 feet, and no structure shall be located less than
3,841 feet from any point on the centerline of the runway at Perris Valley Airport, unless
the Federal Aviation Administration has first issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation for said structure.
The conditions of approval set by the ALUC for the South Perris Station are included in the PVL
project Specifications. The PVL corridor within the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area has no
said restrictions besides residential development ; therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
During construction activities, the proposed project will require temporary re-routing of
emergency response routes to avoid street closures. However, prior to construction, local
emergency services for the project so that alternative travel routes can be identified prior to the
road closure. Routine operation and maintenance of the PVL corridor would not interfere with
emergency response or evacuation plans. There would be no impact with mitigation in place
(Mitigation measure HHM-3).
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands
A section of the PVL corridor, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue to the I-215/SR-60 Interchange is
shown to be in a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. This
area of Box Springs Mountain Reserve has been incorporated into a Wildfire Management Plan,
and is under State of California responsibility for fire protection.
Evacuation plans caused to be put into effect by a wildland fire may be affected during
construction activities because the proposed project will be temporarily closing streets or grade
crossings will be temporarily closed or re-routed in this area. Routine operation and
maintenance of the PVL corridor would not interfere with daily operations at the grade crossings
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-18 April 5, 2010
and streets associated with these crossings. There would be no impact with mitigation in place
(Mitigation measure HHM-4).
4.7.5 Mitigation Measures
HHM-1: Where sSoil contamination is suspected at the following locations, appropriate
sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Soil characterization is necessary
prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Contaminated soil will be properly disposed at an
off-site facility. The following sites will be characterized for possible soil contamination
before excavation and/or construction activities begin:
6400 Fischer Road, Riverside – diesel AST release
13260 Highway 215, Riverside – gasoline UST release
2 South D Street, Perris – gasoline UST release
24 D Street, Perris – gasoline UST release
101 and 102 South D Street, Perris – gasoline UST release and waste oil release
210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris – gasoline and diesel UST release
Prior to construction Ssoil characterization activities includingshall occur and includes
sampling and analysis, and drilling will shall be coordinated with and under the guidance of
the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. RCTC will shall contract with a
qualified environmental consultant to determine if the soil has been sampled, characterized
and disposed of properly according to state and federal regulations.
HHM-2: If the Palmyrita Avenue site is selected for the Hunter Park Station, but is not
properly remediated prior to acquisition, RCTC will shall require the potentially responsible
party to remove and remediate hazardous conditions and materials pursuant to the
requirements of the local, state, and federal regulations. If, prior to acquisition, the current
property owner does not complete proper remediation, RCTC will shall perform the
remediation in accordance with a Health and Safety Plan, and in accordance with the
required protocols for the removal and disposal of hazardous materials.
Because of the potential for soil contamination, sampling and disposal plans will shall be
implemented prior to constructionPre-Construction according to a site-specific hazardous
materials investigation work plan.
HHM-3: Before Prior to construction activities commence, RCTC will shall develop prepare
a traffic management plan. prior to starting construction. The contractor will alsotraffic
management plan work shall be prepared in consultation with local jurisdictions to
determine minimize impacts to existing emergency response or evacuation routes. At a
minimum, the traffic management plan will address: detours routes, ; coordination with other
construction projects (if applicable); length and timing of any street closures; temporary
access routes, signage, length and timing of any grade crossing closures; coordination with
police and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes. An additional
component of the plan shall be coordinating with local emergency response agencies to
identify emergency evacuation routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities. This
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.7-19 April 5, 2010
plan is intended to cover the requirements of Mitigation Measure HHM-4 and TP-6.;
temporary access routes and signage if any commercial properties are affected; and contact
information for RCTC and its contractors.
HHM-4: See Mitigation Measure HHM-3 above.Before construction activities commence,
RCTC will develop a traffic management plan prior to starting construction. The contractor
will also work with local jurisdictions to minimize impacts to existing emergency response or
evacuation routes for wildland fires. At a minimum, the traffic management plan will address:
detours; coordination with other construction projects (if applicable); length and timing of any
street closures; length and timing of any grade crossing closures; coordination with police
and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes; temporary access
routes and signage if any commercial properties are affected; and would contain contact
information for RCTC and the project contractors.
4.7.6 Mitigation Summary
The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures are related to construction worker
safety, local regulations, and appropriate emergency planning. Appropriate soil characterization
is important for worker safety as well as knowing the appropriate soil disposal requirements if
necessary. The sites identified in the mitigation measures are areas where there is suspected
soil contamination. Soil characterization should be completed prior to soil disturbing activities in
the areas immediately surrounding the addresses listed.
Appropriate emergency planning is a communication tool for agencies to relay project
information to emergency, or first responders. This planning includes appropriate notification of
planned road closures, appropriate project personnel to contact in an emergency, and expected
maintenance activities to reduce the long term risk of unexpected events causing local access
restrictions.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-1 April 5, 2010
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
This section analyzes the potential impacts on surface water quality, groundwater, flooding, and
stormwater runoff, and assesses their impact in relation to the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed PVL project.
Water quality is the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water. Changes to
water quality can result from flowing through developed areas, soil, or rock material. The effects
can be identified in both surface water and/o r groundwater depending on local surface
topography as well as subsurface soil types.
The information in this section, unless otherwise specified, is based on the Perris Valley Draft
Hydrology Report Volume I (J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc., 2009) and the Perris Valley Draft
Hydrology Report Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis (AECOM, 2009).
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
In the northern sections of the PVL corridor, the general drainage flows from east to west out of
the Box Springs Mountains. Springbrook Wash runs through the BNSF and SJBL alignments
south of Citrus Street and the proposed Citrus Connection in the city of Riverside. Springbrook
Wash eventually leads to the Santa Ana River. Further south, in Box Springs Canyon, the
general flow follows the canyon south, parallel to the SJBL alignment. The SJBL alignment runs
south through Perris Valley, where drainage flows out of the hills from west to east across the
alignment, then southwest toward the San Jacinto River. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4) are the local municipal stormwater drainage systems that transport this runoff
water away.
The San Jacinto River flows out of the San Jacinto Mountains, crosses under the SJBL
alignment at the southern end of the Perris Valley and continues to flow down Railroad Canyon,
into Canyon Lake, to Lake Elsinore, and eventually to the Santa Ana River. During large storms,
runoff from the upper San Jacinto River and Perris Valley flows to Mystic Lake, a natural sump
formed by local subsidence. The lake is relatively shallow and has a large surface area. When
full, Mystic Lake has been observed to maintain a substantial volume with little or no transport
back to the San Jacinto River. During periods of extended rain, the st orage capacity of the lake
is exceeded resulting in outflow to the San Jacinto River.
The San Jacinto River intersects the SJBL alignment near the southern boundary of the PVL
corridor at two bridges; the San Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto River Overflow
Channel Bridge.
Flow rates in the project area are significantly influenced by upstream detention provided by
Mystic Lake and the wide, flat topography that makes up the Perris Valley. The Perris Valley is
extremely flat causing flood waters to move slowly and spread out over a broad area. The
expanse of flooding in Perris Valley is further affected by the sudden constriction presented at
the entrance to the upper end of Railroad Canyon located southwest of Perris. The restriction o f
flow and flat topography of the valley causes a ponding situation and flood waters back up for a
distance of over seven miles upstream.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-2 April 5, 2010
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
Water Pollution Control Act
The federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the CWA) is the cornerstone of surface
water quality protection in the United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and
non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff (33 USC 1251 et seq.). These tools
are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters (USEPA, 2009).
According to the CWA, the only way pollutants can be discharged into water is if authorized by a
NPDES permit (USEPA, 2009). Originally, the NPDES permit focused on reducing pollutants
from discharges from industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage treatment plants. In
1987, the CWA was amended to require the USEPA to regulate stormwater discharges through
the use of the NPDES stormwater permits. The NPDES permit program is administered by
authorized states, including California.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an agency of the United States
Department of Homeland Security with the primary purpose to coordinate response to disasters
that overwhelm the resources of local and state au thorities (FEMA, 2009). President Carter's
1979 Executive Order merged various functions of disaster assistance and civil defense
(previously handled by multiple agencies) under the direction of a single agency, FEMA. FEMA
was created to coordinate the federal government‘s role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating
the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or
man-made, including acts of terror.
National Flood Insurance Program
Created in 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is managed by the Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration and the Mitigation Directorate, which are components of
FEMA. NFIP is a federal insurance program under which flood-prone areas are identified and
flood insurance is made available to residents of participating communities that agree to adopt
and enforce floodplain management ordinances (FEMA, 2009). Currently over 20,100
communities voluntarily adopt and enforce local floodplain management ordinances that provide
flood loss reduction building standards for new and existing development. The goal of NFIP is to
reduce the loss of life, damage to property and rising disaster relief costs in areas with high
flood risks. There are three components of NFIP:
(1) Floodplain Management - Floodplain management is the operation of a community
program of corrective and preventative measures for reducing flood damage. These
measures take a variety of forms and generally include requirements for zoning,
subdivision or building, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances. As a component of
floodplain management, the NFIP works to enforce no-build zones in known
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-3 April 5, 2010
floodplains and relocate or elevate some at-risk structures so that development within
floodplains would not exacerbate flooding in adjacent areas.
(2) Flood Insurance – Federal flood insurance options are made available to residents in
communities that choose to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances.
Flood insurance premium rates depend on what flood zone a resident is located in.
Flood zones are geographical areas that FEMA has defined according to varying
levels of flood risk, and are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
(3) Flood Hazard Mapping – Flood hazard maps, also known as FIRM, indicate areas with
low, moderate, or high risk for flooding, and provide the data needed for floodplain
management programs and to actuarially rate new construction for flood insurance.
FIRMs specifically illustrate a community‘s floodplain boundaries, base flood
elevations (BFE), and flood zones. Floodplain boundaries are the areas of land that
could be impacted by flooding from a nearby body of water. BFE is the computed
elevation (or height) to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during a 100 -year flood.
A 100-year floodplain is not an area subject to floods every 100 years; instead, it is
land bordering a river or channel that can expect to be flooded in a storm that has a
one-percent chance of occurring each year. 100-year floods are used by the NFIP as
the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for and cost of
flood insurance.
There are low, moderate, and high risk flood zone areas. Moderate to low risk areas include
zones that are either outside the 100-year floodplain, areas that have a one percent annual
chance where the average flood depth is less than one foot, or where the contributing drainage
area is less than one square mile. Purchasing flood insurance is not required in these zones.
High risk flood zones, labeled as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) on FIRM, are areas
subject to inundation by a 100-year flood. It is mandatory that flood insurance be purchased
within these zones (FEMA, 2009).
No-Rise Determination
The NFIP and participating communities, including areas within the PVL project area, require
that development within floodplains does not exacerbate flooding in adjacent ar eas. A floodway
and the adjacent land areas must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation. Therefore, the participating communities
must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in
upstream flood elevations. Title 44 of the CFR, § 60.3(d)(3), states:
―A community shall prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction ,
substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory
floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the
community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge" (CFR, 2001).
Prior to issuing any development permits involving activities in a regulatory floodway, the
community must obtain a No-Rise Certification stating the proposed development would not
impact the pre-project BFEs, regulatory floodway elevations, or regulatory floodway widths
(FEMA, 2009). An engineering analysis must be conducted before a permit can be issued. The
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-4 April 5, 2010
community's permit file must have a record of the results of this analysis, which can be in the
form of a No-Rise Certification.
General Code of Operating Rules
The General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) was developed to document standardized
operating practices for railroads. GCOR is currently used by the BNSF rai lroad, and every Class
I railroad west of the Mississippi River, most of the Class II railroads, and numerous shortline
railroads (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999). GCOR is essentially a non-regulatory set
of rules and guidelines that are in place to enhance railroad safety.
One guideline (6.21.2) addresses flooding along railroads. This guideline states that if rails have
been overtopped by flooding, operations must be suspended until the railroad tracks have been
inspected and verified as safe (GCOR, 2005).
State Policies and Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter-
Cologne Act) to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of the State's water resources
(SWRCB, 2009). The Porter-Cologne Act establishes water quality policies, enforces water
quality standards for surface and ground water, and regulates discharges of pollutants SWRCB,
2009). The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs as the principal
state agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California.
State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Boards
The SWRCB has the ultimate authority over State water rights and water quality policy. Nine
RWQCBs are also established to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and
regional level. The SWRCB and RWQCBs are responsible for ensuring implementation and
compliance with the provisions of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Act.
The PVL corridor is located within Region 8, the Santa Ana RWQCB (Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board [SARWQCB], 2009). The Santa Ana Region includes the upper
and lower Santa Ana River watersheds, the San Jacinto River watershed, and several other
small drainage areas. The Santa Ana Region covers parts of southwestern San Bernardino
County, western Riverside County, and northwestern Orange County.
Water Quality Objectives
RWQCB are required to develop and periodically update a Water Quality Control Plan, also
known as a Basin Plan (SWRCB, 2009). The Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives for
the ground and surface waters of the region and includes an implementation plan describing the
actions by the Regional Board and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain these
water quality objectives.
As defined in the Porter-Cologne Act, water quality objectives are the set limits or levels of
chemical constituents allowable in water (SWRCB, 2009). The design ation of water quality
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-5 April 5, 2010
objectives must satisfy all of the applicable requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act and the
CWA.
Through water quality objectives, the RWQCB provides for the reasonable protection of
beneficial uses, taking into account existing water quality, environmental and economic
considerations.
Beneficial Uses
Beneficial uses are defined within the Basin Plan as the uses of water necessary for the survival
or well being of man, plants, and wildlife (SARWQCB, 2008). These uses of water serve to
promote the tangible and intangible economic, social, and environmental goals of man.
The following beneficial uses, as defined statewide, are designated within the Santa Ana
Region and are shown in Table 4.8-1 and Table 4.8-2:
Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) – Includes uses of water for community, military, or
individual water supply systems including, but not limited to drinking water supply.
Agricultural Supply (AGR) – Includes uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching
including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range
grazing.
Industrial Process Supply (PROC) – Includes uses of water for industrial activities that
depend primarily on water supply.
Industrial Service Supply (IND) – Includes beneficial uses of water for industrial activities
that do not depend primarily on water quality, including by not limited to mining, cooling
water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel mining, fire protection, or oil well re-
pressurization.
Groundwater Recharge (GWR) – Includes uses of water for natural and artificial recharge of
groundwater for purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or halting of salt
water intrusion into freshwater aquifers.
Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) – Includes uses of water for recreational activities
involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These
uses may include, but not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and SCUBA
diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing and use of natural hot springs.
Non-contact Recreation (REC-2) – Includes the uses of water for recreational activities
involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water where
ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not
limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and
marine life study, hunting, sightseeing and aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the
above activities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-6 April 5, 2010
Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) – Includes the uses of water that support warm water
ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats,
vegetation, fish or wildlife including invertebrates.
Wildlife Habitat (WILD) – Includes the uses of water that supports wildlife habitats that may
include, but are not limited to, the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey
species used by waterfowl and other wildlife.
Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) – Includes uses of water that
support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish.
This use is applicable only for the protection of anadromous fish (e.g., those fish that
transition between saltwater and freshwater conditions).
Table 4.8-1
Surface Water Beneficial Uses within the Project Area
Basin
Hydrologic
Unit
Beneficial Use
MUN AGR GWR REC-1 REC-2 WARM WILD SPWN
Upper Santa River
Basin
Santa Ana River
Reach 4 - Mission Blvd.
in Riverside to San
Jacinto Fault in San
Bernardino
801.27 * X X X X X
San Jacinto River
Basin
San Jacinto River
Reach 3 - Canyon Lake
to Nuevo Road 802.11 * I I I I I I
Notes:
I Intermittent Beneficial Use
* Excepted from MUN
Source: SARWQCB, 2008
Table 4.8-2
Groundwater Beneficial Uses within the Project Area
Basin
Hydrologic
Unit
Beneficial Use
MUN AGR IND PROC
Middle Santa River Basin
Riverside - E 801.27 X X X X
Riverside - F 801.27 X X X X
San Jacinto River Basin
Perris North 802.11 X X X X
Perris South 802.11 X X X X
Source: SARWQCB, 2008
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-7 April 5, 2010
Anti-degradation Policy
SARWQCB water quality objectives conform to USEPA regulations covering anti-degradation
(40 CFR 131.12) and State Board Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to
Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California.
The main objective of the anti-degradation policy is ―Wherever the existing water quality of water
is better than the quality of water established herein as objectives, such existing quality shall be
maintained unless otherwise provided by the provisions of the SWRCB Resolution 68 -16,
―Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California‖, including
any revisions thereto, or the Federal Anti-degradation Policy, (40 CFR 131.12). Applications for
the anti-degradation provisions to the standard process requires supporting documentation and
appropriate findings whenever a standard (water quality objective) is made less restrictive to
accommodate the discharge of pollutants or other activities of man.
Resolution No. 68-16 establishes a general principle of non-degradation, with flexibility to allow
some changes in water quality which is in the best interests of the State. Changes in water
quality are allowed only where it is in the public interest and beneficial uses are not
unreasonably affected. The terms and conditions of Resolution No. 68-16 serve as the general
narrative water quality objective in all state water quality control plans.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Projects that anticipate disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage
under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity
(CGP) (SWRCB, 2009). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading
and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular
maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
This CGP requires the development and implementation of a site specific SWPPP. The
SWPPP should contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and
proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general
topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project.
The SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the
placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program;
a chemical monitoring program for "non-visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure
of BMP; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body.
It should also be noted that the State is in the process of revising the CGP. It‘s likely that the
new permit will be in place prior to project construction commencing; therefore the project will
need to comply with the most current permit requirements.
Local Policies and Regulations
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) was created
in 1945 to protect people, property, and watersheds from damage or destruction from flood and
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-8 April 5, 2010
stormwaters (RCFCWCD, 2009). The RCFCWCD has also been designated by FEMA to
administer the NFIP program and issue the No-Rise Certification in the western parts of the
County where the PVL project is located. The administrator coordinates, implements, and
enforces the local floodplain ordinance by granting or denying development permits in accord
with its provisions. Any development or encroachments made to the SFHA must be reviewed by
the administrator to determine whether proposed building sites would be reasonably safe from
flooding, and to ensure that BFEs are not raised, which could create flooding in other areas.
This may include the submittal of studies, calculations, plans and other information required to
meet FEMA requirements.
In 2000, the RCFCWCD agreed to the role of ―Principal Permittee‖ for NPDES permits
(SARWQCB, 2002). The current NPDES permit applies to the entirety of Riverside County and
requires controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the water. The ult imate goal of the
NPDES permit is to protect water quality by ensuring that the flows in Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4s) do not contain an exceedance of pollutants (SARWQCB, 2002).
In order to effectively implement this permit, Drainage Area Management Plans (DAMP) were
created. Each DAMP outlines the major programs and policies for controlling pollutants and are
anticipated to be dynamic documents. Within these documents are identified the BMPs for
existing facilities and new development. Examples of some of the BMPs identified include;
straw wattles/fiber rolls, silt fence, and street cleaning. Currently, there are five DAMP that cover
the project area.
Riverside County General Plan
Riverside County General Plan addresses flooding concerns in the County, especially around
the Santa Ana River, San Jacinto River, and Whitewater River, and provides regulations and
requirements for new development (Riverside County, 2008).
Specifically, policies S.4.1 – S.4.12 provide requirements for new development in high risk flood
areas within the County. Included in these policies are that, for construction in 100-year
floodplains, projects must mitigate the hazard to the satisfaction of Riverside County
responsible agencies. Additionally, construction is prohibited in high risk areas unless the
development will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a 100 -year
flood.
Riverside County Resolution No. 2005-220
Riverside County approved Resolution No. 2005-220 (RCFCWCD, 2005), setting forth policies
and procedures to control developments within the San Jacinto River floodway and requiring
permits or applicable approvals from the RCFCWCD, USACE, USFWS, CDFG, and the
SARWQCB.
City of Perris General Plan
The City of Perris General Plan established policies to reduce losses that result from flooding
(2005). This plan enables development of flood control facilities that significantly reduce the
amount of property at risk for flooding, and attempts to restrict future development in areas of
high flood hazard until the risk is or can be mitigated (City of Perris, 2005).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-9 April 5, 2010
Policy No. I.B.4 requires new development to incorporate facilities for on-site control of
stormwater runoff.
Policy No. I.B.5 requires flood mitigation plans for all new development located in 100 -year flood
zones.
4.8.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Hydrology/Water Quality is
defined by:
1. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
2. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre -existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)
3. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site
4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site
5. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would resul t in flooding
on- or off-site
6. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff
7. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality
8. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map
9. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows
10. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam
11. Would the project increase the likelihood of inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-10 April 5, 2010
4.8.4 Project Impacts
Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
Citrus Connection
Construction within the Citrus Connection would include ground preparation, placement of
ballast, and laying of concrete ties on the ballast, with welded rail welded rail for approximately
2,000 feet of new track. During installation of this portion of track, gasoline, diesel, brake fluids,
paints, and other pollutants would be used by construction personnel in small quantities.
Since the Citrus Connection is a curved section of track, wheel lubricators on the trains would
be utilized during operation. Wheel lubricators reduce wheel wear and wheel squeal going
around the curve. The wheel lubricators use very small quantities of product to reduce squeal.
Because they are used in small quantities, in a small area, the lubrication is not anticipated to
be a component of local runoff.
Overall, the operations and maintenance of the Citrus Connection would be the same as for the
existing SJBL alignment. Therefore, this portion of the PVL project would not violate water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
SJBL Alignment
Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJBL alignment would primarily
upgrade the existing tracks and culverts. Proposed development for this portion of the PVL
project is not expected to change appreciably from existing conditions and therefore not violate
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
A bypass track would be constructed along certain segments of the SJBL alignment, as shown
on Figure 2.4-3. Construction activities would include ground preparation, and placing ballast
and concrete ties with welded rail.
The operation and maintenance of this additional bypass would be the same as for the existing
SJBL alignment. Therefore, the main alignment of the PVL project would not contribute to a
violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Stations
Construction at the stations would involve ground preparation and laying a crushed aggregate
base that would be capped by pavement. Other activities would include the transport and
placement of fill, and construction of structural features (i.e. platforms, canopies, etc.).
The relative small size of the station platforms would not create a surface large enough to
create a significant amount of polluted runoff that would affect water quality. Operation and
maintenance of the station parking lots could potentially create polluted runoff. Oil and fluid
leaks from parked cars would potentially be transported by runoff water as it flows towards the
local MS4s. RCTC will install structural BMPs to properly contain any expected pollutants.
BMPs could include catch basin inserts and oil/water separators that would stop debris, oil, and
other pollutants from entering the MS4s.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-11 April 5, 2010
With the planned BMPs in place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the stations
would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Layover Facility
Construction at this site would include ground preparation, transporting and laying fi ll or crushed
aggregate, and building structural features. The proposed Layover Facility would include
storage buildings, parking areas, tracks for parked trains, equipment, and landscaped
vegetation. It is expected that up to four trains would be stored at this facility overnight.
Drips pans would be installed where engines are parked in order to catch any fuel, lubrication,
or hydraulic fluid drips from engines stored in the yard. There would be a train inspection pit
located under one of the tracks. The pit allows train mechanics to inspect the undercarriage of
the train as necessary. The drainage from the drip pans and the inspection pit is directly
connected to an oil/water separator for treatment prior to discharge into the local MS4. The
oil/water separator would be periodically serviced to remove any accumulated oil and waste.
The proposed parking lot at the Layover Facility would have a similar effect on water quality as
the proposed station parking lots.
With the planned BMPs in place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Layover
Facility would not contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
Bridges
Two bridges will be replaced in-kind as part of the PVL project: the San Jacinto River Bridge
(MP 20.70) and the San Jacinto Overflow Channel Bridge (MP 20.80). Replacement of these
bridges would include removal of the existing structures and the addition of steel piles and
concrete collars at the base, precast concrete caps overlain by precast prestressed concrete
slabs, and ballast and tracks on top.
Construction would be conducted from within and adjacent to the channels, and would occur
during the summer (dry season) months when the San Jacinto River and San Jacinto River
Overflow Channel are dry. Equipment storage, fueling, and construction staging areas would be
located to minimize risks of waste discharge and water contamination, and the project specific
SWPPP would identify proper BMPs to control anticipated pollutants.
Therefore, the bridge replacement would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements and no impacts are anticipated.
Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)
The proposed PVL project involves upgrading the existing rail corridor, and adding four stations
and a Layover Facility. The approximate maximum depth of excavation at the proposed
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-12 April 5, 2010
stations and Layover Facility is 14 feet below existing grade. Dewatering is not anticipated
because groundwater is greater than 50 feet in project area. No ground water resources would
be needed for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the PVL project. Additionally, it
should be noted that the paved areas at the stations and Layover Facility would not interfere
with groundwater recharge because of the very small size compared to the overall watershed
area. Therefore, the PVL project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere with existing groundwater resources. No impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site
Citrus Connection
The current BNSF and SJBL alignments traverse the Springbrook Wash. The proposed Citrus
Connection track would be located north of the Wash, on disturbed vacant land.
The approximately 2,000 feet of new track proposed for the Citrus Connection would connect
the two existing alignments, the BNSF and SJBL, south of where they currently connect.
Although the track will be new in this area, the drainage patterns are not anticipated to
substantially change. Current drainage is via sheet flow off the vacant land and into
Springbrook Wash. With the installation of the new track, the sheet flow will be slowed by the
track but water will be allowed to percolate through the ballast rock prior to reaching
Springbrook Wash. Because the new construction is not altering existing drainage patterns, no
impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
SJBL Alignment
The existing drainage pattern of the project area currently includes the SJBL alignment. Since
the construction, operation, and maintenance of this alignment would primarily upgrade the
existing tracks, selected culverts, and bridges, proposed development within this segment of the
PVL corridor would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. The bypass
track would be built adjacent to the existing SJBL tracks with an extension of the existing
culverts. This bypass track would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. There are
no impacts anticipated for this issue area.
Stations
The station locations are all proposed to be constructed on previously disturbed land that does
not contain defined drainage patterns. The stations, including the associated parking
structures, are designed to direct local drainage into catch basins that connect into the local
MS4. Therefore, the stations are not expected to impact this issue area.
Layover Facility
The proposed Layover Facility would be constructed on previously disturbed land that does not
contain defined drainage patterns. The Layover Facility is designed to direct local drainage into
local catch basins that connect into the MS4. Therefore, this facility is not expected to impact
this issue area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-13 April 5, 2010
Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site
Citrus Connection
The current BNSF and SJBL alignments traverse the Springbrook Wash. However, the
proposed Citrus Connection track will not affect the existing drainage pattern.
The approximately 2,000 feet of new track proposed for the Citrus Connection would serve to
connect two existing alignments, the BNSF and SJBL south of where they currently connect.
Overall, the operations and maintenance of the Citrus Connection would be the same as for the
SJBL alignment. Since the proposed Citrus Connection would not be located in an area with a
defined drainage pattern, the Citrus Connection would not substantially alter an existing
drainage pattern or substantially increase the surface runoff in the site. Because the new
construction is not altering existing drainage patterns, no impacts are anticipated for this issue
area.
SJBL Alignment
The existing drainage pattern of the project area currently includes the SJBL alignment. Since
the construction, operation, and maintenance of this alignment would primarily upgrade the
existing tracks and selected culverts, proposed development within this segment of the PVL
corridor would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area or substantially
increase the surface runoff in the site.
The bypass track would be built adjacent to the existing SJBL tracks and would be similar to the
existing tracks. The selected culvert improvements include extending the existing culverts under
the bypass track. This is not expected to change the existing drainage patterns . Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
Stations
The relative small size of the station platforms would not create an impermeable surface large
enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area. The station parking
lots would increase the amount of impermeable paved surfaces in the area, which would create
additional runoff because the paved area does not allow for water infiltration. However, the
stations are designed to direct local drainage into catch basins that connect into the local MS4,
which would control the surface runoff and avoid flooding on or off -site.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
Layover Facility
The proposed Layover Facility would be constructed on previously disturbed land that does not
contain defined drainage patterns such as streams or rivers.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-14 April 5, 2010
The buildings planned for the Layover Facility are anticipated to be raised off the ground
approximately six feet. It is not expected that these raised st ructures would create an
impermeable surface large enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding
area. Parking lots for the Layover Facility would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces
in the area because the paved lots do not allow for water infiltration. However, the Layover
Facility is designed to direct local drainage into the MS4, which would control the surface runoff
and avoid flooding on or off-site.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff
SJBL Alignment
Along the SJBL alignment are existing drainage structures (culverts) that allow stormwater flow
to pass beneath the railroad tracks. As part of the PVL project, the culverts that would be
replaced or extended will continue to convey the local stormwater flow beneath the tracks.
These rehabilitated culverts will allow the same amount of water to pass through the alignment
as the old ones.
Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJBL alignment would upgrade the
existing tracks and selected culverts, the increase in impervious area is limited. Therefore, the
proposed development within this segment of the PVL corridor would not create additional
runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Additionally, the increase of twelve trains per day would cause minor quantities of oil and
lubricants to weep onto the track. It is not anticipated that these quantities are great enough to
cause an increase in polluted runoff. Therefore, there are no impacts for this issue area.
Stations
The relative small size of the station platforms will not create an impermeable surface large
enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area. Operation and
maintenance of the station parking lots would increase the amount of impermeable paved
surfaces in the area. These surfaces would create additional runoff because the paved area
does not allow for water infiltration. However, engineering designs for each station include
providing stormwater detention when required. With these design elements in place, it is
anticipated that there will be sufficient capacity within the MS4s to support the proposed PVL
project.
Oil and fluid leaks from parked cars would potentially be added to runoff water as it flows
towards the local MS4s. RCTC will install structural BMPs including catch basin inserts and
oil/water separators that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the MS4s.
With the planned BMPs in place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the stations
would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to the MS4 .
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-15 April 5, 2010
Layover Facility
The buildings planned for the Layover Facility are anticipated to be raised off the ground
approximately six feet. It is not expected that these raised structures would create an
impermeable surface large enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding
area. The Layover Facility parking lots would increase the amount of impermeable paved
surfaces in the area. This surface would create additional runoff because the paved area does
not allow for water infiltration. However, engineering designs for the Layover Facility include
sizing the catch basins and local drainage structures to be of sufficient capacity to accept the
additional runoff. With these design elements in place, it is anticipated that there will be
sufficient capacity within the MS4s to support the Layover Facility.
Oil and fluid leaks from parked cars would potentially be added to runoff water as it flows
towards the local MS4s. RCTC would install structural BMPs including catch basin inserts that
would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the MS4s. With the planned BMPs in
place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Layover Facility would not provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to the MS4 .
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality
Most of the PVL project consists of an existing rail corridor. It is not anticipated that new sources
of pollutants would occur as a result of the proposed upgrades.
Proposed new structures for the PVL project are minimal, and drainage and pollutants would be
managed with appropriate measures that comply with federal, state, and local regulations.
Therefore, the PVL project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. No impacts
are anticipated for this issue area.
Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map
The proposed PVL project would enhance transportation infrastructure by extending commuter
rail service to additional portions of Riverside County. It does not include the construction of
housing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede
or redirect flood flows
Ten FIRM panels were evaluated to identify flood designations and floodways including and
proximate to the PVL corridor. Four of these FIRM panels were located in a 100 -year flood
hazard area (FEMA, 2008). (Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2)
FIRM Panel 06065C0065G: The area of Springbrook Wash has a 100-year flood Zone A
designation. A small portion of the alignment, where the alignment passes over the Wash,
between Spring Street and Citrus Street is within this high flood risk area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-16 April 5, 2010
FIRM Panel 06065C0727G: A portion of the SJBL alignment at Blaine Street, within the
UCR area, has a 100-year flood Zone A designation. The floodplain boundary ends at the
alignment and is identified east along Blaine Street and curves north at Valencia Hill Drive.
Zone A has a high potential for flood risk.
FIRM Panel 06065C0731G: The University Wash located in Islander Park of the UCR area
has a 100-year flood Zone AE designation. The floodplain boundary starts near Linden
Street and is identified south to Big Springs Road, and is bounded by the alignment along
the eastern boundary. Zone AE is a high risk area.
FIRM Panel 06065C1440G: The area adjacent to the west side of the ali gnment at Metz
Road has a 100-year flood Zone A designation. This flood area is located in Metz Park
within the City of Perris. Additionally, this panel includes the San Jacinto River and
associated floodway. The floodplain boundary for the San Jacinto River is partially within a
100-year flood area, which includes the railroad bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80). Both bridges
(MP 20.70 and 20.80) are mapped within the 6,600-foot wide floodway. Extending from the
floodway is a 12,000-foot-wide floodplain boundary for the 100-year event in Zone AE.
The SJBL alignment, two bridges, the South Perris Station option, and the Layover Facility are
portions of the PVL project that are located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Based on the
hydraulic analysis presented in the Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report Volume II San
Jacinto River Analysis report, it is expected that the bridges, rail alignment, station platform,
station parking lot, and Layover Facility could be submerged as much as five feet during the
100-year flood (AECOM, 2009).
SJBL Alignment
Tracks and culverts along the SJBL alignment are already in existence, and the proposed
upgrades would not substantially change the existing configuration. Therefore, development of
the SJBL alignment within the PVL corridor would not add new structures within a 100 -year
flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows.
Bridges
The San Jacinto River Bridge (MP 20.70) and the San Jacinto Overflow Channel Bridge MP
(20.80) are in the southernmost 100-year flood hazard area within the PVL corridor. These
bridges would be replaced as part of the project.
The proposed bridges would have a greater length and thickness (or profile view) than the
existing bridges. The San Jacinto River Bridge is currently 140-feet long, and the replacement
would be 156 feet in length. The thickness (or profile view) of the proposed bridge would
increase from the current 2.67 feet to 4.75 feet, which would reduce the distance between the
lowest part of the bridge and the river because of the increase in span.
The San Jacinto Overflow Channel Bridge is currently 54 feet long, and the replacement bridge
would be 70 feet long. The thickness (or profile view) of the bridge would increase to 3.16 feet
which would also reduce the distance between the lowest part of the bridge and the river
because of the increase in span.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-17 April 5, 2010
The San Jacinto River channel would be widened to offset the increased bridge width, which
would allow the same amount of water to continue passing under the replacement bridges, and
the bridge replacements were designed to ensure that there is no increase in water surface
elevation upstream. Additionally, according to the Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report
Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis (AECOM, 2009), the San Jacinto River Bridge and the
San Jacinto Overflow Channel Bridge would not result in an impact related to base flood
elevations, regulatory floodway elevations, or floodway widths. Since project design plans for
the bridges would be in compliance with the NFIP‘s No-Rise requirements, it is anticipated that
a No-Rise Certification would be obtained for the project through the RCFCWC D. Therefore, the
proposed bridges would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impacts are anticipated for
this issue area.
South Perris Station and Layover Facility
The South Perris Station option and Layover Facility would be located in the southernmost 100-
year flood hazard area within the PVL corridor. The relative small size of the station platform
would not create a surface that would significantly impede or redirect flows in a 100 -year flood.
The proposed parking lot at the South Perris Station option and the proposed Layover Facility
would place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. However, according to the Perris
Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis (AECOM, 2009) South
Perris Station option and Layover Facility structures would not result in an impact related to
base flood elevations, regulatory floodway elevations, and floodway widths. Since project
design plans for the South Perris Station option and Layover Facility would be in compliance
with the NFIP‘s No-Rise requirements, it is anticipated that a No-Rise Certification would be
obtained for the project through the RCFCWCD. Therefore, proposed structures at the South
Perris Station option and Layover Facility would not impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-
year flood hazard area, and no impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
0.63
4.8-1
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666firmEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREFEMA ZONES FOR FIRM PANELS
C0065G, C0727G, AND C0731G
2.60
3.67
FIRM PANEL 06065C0065G
FIRM PANEL 06065C0727G
FIRM PANEL 06065C0731G
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
PANEL C0065G
PANELS C0727G
AND C0731G
CHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
O
H
N R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
KEY MAP
±
NOT TO SCALE
±
0 1,000
Feet
0 1,000
Feet
0 1,000
Feet
LEGEND
FLOOD ZONE
PVL ALIGNMENT
MILE POST
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS
EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 8, 2008
17.5020.70
ZONE A
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
20.80
ZONE X
#*#*
4.8-2
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666firm1EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREFEMA ZONES FOR FIRM PANEL
C1440G
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
PANEL C1440GCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RDKEY MAP ±
NOT TO SCALE
±0 3,000 6,000
Feet
LEGEND
FLOOD ZONE
FLOODWAY
PVL ALIGNMENT
MILE POST
BRIDGE#*
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS
EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 8, 2008
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.8-20 April 5, 2010
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam
During torrential rainfall events or periods of extended rain, the storage capacity of Mystic Lake
would be exceeded and overflow into the San Jacinto River. If this occurs, the rive r could swell
and potentially flood the previously designated surrounding areas.
SJBL Alignment
Trains would not run if flooding occurs within the PVL corridor (GCOR, 2005). Therefore, PVL
riders would not be exposed to flooding along the SJBL alignment.
Development along the SJBL alignment would involve upgrading existing tracks; no additional
structures would be added along the alignment. Therefore, this development would not expose
new structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.
South Perris Station and Layover Facility
The South Perris Station option and Layover Facility would be located in the southernmost flood
hazard area within the PVL corridor. Trains would not run if flooding occurs within the PVL
corridor (GCOR, 2006) and the employee support building within the Layover Facility would be
raised by six feet to remain out of the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, people would not be
exposed to flooding at the Layover Facility or proposed South Perris Station.
The raised structures at the Layover Facility could be exposed to significant risk of loss
involving flooding. However, according to the Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report Volume
II San Jacinto River Analysis, Layover Facility structures would not result in an impact related to
base flood elevations, regulatory floodway elevations, and floodway widths. Since project
design plans for the Layover Facility would be compliance with the NFIP‘s No -Rise
requirements, it is anticipated that a No-Rise Certification would be obtained for the project
through the RCFCWCD. Therefore, the proposed Layover Facility would not expose structures
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, and no impacts are anticipated for
this issue area.
Would the project increase the likelihood of inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
Because the PVL corridor is not located in close proximity to a coast or ocean, implementation
of the proposed project would not create or be subject to inundation b y seiche, or tsunami.
Additionally, the project is on a rail corridor originally developed over 100 years ago. Since
current rail operations will continue, and the commuter trains will not increase the current risk, it
is not anticipated that the implementation of the PVL project will increase the likelihood of a
mudflow. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this issue area.
4.8.5 Mitigation Measures
The proposed PVL project will not have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality. No
mitigation measures are required.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-1 April 5, 2010
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section of the EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the project associated
with land use and planning. Existing land uses within the proposed PVL project area (including
properties to be acquired), as well as the areas adjacent to the project area, are characterized
in the context of the County of Riverside General Plan, City of Riverside General Plan, March
JPA General Plan, City of Perris General Plan, and the associated City and County Zoning
Ordinances, as well as other adopted plans and policies. It should be noted here that the
existing rail corridor, as with all rail corridors, is exempt from loca l land use regulations.
However, the station sites and Layover Facility are subject to local use regulations, which
require coordination with the local agencies.
FEMA‘s NFIP was analyzed because of flood zones located within a portion of the PVL near the
San Jacinto River. The Habitat Multiple Species Conservation Plan was also reviewed for
consistency. However, the majority of analysis focuses on land use compatibility, General Plan
consistency, and the implications of the project on existin g and surrounding land uses.
Information for this section was obtained primarily from public documents, public and agency
contacts.
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Existing conditions within the project corridor include established rail lines that were constructed
in the 19th century. RCTC acquired the SJBL in 1993, and has an agreement with the BNSF to
continue freight service along the SJBL corridor. The SJBL alignment corridor extends from the
city of Riverside/Highgrove Area where it currently connects to the BNSF main line, and
continues west of and adjacent to Moreno Valley and MARB, through the Mead Valley area, and
culminates in the city of Perris. PVL project components are surrounded by a range of land
uses including transportation, industrial, residential, commercial, educational, and open space.
Table 4.9-1 presents the current land uses adjacent to the PVL corridor.
Citrus Connection
The proposed Citrus Connection, a new segment of rail that would connect the BNSF to the
SJBL south of where they currently connect, and lies within the Riverside city limits southwest of
the unincorporated Highgrove area. As such, the Citrus Connection comprises the
northernmost element of the PVL. Its boundaries include Villa Street to the north, the SJBL to
the east, and the BNSF to the west; its southern boundary lies approximately 1,000 feet south of
Villa Street.
The site is comprised entirely of vacant land, and is designated and zoned for Business/Office
Park in the City of Riverside 2025 General Plan. The Business/Office Park land use designation
is primarily intended for light industrial uses, consistent with the General Plan‘s goals to create
an economic/job center. The site is planned for development as a warehouse/distribution
center in the absence of the PVL project.
A metal recycling facility operates directly north of the site. A residential neighborhood lining
Transit Avenue lies east of the site beyond the segment of the SJBL, while light industry
comprises the blocks west of the site beyond the BNSF. Directly south of the site runs the
Springbrook Wash, which is designated as City of Riverside Open Space.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-2 April 5, 2010
Table 4.9-1
Land Uses Adjacent to the PVL
General Location Use Relevant Planning Document(s)
Proposed Citrus
Connection
Business Park, Open Space, Open Space
Connection (Springbrook Wash), Light
Industrial, and Medium and High-Density
Residential
City of Riverside General Plan (2007),
Riverside County General Plan - Highgrove Area
Plan (2003)
Proposed Palmyrita
Station Business Park City of Riverside General Plan (2007)
Gage Canal/Spruce
Street
Business Park, Open Connection, Major Open
Space and Parks City of Riverside General Plan (2007)
Box Springs Mountain
Reserve
Major Open Space and Parks, Open Space
Connections, Rural Mountainous
City of Riverside General Plan (2007),
Riverside County Highgrove Area Plan (2003)
I-215/SR-60
Interchange
Medium to Very High-Density Residential,
Commercial Retail, Conservation Riverside County Highgrove Area Plan (2003)
I-215 between SR-60
and Alessandro Blvd. Business Park City of Riverside General Plan (2007)
Proposed Moreno
Valley/March Field
Station
Light Industrial Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (2003), Meridian
Specific Plan (2003)
Cactus Avenue to Van
Buren Blvd.
Public Facilities, Community Center,
Commercial Retail, Commercial Tourist Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (2003)
East of I-215 MARB Military Operations and Aviation, Public
Facilities March JPA General Plan (2004)
Van Buren Blvd. to
Nandina Avenue Public Facilities Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (2003)
Nandina Avenue to
Ramona Expressway Light Industrial Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (2003),
Mead Valley Area Plan (2003)
Rider Street to Citrus
Avenue Light Industrial Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (2003),
Mead Valley Area Plan (2003)
Harvill Avenue/North A
Loop Commercial Retail, Business Park Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (2003),
Mead Valley Area Plan (2003)
Nuevo Road to
Downtown Perris Public Facilities, Residential, Open Space City of Perris General Plan (2005)
Proposed Downtown
Perris Station Public Facilities, Commercial Neighborhood City of Perris Downtown Specific Plan (1993)
7th Street to the San
Jacinto River
Residential, Community Commercial, Light
Industrial
City of Perris General Plan (2005), City of Perris
Downtown Specific Plan (1993), City of Perris
Downtown Draft Specific Plan Amendment (2007)
San Jacinto River to
Mapes Road
Residential, Open Space, Commercial,
Business, Industrial, Schools, Recreation
Green Valley Specific Plan (1990),
Riverglen Specific Plan (1992)
Proposed South Perris
Station and Layover
Facility
Light Industrial, Neighborhood Commercial City of Perris General Plan (2005)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-3 April 5, 2010
At this location, the City of Riverside General Plan includes a public recreational trail. A recently
constructed driveway with a culvert, crossing Springbrook Wash connects the site to existing
warehouses further south.
The unincorporated Highgrove area, which is located just east of Riverside City limits and
northeast of the Citrus Connection, encompasses the single-family residential housing of the
Highgrove community and the westernmost portion of Box Springs Mountain Reserve. In the
existing condition the Highgrove area is partly developed in conformity with the area plan.
Hunter Park Station options
From the Citrus Connection site, the SJBL runs through existing industrial development and
scattered agricultural residential uses south to the location of the proposed Hunter Park Station.
The Hunter Park Station is the only new station to be constructed in the City of Riverside , and it
is anticipated to serve primarily the city of Riverside and Highgrove area.
Three options are under consideration for the new Hunter Park Station. The Palmyrita option,
north of Columbia Avenue is currently being developed for light industrial use, while the
Columbia option, adjacent to and west of the proposed Palmyrita option, currently hosts citrus
orchard. The Marlborough option, just north of and adjacent to Marlborough Avenue, is located
on cleared, disturbed land about 1,000 feet south of the Columbia and Palmyrita options.
South of Hunter Park Station, the SJBL alignment extends through urbanized areas and open
space. Further south, the SJBL runs adjacent to residential neighborhoods, a church, scattered
commercial, Highland Park and Highland School, and the 20 -acre Islander Park. To the west of
the SJBL is UCR, and to the east lies Box Springs Mountain Reserve, and Islander Park.
South of Islander Park, the SJBL runs along the eastern boundary of the city of Riverside.
Single-family residential development lies to the west of the SJBL and also to the east, where
homes are constructed on the hillsides between the SJBL and Box Springs Mountain Reserve.
The SJBL runs along the eastern edges of areas being developed as business parks in the City
of Riverside. The Sycamore Canyon Business Park, which includes approximately 920 acres of
commercial and industrial land uses (south of the junction of I -215 and SR-60), is being
developed within the larger Sycamore Canyon area. The Sycamore Highlands Business Park is
currently being developed to the south, north of Alessandro Boulevard, within the larger
Sycamore Highlands area. In this area, Moreno Valley residential and commercial
developments are located to the east of the SJBL.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
The Moreno Valley/March Field Station will be located within the boundaries of the former
March Air Force Base, which lies just south of the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley and
comprises land on both sides of the SJBL. The proposed station site will be located on an
undeveloped 14.8-acre parcel located east of Meridian Parkway and west of the SJBL, about
750 feet south of Alessandro Boulevard.
The MARB is currently under the jurisdiction of the March JPA, which operates under a joint
powers agreement between Riverside County and the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-4 April 5, 2010
Perris. The MARB airfield is utilized for military operations and civilian aviation operations,
primarily air cargo. Remaining federal property of the MARB (east of I-215) is utilized by the
U.S. Air Force Reserve, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air National
Guard (MARB, 2009). The March Inland Port is located east of the SJBL at the MARB.
Unincorporated areas of Riverside County comprise the lands adjacent to and west of the SJBL
south of the Moreno Valley/March Field Station. These lands are developed with warehouses,
light industry, and business park development, similar to development further north. The City of
Perris, to the east of the SJBL in this area, is similar to the unincorporated county areas west of
the SJBL, with large areas currently undeveloped or being developed for light industry.
The Moreno Valley/March Field Station (and approximately 400-space parking area) is located
within the Meridian Specific Plan area of the MARB, which is a planned industrial business park
west of I-215 and south of Alessandro Boulevard. The land use planning and designations
were approved for the Meridian Specific Plan. The corresponding EIR was certified with the
new land uses evaluated.
Downtown Perris Station
The Nan Sanders Elementary School, undeveloped parcels, residential development and
business parks are located in Perris (near the city boundary) and west of the SJBL. The site for
the Downtown Perris Station is located further south in Perris; this station would be part of the
Perris Multimodal Facility that is currently under construction between South C Street on the
west, San Jacinto Street on the north, and 4th Street (SR -74) on the south. The Perris
Multimodal Transit Facility includes improvements on San Jacinto and C Streets, and will close
2nd Street between C and D Streets. It is surrounded by commercial and residential uses.
South Perris Station and Layover Facility
The site of the South Perris Station and Layover Facility is also located in Perris. The South
Perris Station and Layover Facility would be constructed adjacent to one another on a single
site south of the San Jacinto River (which crosses under the SJBL). The site would be north of
the intersection of Mapes and Case Roads, and west of the I -215 ROW. The site is largely
undeveloped property east of the Perris Valley Airport and north of the EMWD sewage
treatment facility. It currently comprises agricultural fields and a portion of Bonnie Drive and
Mapes Road. The lands surrounding this site and this portion of the SJBL are rural in character
with active agriculture.
PVL Floodplains
Based on a review of the above identified FIRM panels, the southern portion of the SJBL is
within a regulatory floodway with Special Flood Hazard Area designation; the proposed South
Perris Station and Layover Facility would be within the 100-year floodplain boundary.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-5 April 5, 2010
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood zones are geographical areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood
risk, and are shown on FIRM. High risk flood zones, labeled as SFHAs on FIRM, are areas
subject to inundation by a 100-year flood. The NFIP and participating communities require that
development within floodplains does not exacerbate flooding in adjacent areas. A floodway and
the adjacent land areas must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation. Therefore, the participating communi ties
must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in
upstream flood elevations. Permit requirements to develop within regulatory floodways are
described in detail in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.
State Policies and Regulations
There are no state policies and regulations that supersede local policies and regulations for land
use, planning, and zoning within the PVL and adjacent parcels of land. However, agencies
including CDFG and SARWQCB will be a part of the permitting process and approvals for the
San Jacinto River floodway and channelization projects described above.
Local Policies and Regulations
A number of regional and local land use plans pertain to lands surrounding the PVL corridor.
Riverside County Planning Department has developed the RCIP, which includes a
comprehensive, integrated program balancing the housing, transportation, and economic needs
of a large population with the existing environment and available natural resources. As part of
the RCIP, the state-mandated Riverside County General Plan provides comprehensive policies
and strategies intended to guide long-term development within the County. The General Plan
outlines development policies, objectives, and land use designations. It specifies zoning
applicable to unincorporated areas of the County and directs the creation and implementation of
municipal General Plans and Specific Plans. While RCTC is exempt from local land use policies
under state law, aspects of local plans, policies, and zoning ordinances are reviewed in this
analysis for informational purposes (Kleinfelder, 2009).
The PVL is identified in RTP and RTIP, and approved by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization and SCAG. The RTIP (adopted 2008) is a listing of all funded transportation
projects proposed over a six-year period (Fiscal Years 2008/09 – 2013/14) for the SCAG region.
Riverside County General Plan 2030/2035
The land use element of the General Plan designates the gen eral distribution and intensity of all
uses of the land in the county. This includes residential, commercial, industrial, public facilities,
and open space uses. According to Riverside County Transportation Land Management Agency
(TLMA) the General Plan provides development standards related to each land use category,
and general policy level direction for an array of land use-related issues such as hillside
development and community design (TLMA, 2003).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-6 April 5, 2010
The County of Riverside has written the Draft General Plan Update for the first 5-year General
Plan review cycle. The 2008 update assesses the General Plan's progress and issues related to
its implementation (Riverside County, 2008).
Highgrove 2020 Area Plan
This area plan generally refers to the community of Highgrove within Riverside County, located
west and east of I-215. The areas south of the Highgrove community, including the University
City neighborhood and portions of the Box Springs Mountains, are also included in this specific
area plan.
City of Riverside General Plan 2025
The Riverside 2025 General Plan includes twelve elements that are intended to satisfy State
law requirements for California as well as the vision of the City into the year 2025. The Project
Planning Area consists of the corporate boundaries of the city of Riverside and the City‘s
Sphere of Influence as approved by the LAFCO as part of its 2006 Municipal Service Review.
The Land Use and Urban Design Element defines both the built and natural environments and
introduces new mixed-use land use models that will allow Riverside to support more intense
development near transit nodes (City of Riverside, 2007).
Hunter Business Park Specific Plan
The Hunter Business Park Specific Plan describes a Planned Industrial Park consisting of
approximately 1,300 acres of Industrial and related uses, northeast of downtown Riverside. It
addresses planning goals that are relevant to property owners, future tenants, developers and
the City of Riverside, defines the development framework for the Specific Plan area, and
establishes the design guidelines, development criteria and implementation measures
necessary to implement the Hunter Business Park Specific Plan (City of Riverside, 2002).
Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan (Formerly Box Springs Industrial Park Specific
Plan)
The Specific Plan for Sycamore Canyon Business Park was written in conjunction with the City
of Riverside‘s General Plan. The Specific Plan describes a planned industrial park consisting of
approximately 920 acres of industrial and commercial uses within a 1,400 -acre project area.
Approximately 480 acres of the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park is located within the Plan
area (City of Riverside, 1993). The Specific Plan‘s southeastern area is located within the PVL
corridor.
Sycamore Highlands Specific Plan
Sycamore Highlands is comprised of approximately 420 acres of land located immediately west
of State Highway 60 and I-215, near Box Springs. The southerly approximately 350 acres of the
Plan Area is part of the Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan, discussed above. The
Sycamore Highlands Plan was written in a manner consistent with the Sycamore Canyon
Specific Plan‘s Goals and Objectives and has been amended over the years to be consistent
with the City of Riverside 2025 General Plan (City of Riverside, 2007).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-7 April 5, 2010
March JPA General Plan
The March JPA General Plan is a comprehensive plan designed to outline and delineate use
and development of the area known formerly as MARB. The land use designations of the March
JPA General Plan Land Use Plan are divided into four general classifications, with a total of 13
distinct land use designations. The Plan Area is to comprise approximately 24 million square ft.
(551 acres) of commercial, office, and industrial development (March JPA, 2003).
The Moreno Valley/March Field Station option site falls within proximity to the MARB airfield. To
minimize high-risk land uses, the Plan Area contains overlay districts including a Clear Zone,
APZ I, and APZ II. Together, these form the Airport Influenced Area I. Within Airport Influenced
Area I, high-risk land uses are prohibited and are defined as having a high concentration of
people, having critical facility (such as a telephone exchange), or having explosive or flammable
materials.
Meridian Specific Plan
Within the March JPA jurisdiction, this master-planned employment park contains 1,290-acres
located southwest of I-215 and Alessandro Boulevard. Meridian, once known as the March
Business Center, is planned as part of the jobs/housing solution within Riverside County with a
15-year build out. The initial development will occur in the northern portion of the development
with the final phase planned for the area south of Van Buren Boulevard (March JPA, 2003 ).
Within this specific plan there is a designated rail station. The property for this station site will
be donated to RCTC for use as a Metrolink station.
Mead Valley 2020 Area Plan
The County of Riverside Mead Valley 2020 Area Plan extends south of the Meridian planning
area (e.g., south of MARB) (TLMA, 2003). The Mead Valley Area Plan discusses the land uses
and physical development within the unincorporated area west of the City of Perris. Existing
land uses consist of the Riverside National Cemetery, a wastewater treatment plant,
agricultural, some industrial, and paved public roads Messenia Lane, and Frontage Road.
Areas adjacent to and east of the SJBL are designated High Industrial , Community Center, and
Business Park.
City of Perris General Plan 2030
The City of Perris General Plan divides the city into ten (10) planning areas as a starting point
for the 30-year strategy for organizing and cooperatively accommodating development and land
use in the city of Perris. The boundaries of some planning areas mirror natural or manmade
physical divisions including the I-215 and the San Jacinto River (City of Perris, 2005). A portion
of the PVL Corridor is located within the area set forth by the City of Perris General Plan as well
as the following Specific Plan Areas.
Perris Downtown Specific Plan
The Perris Downtown Specific Plan Study Area is located within the boundaries of the city of
Perris and Riverside County. The Plan covers an area from north to the I-215, east to Redlands
Avenue, south to Ellis Avenue, and west to A Street. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-8 April 5, 2010
provide a base for the revitalization efforts being carried out by the Perris Redevelopment
Agency and the citizens of Perris. The PVL Corridor is located within the Perris Downtown
Specific Plan Study Area, between D Street and Ellis Avenue.
The Perris Downtown Draft Specific Plan Amendment (Village Walk District) functions as a
guide towards the development of the Specific Plan Area in Neighborhood III of the Perris
Downtown Specific Plan. The Village Walk District includes the PVL Corridor, between Perris
Boulevard and Ramona Drive and extends north, near 7th Street (City of Perris, 2007).
Green Valley Specific Plan
The Green Valley Specific Plan outlines a planned community on 1,270 acres south and west of
the SJBL. The property consists of open space and agricultural land next to the Perris Valley
Airport and wastewater treatment plant. Planned land uses within the Green Valley community
include a mix of residential, open space, community facilities, commercial, business parks,
industrial, and transportation land use (City of Perris, 1990).
Riverglen Specific Plan
The Riverglen Specific Plan describes a master planned community on about 330 acres located
north of the SJBL. The Riverglen planning area contains open space and agricultural land north
of the Green Valley planning area. The planned Riverglen community would contain residential
units along with some commercial, schools, and open space land uses (City of Perris, 1992).
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
The RCFCWCD was created in 1945 to protect people, property, and watersheds from damage
or destruction from flood and stormwaters. The RCFCWCD is designated by FEMA to
administer the NFIP program in the western parts of the County where the PVL project is
located. The administrator coordinates, implements, and enforces the local floodplain ordinance
by granting or denying development permits in accord with its provisions. Any development or
encroachments made to the SFHA must be reviewed by the administrator to determine whether
proposed building sites would be reasonably safe from flooding and BFEs are not raised which
would negatively impact adjacent areas. This may include the submittal of studies, calculations,
plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements.
Resolution Number 2005-220
The County approved Resolution No. 2005-220 (2005), setting forth policies and procedures to
control developments within the San Jacinto River floodway and requiring permits or appl icable
approvals from the RCFCWCD, USACE, USFWS, CDFG, and the SARWQCB.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional HCP focusing on conservation of species
and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The MSCHP is a large, multi-
jurisdictional habitat-planning effort in with the overall goal of maintaining biological and
ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region (see Section 3.4 Biological Resources for
further discussion).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-9 April 5, 2010
4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Land Use and Planning is
defined by:
1. Does the project physically divide an established community
2. Does the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
3. Does the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan
4.9.4 Project Impacts
Does the project physically divide an established community
The SJBL was constructed in the 1880s, and many of the communities now located within the
vicinity of the railroad were established as a result of the railway facilities (MFA, 2003). The
Citrus Connection would be constructed in an area that is bordered to the south and west by
industrial and transportation facilities and to the north and east by residential and commercial
uses. The proposed project would operate entirely within an existing rail corridor and its
adjacent parcels will be in an area where the railroad facilities have long been part of the local
community setting. Therefore, implementation of the PVL commuter rail service would not
restrict the movement of people or physically divide an established community and there would
be no impacts.
Does the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
The proposed PVL corridor is located in western Riverside County, and extends through or
adjacent to several municipalities and/or land managing agencies with jurisdiction over the
project. These include: City of Riverside, City of Moreno Valley, MARB, City of Perris, and
Riverside County.
The land designations surrounding the existing railway corridor accommodate a variety of uses .
Table 4.9-1 provides an overview of land uses within and adjacent to the project area, including
the proposed station locations, beginning at the Citrus Connection and terminating at the
proposed South Perris Station and Layover Facility. Roadway facilities or other geographic
features intersecting the railway corridor are used as markers to delineate changes in land use.
The PVL, which would follow the existing SJBL alignment, would be compatible with existing
and planned land uses and is consistent with County, City and Specific Plan policies. The
evaluation of potential environmental consequences associated with land use reveals
consistency with existing and planned land uses along the PVL alignment, including land to be
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-10 April 5, 2010
developed as stations and the Layover Facility. As noted, the proposed project is exempt from
local land use controls, and so demonstration of compliance with local land use plans and
policies is not required. As outlined below, county and city land use plans anticipate and
support the PVL:
The Riverside County General Plan promotes alternative transportation options within
western Riverside County as a means for encouraging concentrated housing and
employment centers, in order to reduce traffic congestion. Rail transit is envisioned as a
travel option that can contribute to higher quality living environments by reducing auto
dependency, concentrating compatible land uses, and relieving pressure to develop open
space, and directing compatible land use activities to established urban ce nters. The PVL
would be consistent with the alternative transportation goals outlined in this document.
The City of Riverside General Plan aims to encourage mass transit to reduce roadway
congestion, air pollution, and non-point source water pollution. Land use planning was
structured to support this principle by directing new growth along transportation corridors.
The City of Riverside General Plan includes discussion of the PVL as the 22 -mile extension
of the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 line. The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General
Plan focuses on incorporating ―smart growth‖ principles into planning and development
decisions, and focusing development in already urbanized parts of the City rather than
spreading growth to the urban fringes.
The Hunter Business Park Specific Plan states that existing lead tracks and spurs serve
established industrial plants, and it is the intent of the Specific Plan to accommodate rail
usage where feasible in the designated Land Use Districts. The rail lines have historically
supported facilities at the Hunter Business Park, and are maintained within the Specific
Plan. The proposed station sites are within the Hunter Business Park, which is 1,300 -acre
planning area that contains existing industrial/warehouse facilities, scattered agricultural
parcels, and a public park (Hunter Park). According to the City of Riverside General Plan,
the Hunter Business Park is planned for redevelopment and business/office buildings in
order to serve as a relatively more active employment center, while the Hunter Business
Park Specific Plan (City of Riverside, 2002) describes the location of the rail lines within this
area as excellent opportunities to serve future industrial-transportation-distribution facilities.
The City of Moreno Valley General Plan‘s Circulation Element states that public transit in the
city of Moreno Valley consists primarily of bus service. It is anticipated that Moreno Valley
would have access to commuter rail service; specifically, a commuter rail station for the
southwest quadrant of Alessandro at I-215 to serve Moreno Valley residents (City of Moreno
Valley, 2006). The PVL would also be consistent with the City of Moreno Valley Gener al
Plan‘s Community Development Element, which encompasses the Land Use Plan of the
City of Moreno Valley General Plan. The City of Moreno Valley General Plan places
Residential/Office and Commercial land uses within land located nearest to the PVL
corridor. The properties are also identified as redevelopment areas, presumably to
encourage economic growth.
The proposed commuter service to serve the March Planning Area would be consistent with
the March JPA General Plan, and the March JPA would work with transit providers to
ensure that transit programming is oriented to the Meridian area, which is outlined as an
economic center. The Meridian Master Plan places a future transit center near the PVL, and
similarly, the March Specific Plan places a 15-acre transportation center to accommodate
commuter rail service along the PVL corridor. The proposed station would be a permitted
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-11 April 5, 2010
use. The March JPA General Plan identifies the PVL in its Transportation Element, and
acknowledges the need for a multimodal facility to serve its planning area. It promotes the
creation of adequate regional railway facilities, including the use of SCRRA/Metrolink
service along the SJBL.
The PVL would be consistent with the Mead Valley Area Plan (2003). The Mead Valley
Area Plan identifies the SJBL as a viable regional transportation option for residents,
employees, and visitors to the area.
Commuter rail service along the existing SJBL is consistent with the Land Use Element of
the City of Perris General Plan, which recognizes the need for future transportation and
infrastructure improvements. The specific plans for Green Valley, Riverglen, Perris
Downtown and the Village Walk District have incorporated the SJBL by assigning
compatible land uses adjacent to the rail corridor, including the future development of
commuter rail station planned for the old Perris Depot area. The Downtown Specific Plan
describes a pedestrian-friendly Downtown Promenade District of mixed uses, within walking
distance of a train station. The Circulation Element specifically identifies the extension of
SCRRA/Metrolink service along the SJBL. The use of the existing railway would be
consistent with existing and planned land uses, and the implementation of commuter rail
service through downtown Perris would be consistent with specific plan policies to enhance
and preserve natural and man-made features, and to promote alternative transportation to
reduce regional traffic congestion.
Because the project would be compatible with existing and planned land uses and is consistent
with federal, state, county, city and Specific Plan policies and regulations concerning land use
and zoning ordinances, there will be no impacts.
Does the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan
Two habitat conservation, or natural community conservation, plans apply to the PVL project,
and include the MSHCP (2003) and the SKR HCP (1996) (See section 3.4 Biological
Resources for further discussion).
The purpose of the MSHCP and SKR HCP is to maintain the biological and ecological diversity
in an urbanizing region through the assembly of key reserves for the protection of covered
species. Although the SKR HCP was established in 1996 prior to the MSHCP, relevant terms of
the SKR HCP were incorporated into the MSHCP to ensure the greatest conservation for the
largest number of covered species.
Because the MSHCP was developed in conjunction with the Riverside County General Plan and
the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), the cores,
habitat blocks, and linkages that have been set aside for assembly as conservation areas were
developed in consideration of existing and future land uses, in particular, the region‘s
transportation requirements. The PVL project is subject to the compliance requirements of the
SKR HCP and MSHCP, in particular the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines outlined in the
MSHCP, which provide guidance on addressing the indirect effects on wildlife species when
projects are located in proximity to reserve areas. Through compliance with the Guidelin es and
coordination with RCA and RCHCA, implementation of the PVL along the existing SJBL
alignment would not conflict with any of the conservation or habitat goals established by the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-12 April 5, 2010
SKR HCP or the MSHCP, impair the value of wildlife habitat, or cause an ecological intrusion
into the existing and proposed conservation areas.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The MSHCP is a means for consolidating and preserving core areas with suitable vegetatio n
and soils to support species, while at the same time preventing fragmented habitat. The
MSHCP covers 146 plant and wildlife species, and is administered by the RCA. One of the
primary objectives of the MSCHP is to assemble a total of 500,000 acres for management as
the MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP identifies a number of existing and proposed
features – including cores, habitat blocks, and linkages – which form the basis of the plan‘s
Conservation Area (refer to Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP). Section 4.4 Biological Resources
under the Environmental Setting summarizes the MSHCP Conservation Area features that are
located within one-half mile of the PVL project corridor (see Table 4.4-1).
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
The SKR HCP is administered by the RCHCA, and encompasses approximately 533,954 acres,
which include open space, developed, and agricultural land uses. The SKR HCP established
seven permanent core area reserves for SKR, as summarized in Table 4.9-2. Located west of
I-215 and the PVL and on both sides of Alessandro Boulevard, the Sycamore Canyon-March Air
Force Base Core Reserve covers a total of 2,502 acres across the two core reserve
components.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Two noncontiguous wildlife reserves are in the vicinity of the proposed Moreno Valley/March
Field Station. The SKR Sycamore Canyon – March Air Force Base Core Reserve (which
coincides with Sycamore Canyon Park and the MSHCP Existing Core D) is located north and
south of Alessandro Boulevard and west of the PVL corridor outside of the corridor and west of
the Moreno Valley/March Field Station.
The purpose of the MSHCP and SKR HCP is to maintain the biological and ecological diversity
in an urbanizing region through the assembly of protected reserves for covered species. These
planning efforts have been coordinated with municipal and transportation entities, and in
consideration of existing and future land uses. The PVL project is subject to the compliance
requirements of the SKR HCP and MSHCP, in particular the Urban/Wildlands Interface
Guidelines outlined in the MSHCP, which provide guidance on addressing the indirect effects on
wildlife species when projects are located in proximity to reserve areas. Through compliance
with the Guidelines and coordination with RCA and RCHCA, construction and operation of the
proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station option would not impair the value of wildlife habitat
or cause an ecological intrusion into the nearby reserve areas.
South Perris Station and Layover Facility
MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 encompasses the San Jacinto River area, which is
located approximately 500 feet west of the proposed South Perris Station. As previously
described, the PVL project is subject to the compliance requirements of the MSHCP, in
particular its Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, which provide guidance on a ddressing the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.9-13 April 5, 2010
indirect effects on wildlife species when projects are located in proximity to reserve areas.
Through compliance with the Guidelines and coordination with RCA, construction and operation
of the proposed South Perris Station would not impair the value of wildlife habitat or cause an
ecological intrusion of MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 19.
4.9.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the PVL project would not result in any impacts with regard to land use and
planning. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-1 April 5, 2010
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section of the EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the PVL project
associated with noise and vibration. This analysis is based on the Noise and Vibration
Technical Report (STV Incorporated, 2011) to this EIR as presented in Technical Report C.
CEQA Guidelines require a project to evaluate noise and vibration impacts based upon local
policies and regulations. A project will have a significant impact if the noise or vibration that
would occur as a result of the project will be greater than the allowable limits defined by federal,
state or local policies and regulations.
Depending on the type of project, there are several assessment methods that can be used to
predict potential noise or vibration impact levels. The assessment method appropriate for the
PVL rail project was developed by the FTA and is described in their guidance manual, Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006). This guidance manual provides explicit
procedures for producing accurate impact assessments for federally -funded mass transit
projects. It contains the standard and accepted methodologies for analyzing transit -related
noise and vibration impacts throughout the country. It also contains techniques and procedures
for development of mitigation of predicted impacts. Therefore, though this EIR is produced for
compliance with CEQA, the measurement and prediction methods included in the FTA
Guidance Manual were utilized for the PVL project analysis, as they are the most broadly
applicable, and are conservative in analysis approach.
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Noise
Background
Noise, otherwise known as unwanted sound, is what humans hear when exposed to small
pressure fluctuations in the air (FTA, 2006). Noise is generated by a source, and the magnitude
of the noise depends on the type of source and its operating characteristics. In the case of the
PVL project, the commuter rail train would be the primary source of noise. Noises associated
with commuter rail are primarily generated from the following system elements:
Diesel train engines, for which the generated noise is largely a function of the rate of
acceleration and speed.
Cooling fans.
Wheel-rail interaction, a function of the condition of wheels and the rail type (e.g.,
welded or jointed), rail car suspension and the condition and curvature of the rails.
Structures, such as trestles, that may amplify sound.
Horns and crossing gate bells, at and approaching grade crossings.
When excessive noise interrupts activities, such as sleeping, conversing, and watching TV, it
can create an ongoing annoyance in communities, especially residential areas. In order to
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-2 April 5, 2010
quantify and measure this noise annoyance in the environment, beginning in the 1970s, the
USEPA undertook a number of research and synthesis studies relating to community noise of
all types. As a result of this research, the USEPA developed descriptors, noise impact criteria,
and methods of noise assessment, described below.
Noise is measured using several descriptors:
Decibel (dB) - The logarithmic unit used to measure sound.
A-weighted Sound Level (dBA) –The basic noise unit that measures sound audible to
humans. Noises contain sound energy at different frequencies whose range depends on
the individual noise source. Human hearing does not register the sound levels of all
noise frequencies equally, which reduces the impression of the magnitude of high and
low pitched sounds. The dBA units are sound levels measured through a process that
filters noise levels to predominantly include sounds that are audible to humans. This
process reduces the strength of very low and very high pitched sounds, such as low -
frequency seismic disturbances and dog whistles, to more accurately measure sounds
that affect humans. Normally occurring sounds lie in the range of 40 to 120 dBA. A
sample of the dBA of common transit-related and other noise sources is shown on
Figure 4.10-1.
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) – Leq represents a single value of sound level that
quantifies the amount of noise in a specific environment for a particular period of time.
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq (h)) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that
occur in a particular location for one hour. For example, as a train approaches, passes
by, and recedes into the distance, the dBA will rise, reach a maximum level, and then
fade. The Leq (h) for this event would be a value that measures the cumulative impact of
each level of sound that resulted from the train‘s passing, in addition to any other sounds
that occurred during one hour. It is particularly useful when measuring the cumulative
noise impact for communities.
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in a
particular location for 24 hours. This cumulative value also includes a ten dB penalty
imposed on any noise that occurs between 10 PM and 7 AM. L dn is used to measure the
cumulative noise impact at residential areas primarily because it takes into account the
increased sensitivity to noise at night, which is when most people are sleeping. Typical
ranges for community noise in various settings are shown in Table 4.10-1.
Table 4.10-1
Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas
Area Ldn, dBA
Downtown City 75–85
―Very Noisy‖ Urban Residential Areas 65-75
―Quiet‖ Urban Residential Areas 60-65
Suburban Residential Areas 55-60
Small Town Residential Areas 45-55
Note: Ldn= cumulative noise exposure
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006)
4.10-1
92666
10/16/09
JP
RM
92666dia2EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURECOMMON INDOOR AND OUTDOOR
NOISE LEVELS
SOURCE:
TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION
IMPACT ASSESSMENT, FTA, MAY 2006
100
90
80
70
60
50
30
40
TRANSIT SOURCES NON-TRANSIT SOURCES
OUTDOOR INDOOR
Rock Drill
Jack Hammer
Concrete Mixer
Air Compressor
Lawn Mower
Lawn Tiller
Air Conditioner
Shop Tools,
in use
Shop Tools,
idling
Food Blender
Clothes Washer
Air Conditioner
Refrigerator
dBA
Rail Transit on Old Steel Structure,
50 mph
Rail Transit Horn
Rail Transit on Modern Concrete
Aerial Structure, 50 mph
Rail Transit At-Grade, 50 mph
City Bus, idling
Rail Transit in Station
ALL AT 50 FT ALL AT 3 FTALL AT 50 FT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-4 April 5, 2010
A few general relationships may be helpful in understanding the dB scale:
An increase of one dBA cannot be perceived by the human ear.
A three dBA increase is normally the smallest change in sound levels that is perceptible
to the human ear.
A ten dBA increase in noise level corresponds to tenfold increase in noise energy, but a
listener would only judge a ten dBA increase as being twice as loud.
A 20 dBA increase would result in a dramatic change in how a listener would perceive
the sound.
FTA Noise Impact Criteria
The FTA has established noise criteria to assess potential impacts of transit projects, as shown
on Figure 4.10-2. These criteria were developed based on the research done by the USEPA
that identified environments particularly sensitive to annoying noises. These environments are
known as ―noise sensitive land uses‖ or ―sensitive receptors‖. The FTA noise criteria group
noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories:
Category 1: Buildings or a park where quiet is an essential element of their intended
purpose.
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes
residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost
importance.
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This
category includes schools, libraries, theaters and churches where it is important to avoid
interference with such activities as speech, meditation and concentration on reading
material.
For Categories 1 and 3, the Leq noise descriptor is used, while Category 2 properties are
assessed utilizing the Ldn descriptor. In most cases, these three categories are the only land
uses that would be negatively impacted by high noise levels since industrial or commercial
areas are generally compatible with high noise levels.
Noise impacts to these three categories as a result of a proposed project are assessed by
comparing the existing and future project-related outdoor noise levels as illustrated in the graph
provided on Figure 4.10-2. These potential noise impacts fall into three types: ―No Impact,‖
―Moderate Impact,‖ and ―Severe Impact‖ which correlate with CEQA impact terminology (i.e. no
impact, less than significant impact and potentially significant impact).
No Impact - The project, on average, will result in an insignificant increase in the number
of instances where people are ―highly annoyed‖ by new noise.
Moderate Impact - The change in cumulative noise is noticeable to most people, but may
not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse community reactions.
Severe Impact - A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the
noise, perhaps resulting in vigorous community reaction.
4.10-2
92666
12/21/09
JP
RM
92666dia3EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREALLOWABLE TRANSIT
NOISE INCREASES
SOURCE:
FTA MANUAL FOR TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION
IMPACT ASSESSMENT, FTA, MAY 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-6 April 5, 2010
As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable level of transit noise also
increases; however the total amount by which that community‘s noise can increase without an
impact is reduced. As shown in Table 4.10-2, as existing and allowable combined total noise
levels increase, the allowable change in noise level decreases.
In addition to FTA criteria, CEQA has defined threshold limits which are related to the exposure
of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (such as the FT A).
General plans and local noise ordinances exist for municipalities along the project alignment.
These statutes define maximum noise limits for community activities and local development
projects. However, these ordinances are typically related to construction noise and nuisance
noise levels. For the definition of CEQA impact thresholds as they relate to the proposed
project, the FTA impact criteria described above were used. Additional discussion of general
plans and local ordinances is included below under the regulations section.
Table 4.10-2
Allowable Transit Noise Level Increases (Ldn and Leq in dBA)
Existing Noise
Levels
Allowable Project
Noise Level
Allowable Combined
Total Noise Level
Allowable Noise Level
Increase
45 51 52 7
50 53 55 5
55 55 58 3
60 57 62 2
65 60 66 1
70 64 71 1
75 65 75 0
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006)
Noise Environmental Setting
Noise sensitive land use areas within the proposed PVL project area were identified by
screening GIS data for buildings with residential or institutional uses nearby the PVL corridor.
Then, field observations were also made to identify and confirm nois e sensitive land use
locations within the corridor and the larger study area.
The proposed PVL project area would include portions of the existing BNSF alignment, between
the Downtown Riverside Station and the Highgrove area, as well as the SJBL alignment
between the areas of Highgrove and Perris. These two active railways would be connected by
the proposed new Citrus Connection.
The noise environmental conditions for each segment are described below.
BNSF segment - The noise environment in the Riverside to Highgrove BNSF Main Line
segment is dominated by an extremely heavy volume of rail activity; between 60 and 80
trains travel along it during a typical 24-hour period. The majority of these trains (about
80 percent) are freight. These trains generally operate with three to four diesel
locomotives and about 50 to 100 freight cars. Typical speeds are approximately 30
mph. The remaining rail traffic consists of mostly SCRRA/Metrolink, and a few Amtrak
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-7 April 5, 2010
trains. The SCRRA/Metrolink trains have a single diesel locomotive and about three
passenger cars and travel at average speeds of approximately 50 mph. The Amtrak
trains have two to three diesel locomotives and about 15 cars, traveling at about 50 mph.
Train traffic occurs during both day and night hours. In addition to rail activity, vehicles
traveling on I-215 and SR-60 make a significant contribution to the noise environment,
as do vehicles on local streets.
SJBL segment - The SJBL alignment from Highgrove to Perris currently has about two
freight trains traveling on it daily. These trains typically consist of three diesel
locomotives and about 25 freight cars and travel at maximum speeds of 20 mph. In
those portions of the rail segment that have grade crossings (where the majority of the
corridor‘s noise sensitive receptors are located), horn noise is a significant contributor to
the existing noise environment. Noise from automobile traffic becomes significant along
the corridor from Moreno Valley to Perris, where the I-215 freeway parallels the SJBL,
and grade crossings are limited. However, this portion of the SJBL alignment contains
very few sensitive noise receptors.
As a result of the train activity, the existing alignment contains grade crossings areas where
warning bells would be required for passing trains. At most crossings, these devices are
represented by electro-mechanical railroad warning gongs. At a point ten feet from the gong and
in increments of 20 degrees, the sound level should not be more than 105 dBA and not less
than 85 dBA. The gongs typically operate between 30 to 60 seconds per normal through train
movement. Whenever a train is physically occupying the space where the railroad and roadway
intersect, the gongs will be active.
The current CPUC requirements for audible warning devices at grade crossings dictate that
bells or other audible warning devices shall be included in all automatic warning device
assemblies and shall be operated in conjunction with the flashing light signals. (AREMA, 2007)
Noise Measurement Programs
To assist in the assessment of potential impacts, existing noise level measurements were
conducted at several selected sensitive receptors along the corridor. The measurement sites
were selected on the basis of several factors, the most important of which was the site‘s
potential sensitivity to changes in noise levels. Measurements were taken in 2002 and 2005,
and again in 2008/2009 to update and enhance the data.
For all existing noise level measurements, each site was either representative of a unique noise
environment, or of nearby similarly situated receptors. Along the BNSF alignment, the primary
land uses are industrial and commercial; however, noise monitoring was conducted at several
residential properties near the alignment. As the Citrus Connection and the existing SJBL
alignment pass through predominately residential neighborhoods, most of the sensitive
receptors monitored along these segments are residential in nature. Several non-residential
land uses also exist along these segments and were included in the monitoring program as well.
These sites include schools, churches and senior centers, also deemed sensitive receptors
(Riverside County, 2007; 2008). Both long-term (24-hour) and short-term (20 minutes to 1 hour)
measurements were conducted.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-8 April 5, 2010
Summary of the 2002 Measurement Program
For the 2002 measurement program, 31 noise sensitive sites were monitored along the project
corridor. A tabulation of these monitored locations is provided in Table 4.10-3 and monitoring
locations are mapped on Figure 4.10-3 and Figure 4.10-4. In general, existing Ldn noise levels
at sensitive receptors along the BNSF alignment were high and in the ―downtown city‖ noise
range, while existing Ldn noise levels at residential areas of Riverside and Perris adjacent to the
SJBL alignment are in the ―‘very noisy‘ urban residential areas‖ range, as shown in Table
4.10-1.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-9 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-3
Summary of Noise Measurements (2002)
Site No. Land Use Description Dist. from
Tracks (ft)
Existing Noise
Level (Ldn)
1 SF 3015 9th St 450 74
2 SF 3112 1st St 180 79
3 SF 1901 Thornton Ave 80 82
4 SF 1148 Ardmore St 340 76
5 SF Transit & Villa Streets 330, 20 1 78
6 SF 890 Kentwood Dr 55 70
7 MF 10 Watkins Dr 125 68
8 SF 121 Nisbet Way 80 68
8A SF 277 Nisbet Way 50 70
9 SF 396 E Big Springs Road 125 54
10 SF 298 E Manfield St 110 56
11 SF 20511 Claremont 560 61
12 SF 7005 Old Frontage Rd 500 60
13 SF California & Wade Streets 240 68
14 School Nan Sanders Elementary 140 60*
15 SF 234 Bowen St 230 59
16 SF 30 C St 210 66
17 SF 10th St & Perris Blvd 75 69
18 SF 124 8th St 250 64
19 Hotel 27272 SR-74 130 75
20 SF 25688 Sherman Rd 330 54
21 Commercial Old Spaghetti Factory 250 72*
22 SF Marlborough Avenue (between Catania Dr
& PVL)
320 76
23 SF Villa St ( between Transit Ave & PVL) 330,125 1 76
24 SF Transit Ave (near Fountain St) 200,30 1 79
25/26 SF Trailer park (274 Sir Belvidere Dr) 50 72
27 Church St George‘s Episcopal Church (Spruce St
& Watkins Dr)
180 67*
27A MF Box Spring & Morton 125 57
28 Cemetery Riverside National 100 61*
29 Senior Citizens
Center
San Jacinto & D St 95 70*
30 SF C St & 7th St 60 71
31 SF 1021 Citrus Street 60 70
Notes:
* = Noise levels presented as Leq
SF = Single family residence and MF = Multi-family residence
(1) = BNSF and SJBL alignments
Source: STV Incorporated (2002)
!R
!R
$+
$+
$+")
$+!($+")
$+
$+
")
$+")
$+")
")
$+!($+
$+
$+
$+$+")
")")
!(
!(
")
!(
!(
$+")
")!(
")!(
$+
!(
$+
")
")
!(
")
UC RIVERSIDE
HIGHGROVE
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
12TH STREET
3RD STREET
PARK AVENUESPRUCE STREET
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
PALMYRITA AVENUE
IOWA AVENUECHICAGO AVENUEWATKINS DRIVEBIG SPRINGS
ROAD
RIVERSIDE
Citrus Connection
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Hunter Park
8
6
5
5
7
4
1
34
6
6
7
9
2
8
9
2
3
4
5
1
9 2
1
11
19
23
10
12
25
12
8A
10
23
24
22
10
20
22
11
31
27
21
25/26
4.10-3
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666noise2EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURENOISE AND VIBRATION
MONITORING LOCATIONS
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
2002 MONITORING LOCATION
2005 MONITORING LOCATION
2008/2009 MONITORING LOCATION0.3 0 0.3 0.60.15
Miles ±Basemap Source: STV Incorporated 10-3-08
!R
!R
LEGEND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
CONTINUED ON FIGURE 4.10-4
$+1
!(1
")1
!R
!R
!R
$+
$+
$+
")
$+
$+$+
$+
")$+
$+
$+
$+
")$+$+
!(
!(")")
")
")")
$+")
R
R
R
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
·|}þ60
§¨¦215
LAKE
PERRIS
Moreno Valley/
March Field
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
South Perris and
Layover Facility ROMOLAND
·|}þ74 §¨¦215
Downtown Perris
NUEVO RD
VAN BUREN BLVD
SAN JACINTO AVE
MAPES RD
14
13
20
19
28
13
12
11
27A
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
2002 MONITORING LOCATION
2005 MONITORING LOCATION
2008/2009 MONITORING LOCATION
024
Miles ±Basemap Source: STV Incorporated 10-3-08
!R
!R
LEGEND
!R
$+
")$+
$+
$+
$+
")
$+
$+
!(
!(")")
")
")")
·|}þ74
§¨¦215
ELLIS AVE A STB STPERRIS BLVDSAN JACINTO AVE
7TH ST
JARVIS ST
THIRD STDE LINES DRREDLANDS AVEMETZ RD
3
8
7
16
15
1817
17
18
24
15
29
14
16
21
30
INSET AREA
4.10-4
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666noise3EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURENOISE AND VIBRATION
MONITORING LOCATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
$+1
!(1
")1
CONTINUED FROM FIGURE 4.10-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-12 April 5, 2010
Summary of the 2005 Measurement Program
In 2005, several additional noise measurement locations were identified, including locations
suggested by public comment on the Draft EA (see Perris Valley Line Noise and Vibration
Technical Report prepared by ATS Consulting [2006]). In all, the 2005 measurement p rogram
included additional monitoring at 12 noise sensitive sites along the SJBL alignment. A
tabulation of these monitored locations is provided in Table 4.10-4 and monitoring locations are
mapped on Figure 4.10-3 and Figure 4.10-4. The monitoring at locations along the SJBL
alignment indicates that existing Ldn noise levels at residential locations of Riverside and Perris
are generally in the ―‘very noisy‘ urban residential areas‖ range, as shown in Table 4.10 -1.
Additional monitoring at non-residential locations indicated Leq values ranging from 49 to 61
dBA.
Table 4.10-4
Summary of Noise Measurements (2005)
Site
No. Description Measure
Type(1)
Dist.
from
Tracks
(ft.)
Ldn, dBA
No. of
Trains(3) With
Trains
Without
Trains(2)
1 103 Sir Dames Dr, Riverside LT 35 63 62 3
2 441 Transit Avenue, Highgrove LT 35 67 67 3
3 2294 Kentwood/Spruce, Riverside LT 100 67 59 8
4 518 W. Campus View, Riverside LT 83 66 57 8
5 232 E. Campus View, Riverside LT 62 65 49 2
6 396 E. Big Springs Rd., Riverside LT 90 62 54 2
7 228 C Street, Perris LT 240 67 67 2
8 81W. 8th Street, Perris LT 300 -- 59 0
9 Church at Spruce & Watkins, Riverside ST 150 -- 61 0
10 Church at Mt. Vernon Crossing, Riverside ST 50 -- 49 1
11 Hyatt School/E. Manfield Rd., Riverside ST 50 -- 50 1
12 Highland Park off Kentwood, Riverside ST 50 -- 56 0
Notes:
(1) LT = long term (24 hours or more), ST = short term (30 minutes to one hour).
(2) For measurements that included one or more train events, this column shows what the Ldn would have been
without the train noise. No trains passed during the short term noise measurements.
(3) Total number of trains passing measurement position during measurements.
Source: ATS Consulting (2006)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-13 April 5, 2010
2008/2009 Measurement Program
The 2008/2009 noise measurement program included measurements of noise sensitive
locations previously monitored in 2002 and 2005, in addition to measurements at several new
locations. Schools along the SJBL alignment were specifically re-monitored and other
residential and institutional uses were added to the monitoring program. In general, the results
of the 2008/2009 monitoring program were consistent with the existing noise environm ent
during the monitoring programs for 2002 and 2005. There were however, several sites within
the area of UCR which tended to exhibit lower noise levels for the 2008/2009 measurement
program. The overall results of the measurements are summarized in Table 4.10-5 and
monitoring locations mapped on Figure 4.10-3 and Figure 4.10-4.
Table 4.10-5
Noise Monitoring Locations for Detailed Noise Assessment 2008/2009
Site
No. Description Measure
Type(1)
Dist. from
Tracks (ft.)
Ldn,
dBA
1 518 West Campus View Dr LT 117 59
2 232 East Campus View Dr LT 65 56
3 228 C Street LT 244 70
4 St. George's Episcopal Church @ Spruce & Watkins Drive ST1 190 57*
5 Crest Community Baptist Church ST1 163 52*
6 Hyatt Elementary School (4466 Mount Vernon Ave) ST1 370 60* 2
7 Highland Elementary School ST1 88 54* 2
8 3015 9th Street ST2 450 69
9 3112 1st Street LT 210 75
10 1901 Thornton Ave LT 90 76
11 2970 Watkins Dr LT 124 66
12 137 Nisbet Way LT 180 62
13 7005 Old Frontage Rd ST2 564 62
14 California & Wade Streets ST2 258 70
15 Nan Sanders School (1461 N. A Street) ST1 123 64* 2
16 234 W. Bowen St ST2 235 59
17 116 State Street ST2 80 72
18 New Homes on 9th Street in Perris ST2 300 66 3
19 Old Spaghetti Factory ST1 280 65*
20 1824 Marlboro Ave ST2 260 63
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-14 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-5 (cont’d)
Noise Monitoring Locations for Detailed Noise Assessment 2008/2009
Site
No. Description Measure
Type(1)
Dist. from
Tracks (ft.)
Ldn,
dBA
21 Senior Citizens Center ( 146 W. San Jacinto Ave) ST1 96 59*
22 1027 Citrus St LT 62 73
23 842 Kentwood Drive LT 80 63 2, 3
24 St. James Catholic Church/School ST1 370 64* 2, 3
25 UCR Day/Childcare ( 3338 Watkins Dr) ST1 175 54* 2
Notes:
* Represents an Leq value
(1) LT = long term (24 hours or more), ST1 = short term (30 minutes to one hour), ST2 = short term (measurement
adjusted to reflect LT Ldn).
(2) Noise monitoring conducted in 2009.
(3) New monitoring site.
Source: STV Incorporated, (2008/2009)
Vibration
Background
Vibration is a type of movement that rapidly fluctuates back and forth, potentially causing
―feelable‖ and audible sensations for humans. Ground-borne vibration (GBV) is usually caused
by trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy earth-
moving equipment. With trains, GBV is a result of the interaction of wheels and rails, which can
cause windows, pictures on walls, or items on shelves to rattle. A rumbling sound can also
accompany GBV, known as ground-borne noise (GBN) or noise that radiates from the motion of
building surfaces.
Although the effects of GBV usually go unnoticed outdoors, it can be a significant annoyance to
people inside buildings. Though GBV is almost never of sufficient magnitude to cause even
minor cosmetic damage to buildings, the primary consideration is whether GBV would be
intrusive to building occupants or interfere with interior activities or machinery.
For the purposes of vibration impact assessment, GBV is measured by the descriptor ―vibration
decibels‖, abbreviated in this document as VdB. The vibration decibel level in residential areas
is usually 50 VdB or lower, though humans usually begin to perceive vibration effects once the
vibration level reaches 65 VdB (FTA, 2006). Beyond 80 VdB, vibration levels are often
considered unacceptable by humans. GBN is measured in dBA. Figure 4.10-5 shows examples
of typical vibration levels, sources, and human responses.
4.10-5
92666
12/21/09
JP
RM
92666dia1EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS
SOURCE:
FTA MANUAL FOR TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION
IMPACT ASSESSMENT, FTA, MAY 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-16 April 5, 2010
FTA Vibration Impact Criteria
As with noise impact criteria, the FTA vibration impact criteria are based on the three land use
categories, although the categories are somewhat different. One important difference is that
outdoor spaces are not included in Category 3 for vibration. This is because human annoyance
from GBV requires the interaction of the ground vibration with a building structure.
Consequently, the criteria apply to indoor spaces only, and there are no vibration impact
thresholds for outdoor spaces such as parks.
Although there has been relatively little research into human and building response to GBV,
there is substantial experience with vibration from rail systems. In general, this collective
experience indicates that:
The threshold for human perception is approximately 65 VdB. Vibration levels in the
range of 70 to 75 VdB are often noticeable but acceptable. Beyond 80 VdB, vibration
levels are often considered unacceptable.
Human response to vibration is more closely related to the maximum vibration level than
to the number of vibration causing events. The FTA guidelines do however have
different standards for ―frequent‖ vs. ―infrequent‖ events.
For human annoyance, there is a relationship between the number of daily events and
the degree of annoyance caused by GBV. FTA guidance includes an eight VdB
difference in the impact threshold between projects that would result in more than 70
events per day and those that would involve fewer than 30 events per day. The higher
noise threshold for ―infrequent events‖ is applicable to the PVL project.
Vibration impact criteria assume that there is a relationship between the number of daily events
and the degree of annoyance caused by GBV and GBN (when there are fewer vibration events
each day, it takes higher vibration levels to evoke the same community response). This
assumption is accounted for in the vibration impact criteria by setting different allowable VdB
and dBA levels for proposed projects with varying numbers of vibration events - ―Frequent
Events‖ are defined as more than 70 events per day, ―Occasional Events‖ range between 30
and 70 events per day, and ―Infrequent Events‖ are fewer than 30 events per day.
The FTA vibration impact criteria are shown in Table 4.10-6. The VdB and dBA levels shown
are the vibration limits allowed for each category.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-17 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-6
Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment
Land Use Category
GBV Impact Levels
(VdB re: 1 micro-inch/sec)
GBN Impact Levels
(dB re: 20 micro Pascals/ sec)
Frequent
Events(1)
Occasional
Events(2)
Infrequent
Events(3)
Frequent
Events(1)
Occasional
Events(2)
Infrequent
Events(3)
Category 1: Buildings
where vibration would
interfere with interior
operations
65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB N/A(4) N/A(4) N/A(4)
Category 2:
Residences and
buildings where
people normally sleep
72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA
Category 3:
Institutional land uses
with primary daytime
use
75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA
Notes:
(1) “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day.
(2) “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events per day.
(3) “Infrequent Events” is defined as less than 30 vibration events per day.
(4) N/A means “not applicable”. Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006)
These FTA vibration criteria do not specifically account for existing sources of vibration. The
existing environment may currently cause a significant number of perceptible GBV or GBN
events, regardless of the components of a proposed project. Because of this, the FTA has
established several separate criteria for existing vibration sources and the methods for
addressing each, described below:
• For infrequently-used rail corridor (corridors with fewer than five trains per day), use the
general vibration criteria (see Table 4.10-6 above).
• For, moderately-used rail corridor (corridors with five to twelve trains per day), if existing
vibration exceeds the general vibration criteria and if estimated vibration levels are at
least 5 VdB less than existing vibration, there would be no impact from the proposed
project. For other situations, use the general vibration criteria (Table 4.10-6).
• For heavily-used rail corridor (corridors with more than twelve trains per day), if existing
vibration exceeds the general vibration criteria and if the proposed project would double
the number of vibration events, the project would cause additional impact. If estimated
vibration levels for the proposed project would be 3 VdB or less than existing vibration,
there would be no impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-18 April 5, 2010
Vibration Environmental Setting
he proposed PVL project would be located within an existing transit corridor that currently
causes GBV and GBN. The vibration environmental conditions for each segment are described
below:
The BNSF alignment is a heavily used rail corridor with 80 to 100 trains traveling along it
during a typical 24-hour period. Vibration along the BNSF alignment is dominated by the
existing train activity. Heavy-duty vehicle traffic also contributes to ―feelable‖ vibration in
the area.
The SJBL alignment is an infrequently used rail corridor with about two freight trains per
day. Vibration along the SJBL is dominated by the existing train activity. In addition,
heavy-duty vehicle traffic along I-215 and other local roads contribute to ―feelable‖
vibration in the area.
Vibration Measurement Program
To assess the potential vibration impacts as a result of the PVL project, vibration measurements
were conducted at 12 selected sensitive receptors in 2005. A tabulation of these monitored
locations is provided in Table 4.10-7 and monitoring locations are mapped on Figure 4.10-3 and
Figure 4.10-4.
Table 4.10-7
Summary of Vibration Measurements (2005)
Site No. Description
Measure
Type(1)
Dist.
from
Tracks
(ft.)
Avg.
Train
Vib.,
VdB(2) No. of Trains (3)
1 103 Sir Dames Dr, Riverside LT 50 82 3
2 441 Transit Avenue, Highgrove LT 50 72 3
3 2294 Kentwood/Spruce, Riverside LT 50 73 8
4 518 W. Campus View, Riverside LT 50 72 8
5 232 E. Campus View, Riverside LT 50 70 2
6 396 E. Big Springs Rd., Riverside LT 50 58 2
7 228 C Street, Perris LT 50 -- 2
8 81W. 8th Street, Perris LT 50 -- 0
9 Church at Spruce & Watkins, Riverside ST 50 -- 0
10 Church at Mt. Vernon Crossing, Riverside ST 50 78 1
11 Hyatt School/E. Manfield Rd., Riverside ST 50 68 1
12 Highland Park off Kentwood, Riverside ST 50 -- 0
Notes:
(1) LT = long term (24 hours or more), ST = short term (30 minutes to one hour).
(2) Average train vibration level when locomotives passed measurement position.
(3) Total number of trains passing measurement position during measurements.
Source: ATS Consulting (2005)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-19 April 5, 2010
There has been no major development within the PVL project area since 2005, and therefo re no
significant increase in traffic, and the volume and type of freight service on the BNSF and SJBL
alignments has remained relatively constant. Since the dominant source for ambient vibration
levels was and still is the existing freight service on these alignments, the 2005 data is
representative of 2009 ambient noise levels.
The 12 measurement sites were selected on the basis of several factors, the most important of
which was the site‘s potential sensitivity to changes in vibration le vels. Each site was either
representative of a unique vibration environment, or of nearby, similarly situated receptors.
Along the BNSF alignment, the primary land uses are industrial and commercial; however,
vibration monitoring was conducted at two pockets of residential properties near the alignment.
As the Citrus Connection and the existing SJBL alignment pass through predominately
residential neighborhoods, most of the sensitive receptors monitored along these segments are
residential in nature. Several non-residential land uses also exist along these segments and
were included in the monitoring program; these sites include schools , churches and senior
centers. Pass-by vibration measurements were taken during existing freight operations.
Noise and Vibration Analysis Methodology
Following is an outline of the approach used to identify potential noise and vibration impacts
from the proposed PVL. The approach follows the Detailed Assessment guidelines outlined in
the FTA Guidance Manual. The steps taken were:
1. Identify representative noise and vibration sensitive receptors.
Sensitive land uses along the corridor were identified for monitoring and assessment, by first
referencing recent aerial photography. Sensitive receptors, such as residential and non-
residential buildings including schools, churches and senior centers were then grouped together
based on their location relative to the tracks, grade crossings, and other geographic and PVL
operational factors that might affect noise levels. Within each grouping, a representative
receptor was included in the noise model. Sites closest to the alignment were first selected. If
no impacts were predicted at these locations then impacts at loc ations further from the
alignment would be unlikely. If impacts were predicted for Category 2 properties, the next
closest row of properties would be assessed for impact. When impacts were predicted at
Category 3 sites, no further assessment was required since the next closest receptors were
located too far away from the noise source and their line s of sight to the alignment would be
blocked by intervening buildings. These two factors eliminated any potential impact at Category
3 locations located further from the alignment.
2. Determine existing noise and vibration levels.
This was done and reported above.
3. Develop noise and vibration prediction models.
Noise
For FTA noise predictions, the major noise components related to the operation of the PVL
project are represented in the prediction model. They include horn noise and locomotive engine
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-20 April 5, 2010
noise. Also included in the model were noise from rail cars and bells at grade crossings. Noise
from wheel squeal (near the tight radius curve at the proposed ―Citrus Connection‖) was
assessed separately since the operation of the PVL train corridor would include as part of the
design plans, wayside applicators which would eliminate significantly reduce noise from wheel
squeal for all tight radius curves.
For horn noise, the key modeling factor is that trains are required by law to blow their horns from
15 to 25 seconds or ¼ mile before a grade crossing. The effect of horn noise increases at
properties closest to grade crossings. Locomotive and rail car noise are primarily dependent
upon the speed of travel along the tracks. Crossing bells are required to be sounded b efore any
train passes by a grade crossing for at least 30 seconds. The prediction of wheel squeal is
dependent upon the length of the curve and the rate of speed that the train is traveling along the
curve. The ―Citrus Connection‖ curve is the only proposed new curve for the PVL project and, it
also represents the longest tight radius curve along the entire PVL corridor.
Reference levels for all of the above described noise components (e.g. horn , locomotive, rail
car, crossing bells and wheel squeal) were obtained from the FTA Guidance Manual tables.
Their combined impact at nearby sensitive properties was then calculated. For potential noise
from PVL stations, parking lots and the Layover Facility, the FTA Guidance Manual noise
screening table was utilized. Because night-time noise is more annoying to humans than day-
time noise (e.g, a train horn heard at 3 AM is more annoying than a train horn heard at 1 PM),
the FTA prediction formulas applied to the PVL project include an adjustment in the actual noise
level to simulate the increased annoyance of night-time activities. Utilizing these adjustments
penalty, the noise from project-related night-time activity is effectively increased to account for
the increased annoyance level of residents.
Existing freight operations along the PVL corridor were also considered in the analysis.
However, their relevance to the assessment is only in terms of their effect on the existing 24-
hour monitoring levels shown in the noise monitoring Tables 4.10-3, 4.10-4 and 4.10-5, above.
Essentially, existing freight operations increases a community‘s existing 24-hour Ldn level. As
described above in the impact criteria section, this increase in noise level results in a lessening
in the amount of noise that a future rail project would be allowed to contribute to a community
without resulting in an impact.
Vibration
The FTA impact criteria for GBV are based on the amount of vibration generated within
buildings. This means that accurate predictions of GBV require accounting for: (a) the forces
generated by the interaction of the wheels and rails (b) the effects that the localized soil
conditions have on vibration propagation, and (c) how building structures respond to ground
vibration.
To develop predictions of GBV for the PVL, the FTA‘s Guidance Manual generalized base
vibration curve was applied. The base curve is referenced to typical locomotive vibration
characteristics and the distance from the vibration source to the affected receiver. Applying key
adjustment elements to the curve such as speed and building response results in the final
vibration prediction level.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-21 April 5, 2010
Based on the results, the appropriate vibration criteria are then applied to determine potential
impact. The FTA vibration criteria are based on the frequency of operation (less than 30 events
per day based on the forecasted number of SCRRA/Metrolink trains) along the PVL corridor.
For the PVL corridor, this would mean that the forecasted number of SCRRA/Metrolink trains
would be in the ―Infrequent Events― category, as described in the FTA Guidance Manual.
Because the impact criteria already takes into account the frequency or number of train trips,
only one single train event is required for the assessment.
According to Chapter 8 of the FTA Guidance Manual, the number of existing daily freight train
events along the SJBL is too few to warrant inclusion in the analysis. When existing rail
corridors have less than five freight train trips per day, the existing environment would not
include a significant number of perceptible GBV events. As a result, the FTA vibration
assessment for the PVL project would only be related to future Metrolink trains traveling along
the SJBL.
4. Estimate future noise and vibration levels at the representative receivers:
Using the noise and vibration models described above, future train-generated noise and
vibration levels were estimated and compared against the applicable FTA impact thresholds to
identify potential noise and vibration impacts.
5. Identify noise and vibration mitigation, if required.
For the proposed PVL project, noise mitigation would be accomplished by two methods,
including the construction of noise barriers and the use of building sound insulation. Noise
barriers are very effective in eliminating severe and moderate impacts to affected properties; the
technique is recognized by FTA as effective, and is used by state agencies and commissions
such as RCTC and Caltrans. The length of the barrier is important to its effectiveness so that
noise generated beyond the ends of the barrier do not compromise the effectiveness of the
barrier at noise-sensitive locations. A solid, impervious wall that is sufficiently high to block the
direct view of the noise source will typically reduce community noise levels, at locations within
about 200 feet of the track, by five to 15 dBA. At locations where noise barriers are not feasible
and/or cannot totally eliminate potential impacts, building sound insulation is recommended for
individual residences. Building sound insulation typically involves caulking and sealing gaps in
the building envelope, wall insulation and installation of acoustical windows and solid-core
doors. Depending on the quality of the original building façade, especially windows and doors,
sound insulation treatments can improve the noise reductions from transit noise by 5 to 20 dBA.
With respect to vibration impacts, according to the FTA Guidance Manual, the application of
mitigation measures such as the use of ballast mats or resiliently supported ties would
significantly reduce the level of predicted vibration. One of these mitigation measures would be
applied to the track alignment and would extend along areas where impacts were predicted.
When assessing vibration mitigation it is important to consider both the degree of impact and
the cost as any mitigation should be both reasonable and feasible.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-22 April 5, 2010
4.10.2 Regulations
Federal Policies and Regulations
Noise Control Act of 1972 and Quiet Communities Act of 1978
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC) and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (42 USC 4913)
were established by the USEPA to set performance standards for noise emissions from major
sources, including transit sources. Though these acts are still in effect, the enforcement of the
stated noise emission standards shifted to state and local governments in 1981.
Federal Railroad Administration
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopted the USEPA railroad noise standards as its
noise regulations (49 CFR 11, part 210) for the purpose of enforcement. The standards provide
specific noise limits for stationary and moving locomotives, moving railroad cars, and associated
railroad operations in terms of A-weighted sound level at a specified measurement location.
Federal Transit Administration
The FTA provides capital assistance for a wide range of mass transit projects from new rail
rapid transit systems to bus maintenance facilities and vehicle purchases. FTA‘s environmental
impact regulation is codified in Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771.In addition, as
noted in this analysis, FTA has developed and codified the prevailing noise and vibration
assessment procedures, which are used herein.
State Policies and Regulations
California Noise Control Act of 1973
The California Health and Safety Code established the California Noise Control Act of 1973
(§46000 et seq.) to ―establish and maintain a program on noise control.‖ This act mirrors the
federal Noise Control Act of 1972 and also defers the enforcement of noise emission standards
to local county and city agencies.
California Government Code Section 65302 (f)
California Government Code Section 65302 (f) states that general plans must include a noise
element section which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community, and which
recognizes the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control. The adopted noise
element should serve as a guideline for compliance with the state's noise standards.
California Public Utilities Commission Requirements
The current CPUC requirements for audible warning devices at grade crossings dictate that
bells or other audible warning devices shall be included in all automatic warning device
assemblies and shall be operated in conjunction with the flashing light signals. (AREMA, 2007)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-23 April 5, 2010
Local Policies and Regulations
The PVL project would be subject to local policies and regulations relative to construction noise
and local nuisance noise levels. These statutes define maximum noise limits for existing
community activities and future land development projects; however, as they do not contain
explicit noise criteria governing future rail operations, they do not pertain to the assessment of
these future operations. As a result, for the PVL project, l ocal policies and regulations are
applied to potential on-site project construction activities.
Riverside County General Plan
The Riverside County General Plan Noise Element provides several policies pertaining to the
location of new potentially noise-sensitive uses and sets forth planning criteria to maximize the
compatibility of uses adjacent to rail corridors and stations. The Noise Element, addresses
excessive noise exposure, and provides community planning for the regulation of noise
(Riverside County, 2008). This element includes policies, standards, criteria, programs,
diagrams, a reference to action items, and maps related to protecting public health and welfare
from noise. Policy No. 10.4 recommends noise mitigation features where rail operations impact
existing adjacent residential or other noise-sensitive uses.
The Riverside County General Plan defines ―noise sensitive land uses‖ as a series of land uses
that have been deemed sensitive by the State of California. These land uses require a serene
environment as part of the overall facility or residential experience and include, but are not
necessarily limited to; schools, hospitals, rest homes, long term care facilities, mental care
facilities, residential uses, places of worship, libraries, and passive recreation areas.
Riverside County Ordinance No. 847
Riverside County Ordinance No. 847 establishes countywide standards for regulating noise
(Riverside County, 2007). For example, in residential land uses, the maximum dB level allowed
from 7 AM to 10 PM is 55, while the maximum dB level allowed from 10 PM to 7 AM is 45. With
a few exceptions, no person shall create any sound that causes the exterior sound level on any
other occupied property to exceed the stated sound level standards. For construction-related
activities that exceed these standards, an application for a construction-related exception must
be made to the Director of Building and Safety accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
In this ordinance, ―sensitive receptors‖ are defined as land uses that are identified as sensitive
to noise in the Noise Element of the Riverside County General Plan.
Riverside County Code, Title 15.04.020 (F)
According to the Riverside County Municipal Code, Title 15.04.020 (F), whenever a construction
site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence or residences, no construction activities
may be undertaken between the hours of 6 PM and 6 AM during the months of June through
September and between the hours of 6 PM and 7 AM during the months of October through
May. Exceptions are allowed only with the written consent of the building official.
Operational noise levels are regulated by the Riverside County Department of Industrial
Hygiene to limit the level of noise from industrial and other stationary source operations. Worst-
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-24 April 5, 2010
case scenario levels for stationary noise sources projected to the property line of an occupied
residential property are to remain below 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7 AM), and
are not to exceed 65 dBA during daytime hours (7 AM to 10 PM). Sensitive receptors, such as
rest homes, schools, hospitals, mental care facilities, places of worship, and libraries, are
described in the Riverside County General Plan. Noise generating uses that re sult in noise
levels greater than 65 dBA are discouraged near these areas of increased sensitivity.
City of Riverside General Plan
The Noise Element in the City of Riverside General Plan includes policies and plans that protect
existing and planned land uses from significant noise impacts and ways to minimize noise
impacts. Policies N - 4.1 through N - 4.5 specifically address ground transportation-related noise
impacts and noise reduction features that should be considered, including earthen berms and
landscaped walls.
The Noise Element also refers to the City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 7 for regulations
regarding construction noise.
City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 7
The City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 7 sets forth standards and regulations that control
unnecessary, excessive, and/or annoying noise in the City (City of Riverside, 2007). It is
enforced by the Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development Department and
the Riverside Police Department. Based on Table 4.10-8, unless a variance has been granted
as provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of
any noise which exceeds the following:
1. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, up to five decibels, for a
cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
2. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, plus five decibels, for a
cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
3. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, plus ten decibels, for a
cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
4. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, plus fifteen decibels, for
the cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
5. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, plus twenty decibels or
the maximum measured ambient noise level, for any period of time.
If the measured ambient noise level exceeds that permissible within any of the first four noise
limit categories, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five decibel
increments in each category as appropriate to encompass the ambient noise level. In the event
the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise
level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-25 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-8
City of Riverside – Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level
Residential Night (10 PM to 7 AM)
Day (7 AM to 10 PM)
45 dBA
55 dBA
Office/Commercial Any time 65 dBA
Industrial Any time 70 dBA
Community Support Any time 60 dBA
Public Recreation Facility Any time 65 dBA
Non-urban Any time 70 dBA
Section 7.35.010 specifically addresses construction-related activities. Construction work that
exceeds the allowable noise standards (in Table 4.10 -8) may not occur between the hours of 7
PM and 7 AM on weekdays, between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or
federal holidays.
City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code
According to the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, section 11.80.020, no person shall maintain,
create, operate or cause to be operated on private property any source of sound in such a
manner as to create any non-impulsive sound which exceeds the limits set forth for the source
land use category (for daytime 60dB residential and 65dB commercial, for nighttime 55dB
residential and 60dB commercial) when measured at a distance of 200 feet or more from the
real property line of the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on privately owned property, or
from the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on public right -of-way, public space or other
publicly owned property. Any source of sound in violation of this subsection shall be deemed
prima facie to be a noise disturbance.
According to the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, section 11.80.030, no person shall operate or
cause the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or
demolition work between the hours of 8 PM and 7 AM the following day such that the sound
there from creates a noise disturbance, except for emergency work by public service utilities or
for other work approved by the city manager or designee. This section shall not apply to the use
of power tools. With respect to construction, any construction within the city shall only be as
follows: Monday through Friday (except for holidays which occur on weekdays), 6 AM to 8 PM;
weekends and holidays (as observed by the city and described in Chapter 2.55 of this code), 7
AM to 8 PM, unless written approval is obtained from the city building official or city engineer
(Ord. 759 § 5.5, 2007; Ord. 484 § 3.2 (part), 1995).
City of Perris General Plan
The City of Perris General Plan does not discuss specific noise requirements for railroads, but it
does provide goals, policies, and implementation measures that address future land use
compatibility with noise from rail traffic (City of Perris, 2006). Implementation Measure III.A.1 of
Policy III.A states that the City of Perris will work with BNSF and RCTC to upgrade aging rail
with new continuous welded rail and to install noise reduction features in res idential areas.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-26 April 5, 2010
City of Perris Municipal Code, Chapter 7.34
Chapter 7.34 of the City of Perris Municipal Code declares that excessive noise levels are
detrimental to the health and safety of individuals and a re therefore prohibited by the provisions
of Ordinance 1082 codified in this chapter (City of Perris, 2000). The maximum noise level
allowed during the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM is 60 dBA, and 80 dBA is allowed between 7 AM
and 10 PM.
Construction noise is restricted to 80 dBA at residential property lines, and construction is
restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays
except for Columbus Day and Washington‘s Birthday.
Quiet Zones
Although not recommended here as mitigation, as it is not a mitigation that RCTC has the
authority to put in place, an additional option to reduce noise includes quiet zones. Since the
adoption of the FRA 2005 Train Horn & Quiet Zone Final Rule, public authorities have had the
option to maintain and/or establish quiet zones provided certain supplemental or alternative
safety measures are in place and the crossing accident rate meets FRA standards. RCTC has
previously donated $26,000 to the City of Riverside to study the potential for ―quiet zones‖ at
grade crossings in the city. The current Metrolink guidelines for local agencies that wish to
establish quiet zones include early coordination with Metrolink followed by diagnostic meetings
with the principal stakeholders. In this case the stakeholders would include Metrolink, RCTC,
the City of Riverside, the City of Perris, BNSF and the CPUC.
4.10.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Noise and Vibration is
defined by:
1. Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies
2. Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels
3. Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity about levels existing without the project
4. Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-27 April 5, 2010
Discussion is provided following.
4.10.4 Project Impacts
Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies
With regard to the PVL project rail operations, criteria applicable to the assessment of potential
project-related noise impacts as defined by CEQA would be governed by the FTA impact criteria
described above. Based on these criteria, Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10, and 4.10-11 show the results
from the Noise and Vibration Technical Report C. The projected noise impacts are summarized
below. Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11 characterize the type of impact using the FTA
criteria, and identify the proposed mitigation and the number of decibels that the mitigation
would reduce noise by.
Trains
By 2012, commuter train operations would consist of twelve total train movements per day with
the proposed project. These operations would include four trains leaving South Perris for
Riverside (to connect to LA Union Station) in the AM, two trains from South Perris to Riverside
in the PM, one train from Riverside to South Perris in the AM, and five trains from Riverside to
South Perris in the PM.
Trains are assumed to operate with one diesel locomotive and six to eight passenger cars on
rail. The PVL would use welded rail throughout, reducing train-rail noise. Free flow train
speeds along the study corridor would range from 25 to approximately 60 mph. FRA and CPUC
rules currently require that all trains approaching roadway-rail grade crossings blow their horns
for one-quarter of a mile prior to reaching the grade crossing. In addition, as trains pass grade
crossings, warning devices are sounded.
Under the FTA methodology, noise impacts are projected at several Category 2 land uses
(residences and buildings where people normally sleep) located along the SJBL in Riverside,
north of the UCR campus. The majority of the predicted impacts would be a result of the train
horns being sounded by trains scheduled to pass through areas with sensitive land uses prior to
7 AM, the demarcation between nighttime and daytime in the calculation of Ldn . Noise from
grade crossing warning devices would only affect homes nearby the intersection and would be
minimal in comparison to the sounding of train horns. Noise impacts are projected at a total of
83 residential locations all of which would be located in the UCR area. Impacts at 18 of the total
83 residential locations would be characterized as severe. The FTA severe impact designation
is analogous to the CEQA potentially significant impact. Table 4.10-9 and 4.10-10 present the
findings of the noise analysis and its characterization for Category 2 land uses, along the length
of the SJBL.
Noise impacts are also predicted for three Category 3 buildings. In the UCR area of Riverside,
these impact locations would include the school gymnasium of the Highland Elementary School,
St George‘s Episcopal Church, and Crest Community Baptist Church. None of these impacts
would be severe. No impacts on Category 3 buildings were predicted in Perris. Table 4.10-11
presents the land use Category 3 noise impact predictions.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-28 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-9
Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses for Riverside
Description(1)
Dist. To
Track
CL, ft
Land
Use
No.
Dwelling
Units
Track
Side(2) Horn
Exist
Ldn,
dBA
Speed, mph
Predicted
Ldn, dBA
Impact Threshold Impacts
No. Dwelling Units
IB OB Impact Severe Type(3) Impact Severe
Mitigation(4)/
Barrier
Reduction
RIVERSIDE
1st Street 210 SF 4 OB IB 75 45 45 59.9 65.0 73.2 None
Thornton Avenue 90 SF 17 OB OB 76 45 45 58.6 65.0 74.0 None
Transit Avenue 141 SF 12 IB OB 67 30 30 63.2 62.2 67.5 Moderate
Citrus Street 1 62 SF 1 IB OB 73 30 30 66.7 65.0 71.7 None 1 SI
Citrus Street 2 102 SF 2 IB OB 73 30 30 60.9 65.0 71.7 None
Kentwood 1 170 SF 3 IB OB 67 60 60 54.8 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 2 186 SF 2 IB OB 67 60 60 54.9 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 3 80 SF 7 IB IB 63 60 60 63.7 59.6 65.0 Moderate 14 NB / 7dB
Kentwood 4 80 SF 6 IB IB 63 60 60 62.1 59.6 65.0 Moderate 6 NB / 4dB
Kentwood 5 80 SF 1 IB Both 63 60 60 65.1 59.6 65.0 Severe 1 SI
Kentwood 6 150 SF 1 IB OB 67 60 60 62.0 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 7 186 SF 2 IB OB 67 60 60 59.3 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 8 160 SF 1 IB Both 67 60 60 62.2 62.2 67.5 Moderate 1 SI
Watkins 1 124 MF 3 OB IB 66 60 60 60.8 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 2 140 MF 6 OB IB 66 60 60 59.7 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 3 140 MF 7 OB NO 66 60 60 53.9 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 4 140 MF 10 OB OB 66 60 60 55.3 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 5 124 MF 9 OB OB 66 60 60 56.0 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 6 124 MF 6 OB IB 66 60 60 60.2 61.5 66.8 None
Highlander 1 127 SF 8 IB OB 59 30 30 57.4 57.2 62.9 Moderate 8 NB / 3dB
Highlander 2 127 SF 1 IB Both 59 30 30 63.2 57.2 62.9 Severe 1 SI
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-29 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-9 (cont’d)
Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses for Riverside
Description(1)
Dist. To
Track
CL, ft
Land
Use
No.
Dwelling
Units
Track
Side(2) Horn
Exist
Ldn,
dBA
Speed, mph
Predicted
Ldn, dBA
Impact Threshold Impacts
No. Dwelling Units
IB OB Impact Severe Type(3) Impact Severe
Mitigation(4)/
Barrier
Reduction
Highlander 3 152 SF 1 IB Both 59 30 30 56.7 57.2 62.9 None 1
W. Campus View 1 127 SF 6 IB IB 59 30 30 61.9 57.2 62.9 Moderate 6 NB / 5dB
W. Campus View 2 117 SF 7 IB NO 59 30 30 55.4 57.2 62.9 None
W. Campus View 3 125 SF 9 IB OB 62 30 30 61.4 58.9 64.5 Moderate 9 NB / 6dB
W. Campus View 4 104 SF 8 IB OB 59 30 30 60.3 57.2 62.9 Moderate 8 NB /5dB
W. Campus View 5 104 SF 6 IB NO 59 30 30 55.9 57.2 62.9 None
Nisbet Street 1 137 SF 6 OB OB 62 30 30 60.9 58.9 64.5 Moderate 6 NB / 3dB
Nisbet Street 2 137 SF 5 OB OB 62 30 30 60.8 58.9 64.5 Moderate 5 NB / 3dB
Mt. Vernon 1 110 SF 1 OB OB 62 30 30 65.0 58.9 64.5 Severe 1 SI
Shady Grove 356 SF 11 IB OB 62 30 30 56.8 58.9 64.5 None
E. Campus View 1 80 SF 4 IB IB 56 25 25 65.3 55.7 61.6 Severe 4 NB / 11dB
E. Campus View 2 65 SF 4 IB IB 62 25 25 67.9 58.9 64.5 Severe 4 NB(5) / 10dB
E. Campus View 3 65 SF 4 IB IB 56 25 25 66.8 55.7 61.6 Severe 7 NB(6) / 13dB
Big Springs 120 SF 4 OB No 62 30 30 57.3 58.9 64.5 None
Quail and Swain 140 SF 5 OB No 62 30 30 56.7 58.9 64.5 None
Masters Avenue 170 SF 4 OB No 62 30 30 55.8 58.9 64.5 None
E. Manfield Street 130 SF 3 OB No 62 30 30 57.0 58.9 64.5 None
Total, SJBL, Riverside 65 18
Notes:
(1) See Appendix A of the Noise and Vibration Technical Report to this EIR for graphics showing each receptor cluster on aerial photographs.
(2) IB = inbound side of track, OB = outbound side of tracks.
(3) Represents FTA impact criteria, with respect to CEQA criteria; ―impact‖ = ―less than significant‖, ―severe‖ = ―potentially significant impact‖
(4) NB= Noise Barrier, SI = Sound Insulation
(5) Home would require mitigation at this location (see Mitigation Measure NV-2).
(6) Includes three moderately impacted second row buildings.
Source: STV Incorporated (2009)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-30 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-10
Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses for Perris
Description(1)
Dist. To
Track
CL, ft
Land
Use
No.
Dwelling
Units
Track
Side(2) Horn
Exist
Ldn,
dBA
Speed, mph
Predicted
Ldn, dBA
Impact Threshold Impacts
No. Dwelling Units
IB OB Impact Severe Type(3) Impact Severe
Mitigation(4)/
Barrier
Reduction
PERRIS
C Street 220 SF 19 OB Both 70 46 46 61.8 64.4 69.5 None
10th Street 120 SF 1 OB Both 72 30 30 61.2 65.0 70.9 None
State Street 80 SF 1 OB Both 72 30 30 63.3 65.0 70.9 None
9th Street 208 SF 3 IB Both 66 30 30 53.7 61.5 66.8 None
Case Road 130 MF 12 OB IB 72 30 30 61.7 65.0 70.9 None
Total, SJBL, Perris 0 0
Notes:
(1) See Appendix A of the Noise and Vibration Technical Report to this EIR for graphics showing each receptor cluster on aerial photographs.
(2) IB = inbound side of track, OB = outbound side of tracks.
(3) Represents FTA impact criteria, with respect to CEQA criteria; ―impact‖ = ―less than significant‖, ―severe‖ = ―potentially significant impact‖
(4) NB= Noise Barrier, SI = Sound Insulation
Source: STV Incorporated (2009)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION 92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-31 April 5, 2010 Table 4.10-11 Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 3 Land Uses Description Dist. To Track CL, ft Track Side(1) Horn Exist Leq,(2) dBA Speed, mph Predict Leq, Impact Threshold Impact Mitigation IB OB dBA Impact Severe Type3 Type(4)/Barrier Reduction St George’s Episcopal Church 190 OB IB 57 60 60 61.4 61.2 67.0 Moderate SI UCR Day Care 175 OB IB 54 30 30 57.1 59.9 65.8 None Highland Elementary 88 IB IB 52 3060 3060 60.5 59.9 65.8 Moderate NB / 3dB Crest Community Baptist Church 163 IB OB 52 30 30 63.3 59.1 65.1 Moderate NB / 6dB Mt Vernon Day Care 180 OB IB 52 25 25 58.7 59.1 65.1 None Hyatt Elementary School 370 OB No 60 35 35 58.1 62.8 68.4 None Nan sanders Elementary School 123 OB No 64 60 60 55.6 65.2 70.6 None Senior Citizens Center 96 IB OB 59 44 44 60.2 62.2 67.9 None St. James School 370 OB Both 64 46 46 56.2 65.2 70.6 None Notes: (1) See the Noise and Vibration Technical Report to this EIR for graphics showing each receptor cluster on aerial photographs. (2) IB = inbound side of track, OB = outbound side of tracks. (3) Represents FTA impact criteria, with respect to CEQA criteria; “impact” = “less than significant”, “severe” = “potentially significant impact” (4) NB= Noise Barrier, SI = Sound Insulation Source: STV Incorporated (2009)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-32 April 5, 2010
Stations and Parking Lots
Noise due to the operation of a train station is primarily associated with automobile traffic
entering and exiting the station drop-off and parking areas. The noise analysis considered the
parking lots at each of the four proposed opening year stations. The proposed station parking
lots would range from approximately 440 to 880 cars. However, all noise sensitive receptors are
located beyond the FTA screening distances (as shown in Appendix C of the PVL Noise and
Vibration Technical Report Cdocument) for all proposed stations and parking lots. This is
significant since screening distances are conservatively based on the lowest FTA threshold of
impact as indicated in Chapter 4 of the FTA Guidance Manual. As a result, sensitive receptors
located beyond this distance would not experience noise disturbance fro m station or parking lot
operations (see section 4.2 of the FTA Guidance Manual). Noise from station emergency
generators would also not result in any impact from stations as they are not considered to be a
normal operating component of the project and would only be used in the event of an
emergency (e.g., a power outage).
Layover Facility
Trains in the vicinity of the Layover Facility in South Perris would be traveling at low rates of
speed and therefore are not expected to be significant sources of nois e. In addition, the
proposed Layover Facility (for overnight storage and light, routine maintenance of the trains) is
located substantially further away from noise sensitive resources than 1,000 feet, the FTA noise
screening distance for noise sensitive land uses with respect to noise from a Layover Facility.
As a result, noise impacts related to the Layover Facility are not expected.
Summary of Results
Utilizing FTA noise impact criteria, the results of the noise study indicate that both moderate and
severe noise impacts would occur at several locations along the proposed PVL corridor. For
the 2012 operational year, moderate impacts were predicted at 83 separate Category 2
locations along the alignment. Of these 83 impact locations, 18 were predicted to be severe.
The predicted noise impacts were located in the UCR area. Noise predictions at Category 3
locations revealed moderate impacts at three locations which included St. George‘s Episcopal
Church, Crest Community Baptist Church, and Highland Elementary School.
As a result of the noise prediction analysis, an assessment of measures that would mitigate the
predicted noise impacts was conducted. The identified mitigation measures (noise barriers,
sound insulation) which would eliminate all predicted noise impacts at noise sensitive properties
are also shown in Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11 above (Mitigation Measures NV-1 and
NV-2).
Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels
The proposed PVL project would be located within an existing rail corridor that currently
generates GBV and GBN. The vibration environmental conditions for each segment are
described below:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-33 April 5, 2010
The BNSF alignment is a heavily used rail corridor with 80 to 100 trains traveling along it
during a typical 24-hour period. Vibration along the BNSF alignment is dominated by the
existing train activity. Heavy-duty vehicle traffic also contributes to ―feelable‖ vibration in
the area.
The SJBL alignment is an infrequently used rail corridor with about two freight trains per
day. Vibration along the SJBL is dominated by the existing train activity. In addition,
heavy-duty vehicle traffic along I-215 and other local roads contribute to ―feelable‖
vibration in the area.
Subsequently, the BNSF corridor (from the existing Riverside Rail Station to Citrus Street)
would be considered a heavily used rail corridor (i.e. more th an 12 trains per day, as defined in
the FTA guidance) whose existing vibration levels would exceed the FTA impact criteria.
Therefore, based on the expected volume for the proposed PVL, future vibration impacts would
not be expected to occur at vibration sensitive locations in the area of the BNSF corridor. With
respect to the existing SJBL corridor, freight train volume is expected to remain constant in the
future at approximately two freight trips per day. Therefore, the SJBL corridor would be
considered an infrequently used rail corridor (i.e. fewer than five trains per day, as defined in the
FTA guidance). As a result, based on the FTA Guidance Manual the use of the FTA general
vibration curve would be an appropriate method of assessment.
Details of the vibration predictions are presented in Table 4.10 -12 and Table 4.10-13 for
residential land uses in Riverside and Perris, respectively. Table 4.10-14 presents the vibration
predictions for institutional land uses (schools and churches) for the entire SJBL alignment. All
vibration levels have been predicted using the procedures outlined above.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-34 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-12
Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 2 (Residential) Land Uses for Riverside
Description Dist
(Ft)
Land
Use
No.
Dwell
Units
Track
Side1
Speed Impact
Threshold
Predicted
Vibration Impact No.
IB OB VdB VdB Y/N?
Citrus Street 62 SF 3 IB 30 30 80 78 N
Kentwood 1 170 SF 5 IB 35 35 80 69 N
Kentwood 2 140 SF 4 IB 60 60 80 76 N
Kentwood 3 80 SF 14 IB 60 60 80 81 Y 14
Watkins 2 140 MF 6 OB 60 60 80 76 N
Watkins 4 140 MF 7 OB 60 60 80 76 N
Watkins 3 140 MF 10 OB 60 60 80 76 N
Watkins 1 124 MF 9 OB 60 60 80 78 N
Watkins 5 124 MF 4 OB 60 60 80 78 N
Highlander 127 SF 10 IB 30 30 80 72 N
W. Campus View 1 127 SF 13 IB 30 30 80 72 N
W. Campus View 2 117 SF 13 IB 30 30 80 73 N
W. Campus View 3 125 SF 9 IB 30 30 80 72 N
W. Campus View 4 104 SF 5 IB 30 30 80 74 N
Nisbet Way 137 SF 11 OB 30 30 80 71 N
Mt. Vernon 1 110 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 73 N
Mt. Vernon 2 180 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 68 N
E. Campus View 1 80 SF 3 IB 25 25 80 73 N
E. Campus View 2 65 SF 9 IB 25 25 80 75 N
Big Springs 120 SF 4 OB 30 30 80 73 N
Quail and Swain 140 SF 5 OB 30 30 80 70 N
Masters Avenue 170 SF 4 OB 30 30 80 68 N
E. Manfield Street 130 SF 3 OB 30 30 80 72 N
Total, SJBL, Riverside 14
Source: STV Incorporated (2009)
Table 4.10-13
Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 2 (Residential) Land Uses for Perris
Description Dist
(Ft)
Land
Use
No.
Dwell
Units
Track
Side1
Speed Impact
Threshold
Predicted
Vibration Impact No.
IB OB VdB VdB Y/N
C Street 244 SF 19 OB 46 46 80 67 N
10th Street 120 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 73 N
State Street 80 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 75 N
9th Street 300 SF 5 IB 30 30 80 62 N
Case Road 130 MF 12 OB 30 30 80 72 N
Total, SJBL, Perris 0
Source: STV Incorporated (2009)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-35 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-14
Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 3 (Institutional) Land Uses
Description Dist
(Ft) Land Use Track
Side1
Speed Impact
Threshold
Predicted
Vibration Impact No.
IB OB VdB VdB Y/N
St George’s Episcopal
Church 190 Church OB 60 60 83 74 N
UCR Day Care 175 Day Care OB 30 30 83 69 N
Highland Elementary 88 School IB 60 60 83 81 N
Crest Community
Baptist Church 163 Church IB 30 30 83 69 N
Hyatt Elementary
School 370 School OB 35 35 83 63 N
Senior Citizens Center 72 Community
Center IB 44 44 83 81 N
St. James School 370 School OB 6046 6046 83 68 N
Total, SJBL, Perris 0
Source: STV Incorporated (2009)
Summary of Results
Rail Operations
Utilizing FTA vibration criteria, the results of the PVL vibration study indicate that future
SCRRA/Metrolink rail vibration levels generated under the 2012 operational year would be
generally in ranges below the FTA vibration impact thresholds. However, vibration impacts
would occur along one residential section of the PVL corridor. Affected homes are located in the
UCR area just south of Spruce Street and north of the Highland Elementary School along the
eastern side of the proposed PVL alignment. A total of 14 homes extending approximately 1,200
feet along the proposed alignment would be affected. The distances between the PVL
alignment and existing homes in this section range from 80 to 90 feet.
Train operations from the proposed PVL project will result in vibration impacts in the UCR area
of Riverside. Mitigation measures to reduce vibration include the installation of ballast mats or
resiliently supported ties (under-tie pads). The proposed mitigation measures allows for the
selection of either one or of these two methods to reduce vibration to below a significant impact
(Mitigation Measures NV-3 and NV-4).
Stations, Parking Lots and the Layover Facility
Trains in the vicinity of stations and the Layover Facility would be traveling at low rates of speed
and therefore are not expected to result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors.
In addition, automobile parking areas would be utilized by rubber-tired vehicles. Rubber-tired
vehicles do not generate vibration impacts because of the nature of tire-pavement interaction
with respect to vibration impacts. No impacts are expected from these areas.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-36 April 5, 2010
Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity about levels existing without the project
As shown in the noise impact tables, Table 4.10-9 and Table 4.10-11, in areas near downtown
Riverside, there would be no noise impacts as the dominant existing noise level source at
sensitive areas near the PVL would be from the existing rail activity along the BNSF alignment.
However, in the UCR campus area along the existing SJBL alignment, there are several
sensitive properties at which both moderate and severe noise impacts are predicted to occur.
These impacts were therefore subsequently addressed with the application of mitigation
measures.
In addition to noise from train horns, locomotives and crossing bells, wheel squeal on tight
radius curves (<10 times the SCRRA/Metrolink locomotive wheel base or 900 feet) can
contribute to community noise levels. Table 4.10-15 lists all short radius curves along the
proposed PVL alignment. As wheel squeal noise can be significant, wayside applicators will be
installed as part of project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius curves.
Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to
reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Transit
Cooperative Research Program – ―Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual‖ (Transportation Research
Board, 1997) a report which was sponsored by the FTA , the use of a petroleum lubricant would
reduce squeal while the use of a water lubricant would eliminate squeal. These steps taken to
reduce wheel squeal from the commuter rail operations would also reduce the existing wheel
squeal from BNSF freight trains, which do and would continue to operate along the SJBL.
Table 4.10-15
Summary of Wheel Squeal Locations
Curve Number Description Residential Area
P-1A The Citrus Connection Yes
P-3B Near East Campus Drive Yes
P-3D Box Springs Area Yes
P-4A Box Springs Area Yes
P-4C Box Springs Area Yes
P-4D Box Springs Area Yes
P-4E Box Springs Area Yes
P-4F Box Springs Area Yes
P-4G Near Watkins Drive and Poarch Road No
P-6C Near Intersection of I-60 and I-215 No
P-18A Perris Yes
Based on PVL 30% Engineering Drawings
The only location at which the construction of new PVL rail would result in a short radius curve
would be the ―Citrus Connection‖ (P-1A). The Citrus Connection curve is also the longest curve
along the entire extent of the PVL alignment. This length along with the required slower train
speeds along the curve would increase the wheel squeal noise exposure time. Therefore, as
requested by the FTA, an analysis of wheel squeal noise was conducted at this location. The
analysis of the noise contribution from wheel squeal was conservatively performed for nearby
sensitive residences. A reference SEL of 136 dBA used in the wheel squeal prediction equation
was obtained from the FTA Guidance Manual Table 6-7. The resulting analysis indicated that
the wheel squeal noise component would result in impacts to residences in the area of Transit
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-37 April 5, 2010
Avenue. Predicted project noise levels would surpass the FTA noise impact criteria by 1 dB .
However, as mentioned above, it is important to note that as part of the PVL project, RCTC will
include wayside applicators on all short radius curves. These measures would therefore
successfully reduce the significance of wheel squeal noise on all segments of the PVL
alignment, including the ―Citrus Connection‖ area. As a result, with the wheel squeal noise
component successfully reduced, no noise impacts would result at residences along Transit
Avenue.
Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
The construction noise assessment Site-relatedindicates that construction activities would not
result in any significant noise impacts at any nearby noise -sensitive receptors. The conclusions
of the construction noise assessment are based on the use of the FTA construction noise
criteria and they apply to both day- and night-time construction activities. While no significant
impacts would be predicted to occur, construction activities may result in occasional and
sporadictemporary, short-term increases in noise levels, not unlike in noise-sensitive areas
adjoining the project alignment. Many of these site-related construction activities needed to
implement the proposed project arethose typical of those that occur forcommon street and utility
projects. However, given the linear configuration of the construction corridor, only small area
segments would likely experience construction noise at any given time. Once grade crossing
improvements along with the excavation and grading of the track base are completed,
specialized track equipment would move continuously along the alignment constructing the new
track. The export of soils from the project site may result in increased noise levels along
roadways in the immediate project area. However, because the amount of exported soils from
each location along the PVL alignment is finite, the site vehicular access would change
frequently as construction moves along the alignment. Therefore, any resulting noise increase
would be temporary since no single roadway segment would be affected for more than a few
weeks. According to the FTA Manual, this would not constitute a long period of time for a
construction-related activity and, thus, would not result in any impact. With respect to noise from
the construction of the stations, only the proposed Downtown Perris Station would be located
nearby noise sensitive receptors; however, station construction would only last approximately
two months. Some night-time work may also have to occur, such as track realignment. This
would require prior approval by the locality in which the night-time activity is to take place. With
respect to noise from the construction of the stations, only the proposed Downtown Perris
Station would be located nearby noise sensitive receptors ; however, station construction would
only last approximately two months. Any potential impactsincrease in noise levels would be
temporary in nature and would generally only occur between about 6 AM and 7 PM, Monday
through Friday. The exact hours when project construction would be allowed are restricted to
the hours described in the local construction noise policies above for the individual localities.
For all construction activities, standard construction noise control measures would be required
to reduce the likelihood of any temporary noise increases.
As mentioned above, some night-time work may also have to occur, such as track realignment.
Because local ordinances typically allow only day-time construction, this would require prior
approval by the locality in which the night-time activity is to take place.
Although the overall length of construction for the entire PVL project would be approximately 18
months, disturbances at individual receptor locations would not last for more than several
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-38 April 5, 2010
months. As mentioned above, Aany potential construction noise impacts on schools and
churches would be less than significant since project construction noise levels would not
surpass the FTA construction noise criteria levels; however, both sporadic and temporary
increases in construction noise above local construction noise ordinances levels may occur.
Any temporary increases would be based on potential occurrences of atypical events given the
inconsistent and transitory nature of some construction activities and equipment usage.
Consequently, the contractor would be required to use standard construction noise control
measures such as temporary construction noise barriers, low noise emission equipment, and
the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment to reduce the likelihood of any
increases in construction noise above the local noise ordinance maximum levels . The longest
sustained construction period near these sensitive receptors would likely result from station
construction and, as mentioned above, would last approximately two months. However,
because of the relative small scale of a typical rail station, the use of heavy construction
equipment would only occur during a short segment of that two month period. According to t he
PVL Construction Staging Plan, some night-time construction is scheduled to occur specifically
for new track layout. Because local codes allow construction only during day-time hours, any
project-related night-time construction activity would require the project to obtain from the
municipality written consent for an exemption, or variance to these codes.
For mobile construction activities, the delivery of construction materials, such as the rail, rail
ties, ballast, and specialized track equipment, would be accomplished using the existing rail
rather than being delivered by truck. Also, staging yards would be located strategically so as to
limit the travel time for construction crews. These processes would serve to limit the exposure
radius of traffic-related construction noise in sensitive areas.
The construction activity that would create the most noise and vibration is pile driving
associated with the San Jacinto River bridge replacements which is near adjacent to the
proposed South Perris Layover Facility, around the San Jacinto River. However, as there are
no noise sensitive receptors located within approximately one mile of locations nearby the
proposed Layover Facility and the pile driving sites, construction-related noise impacts would
not occur. In addition, pile driving would be temporary in nature, and any site specific pile driving
would likely be completed in under a week.
Other locations along the alignment would also be poten tially impacted by construction noise.
To determine whether construction of the proposed PVL project would result in any noise
impacts to sensitive receptors at these locations, an FTA general assessment procedure for
construction noise was conducted for a representative residential location at 228 C Street in
Perris. This location was chosen because it would be representative of a property which would
be affected by typical track laying construction represented by activities such as culvert
modifications and embankment work as well as track and road crossings construction. In
addition, due to the proposed Perris Station, it would also be affected by construction noise from
station and parking elements, which include earthwork, utility work and landscaping among
others.
As a result, based on construction noise projections shown in the Noise and Vibration Technical
Report C, the combined noise level for two of the noisiest pieces of construction equipment
would result in a construction noise level of 79 dBA at the property line of the residential home.
This would be below the FTA construction noise criteria described in Chapter 12 of the FTA
Guidance Manual. It would also be below the 80 dB noise level set by Section 7.34.060 of the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-39 April 5, 2010
Perris General Plan. Therefore, although the total project construction period is estimated to last
approximately 18 months, because the FTA construction noise criteria level for both day and
night-time construction would not be surpassed, noise impacts due to construction noise
activities are not expected and would be less than significant.
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
One public airport exists within close proximity to the project study area. The MARB airfield
within the March JPA area is primarily used by the military and commercial cargo flights. The
MARB airfields are located less than two miles from noise sensitive receptors along the PVL
corridor. However, as shown in Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11, no project-related noise
impacts were predicted to occur at this nearby location. Therefore, it is not anticipated that
people would be exposed to significant noise impacts.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
One private airport, the Perris Airport, exists within close proximity to the project study area.
The Perris Airport is located across the street from the South Perris Station and Layover
Facility. However, as shown in Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11 no project related noise
impacts were predicted to occur.
4.10.5 Mitigation Measures
Noise
As shown in Table 4.10-16, the locations where noise impacts are predicted to occur, and at
which mitigation would be needed to reduce noise levels, have been determined through
utilization of the FTA Detailed Assessment methodology. Mitigation imposed below will reduce
noise levels to a less than significant level:
NV-1: As shown on Figure 4.10-6, noise barriers will shall be provided constructed at the
following locations (based on 30% Design Drawings):
o NB 1: 10‘ high and 530‘ long between 264+00 and 269+30
o NB 2: 13‘ high and 570‘ long between Sta. 269+30 and Sta. 275+00
o NB 3: 9‘ high and 680‘ long between Sta. 283+00 and Sta. 289+40
o NB 4: 12‘ high and 600‘ long between Sta. 289+40 and Sta. 295+40
o NB 5: 8‘ high and 530‘ long between Sta. 297+70 and Sta. 303+00
o NB 6: 8‘ high and 800‘ long between Sta. 303+00 and Sta. 311+00
o NB 7: 10‘ high and 700800‘ long between Sta. 322+00 and Sta. 330+00
o NB 8: 11‘ high and 320‘ long between Sta. 331+00 and Sta. 334+20
o NB 9: 13‘ high and 950‘ long between Sta. 323+40 and Sta. 332+40
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-40 April 5, 2010
o NB 10: 13‘ high and 250‘ long between Sta. 332+80 and Sta. 334+80
o NB 11: 9‘ high and 310‘ long between Sta. 336+00 and Sta. 339+10
o NB 12: 9‘ high and 310‘ long between Sta. 339+10 and Sta. 342+20
o NB 13: 13‘ high and 380‘ long between Sta. 342+20 and Sta. 346+00
NV-2: Based on the topography and engineering constraints at seven residential
locations and St. George‘s Episcopal Church (eight properties total), the use of noise
barriers would not provide adequate noise reduction. Improving the sound insulation of
these properties by replacing windows facing the tracks with new sound-rated windows,
as well as caulking and sealing gaps in the building envelope, eliminating operable
windows and installing specially designed solid-core doors, would reduce noise to below
the FTA impact criteria, and to less than significant levels. Sound insulation for eight
properties will shall be provided at the following locations:
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine
Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East
Campus View Drive)
o Southwest corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on
Mount Vernon Avenue)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first two homes on
Kentwood Drive)
o Southeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill
Drive)
o St. George‘s Episcopal Church
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-41 April 5, 2010
Table 4.10-16
Proposed Noise Barrier Locations
Location
Max
Thresh.
Exceed,
dB(1)
Civil Stations*
Length,
ft
Height,
ft(2)
Comment
Start End
NB 1. Watkins Drive (south of Spruce
Street, east side of alignment) 4 264+00 269+30 530 10
NB 2. Watkins Drive (south of Spruce
Street, east side of alignment) 3 269+30 275+00 570 13
NB 3. Highland Elementary (north of
W. Blaine Street, east side of
alignment)
<1 283+00 289+40 680 9 Includes 40‘ of barrier segment
perpendicular to track.
NB 4. W. Blaine Street (north of
Blaine Street, east side of
alignment)
<1 289+40 295+40 600 12
NB 5. W. Blaine Street (south of
Blaine Street, east side of
alignment)
5 297+70 303+00 530 8
NB 6. W. Blaine Street (south of
Blaine Street, east side of
alignment)
3 303+00 311+00 800 8
NB 7. Mt. Vernon Avenue (west of
Mt. Vernon Avenue, north side
of alignment)
3 322+00 330+00 700800 10
NB 8. Crest Community Baptist
Church @ Mt. Vernon Avenue 4 331+00 334+20 320 11
NB 9. Nisbet Way (west of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, south of
alignment)
2 323+40 332+40 950 13 Includes 50‘ of barrier segment
perpendicular to track.
NB 10. Nisbet Way (west of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, south of
alignment)
2 332+80 334+80 250 13 Includes 50‘ of barrier segment
perpendicular to track.
NB 11. East Campus View (East of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, north of
alignment)
9 336+00 339+10 310 9
For residences at elevations
above the rail elevation, the
noise barrier will be located at
top of slopealong the ROW.
NB 12. East Campus View (East of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, north of
alignment)
11 339+10 342+20 310 9
For residences at elevations
above the rail elevation, the
noise barrier will be located at
top of slopealong the ROW.
NB 13. East Campus View (East of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, north of
alignment)
10 342+20 346+00 380 13
For residences at elevations
above the rail elevation, the
noise barrier will be located at
top of slopealong the ROW.
Notes: (1) Maximum amount that the predicted levels exceed the applicable noise impact threshold.
(2) Noise barrier heights are relative to top of ROW boundary elevation. Noise barriers for mitigation may be modified
to account for specific field conditions and PVL final design features.
* Stationing is based upon the 30% engineering drawings; final stationing will be determined during final design and
linked to final design drawing.
Source: STV Incorporated, 2010
NB1
NB2
NB3
NB4
SPRUCE STREET
BLAINE STREET
WATKINS DRIVE
NB5
NB6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPERRIS VALLEY LINERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
4.10-6
92666
6/11/10
JP
RM
92666noise3.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURENOISE BARRIER LOCATIONS
0 1,000 2,000Feet
KEY MAP FOR INSET AREAS
RIVERSIDE
MORENO VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCHAIRRESERVEBASE
74
60
60
60
91
215
215
215
215
San Bernardino CountyRiverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKEPERRIS
FIGURE A-1CHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEAND ER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
AL ESSAN DRO BLV
HARLEY JOHN RDWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONW OOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTU S AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
APPROXIMATE NOISE BARRIERLOCATION (FOR GRAPHICALPURPOSES ONLY)
LEGEND
NOT TO SCALE
NB7 NB8
NB9 NB10
NB11 NB12 NB13MT. VERNONAVENUEM
P2
MP3
MILE POST
NB1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.10-43 April 5, 2010
Vibration
Train operations from the proposed PVL project will result in vibration impacts in the UCR area
of Riverside from civil stations 263+00 to 275+00 (affecting a total of 14 homes extending
approximately 1,200 feet along the eastern side of the proposed PVL alignment just south of
Spruce Street and north of Hyatt Elementary School). Mitigation measures to reduce vibration
to below a significant impact are listed below.: (It should be noted that either one of the two
methods would be effective at mitigating the impacts to below a level of significance.
NV-3: Ballast Mats: A ballast mat consists of a rubber (such as shredded rubber tires), cork or
other type of resilient elastomer pad that is placed under the normal ballast, ties, and rail. The
ballast mat generally mustshall be placed on a concrete or asphalt layer to be most effective.
They will not be as effective if placed directly on the soil or the sub-ballast. Ballast mats can
provide 5 to 12 dB attenuation at frequencies above 25 to 30Hz.
NV-4: Resiliently Supported Ties (Under-Tie Pads): This treatment consists of resilient rubber
pads placed underneath concrete ties. A resiliently supported tie system consists of concrete
ties supported by rubber pads. The rails are fastened directly to the concrete ties using
standard rail clips.
*Implementation by RCTC of either one of the above described vibration mitigation measures
(NV-3 or NV-4) between Sta. 263+00 and 275+00 will eliminate the 2 VdB impact predicted in
the UCR area of Riverside (affecting a total of 14 homes extending approximately 1,200 feet
along the eastern side of the proposed PVL alignment just south of Spruce Street and north of
Hyatt Elementary School).
4.10.6 Mitigation Summary
Noise barrier heights were calculated based on the predicted sound level in the area, local
terrain and the amount by which the FTA impact thresholds were exceeded. The barriers were
designed so as to reduce the level of noise such that where an affected property would be
exposed, there will be no significant noise impact predicted with the inclusion of the barrier.
W here noise barriers would not be completely effective at reducing noise levels to less than
significant levels, additional building sound insulation was evaluated and recommended at eight
individual properties so that interior noise levels at those eight properties would also be reduced
to less than significant.
Implementation of either vibration mitigation measure described above would eliminate the
2 VdB impact predicted in the UCR area of Riverside.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-1 April 5, 2010
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section of the EIR presents the findings of the Traffic Technical Report (STV Incorporated,
20092011) to this EIR as presented in Technical Report D and an assessment of the potential
impacts related to traffic within the PVL corridor.
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed PVL corridor is approximately 24 miles long, and traverses through the cities of
Riverside to south of Perris in Riverside County.
The project corridor contains a variety of land uses and related street/intersection layouts. In
the more developed areas of the corridor, such as the City of Riverside, traffic signals control
intersection movements while in the less developed areas of the corridor stop signs control
traffic movements. Additionally, it should be noted that many of the current grade crossings do
not have crossing arms to block access when a train is passing. Traffic study intersections
were identified for each of the four proposed stations that would be in service in 2012 that
considered the primary streets serving the general area, the potential access points to the
stations, and key intersections likely to be affected by the assignment of project-generated trips.
A total of 29 intersections were selected for analysis for the four proposed stations, and are
identified by station area location.
Hunter Park Station: the three proposed station location options along Palmyrita, Columbia and
Marlborough Avenues as shown on Figure 4.11-1.
Iowa Avenue at Center Street
Iowa Avenue at Palmyrita Avenue
Northgate Street at Palmyrita Avenue
Iowa Avenue at Columbia Avenue
Northgate Street at Columbia Avenue
Northgate Street at Marlborough Avenue
Iowa Avenue at Marlborough Avenue
Rustin Avenue at Marlborough Avenue
Moreno Valley/March Field Station as shown on Figure 4.11-2
Alessandro Boulevard at Mission Grove Parkway
Alessandro Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue at southbound I-215 ramps
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-2 April 5, 2010
Downtown Perris Station as shown on Figure 4.11-3
Nuevo Road at Perris Boulevard
San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue
San Jacinto Avenue at Perris Boulevard
San Jacinto Avenue at C Street
San Jacinto Avenue at D Street
SR-74 at Navajo Road
SR-74 at C Street
SR-74 at D Street
SR-74 at Perris Boulevard
6th Street at C Street
6th Street at D Street
7th Street at C Street
7th Street at D Street
7th Street at Perris Boulevard
South Perris Station as shown on Figure 4.11-4
Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps
SR-74 at northbound I-215 off-ramp
SR-74 at Sherman Road
4.11-1
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666trafEIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREHUNTER PARK STATION OPTIONS
TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATIONS
#0#0
#0 #0
#0
#0 #0 #0
RUSTIN AVENUEMARLBOROUGH AVENUE MICHIGAN AVENUEPROSPECT AVENUECITRUS STREET
SPRING STREET
VILLA STREET
CENTER STREET
PACIFIC AVENUE§¨¦215
COLUMBIA PALMYRITA
MARLBOROUGH
COLUMBIA AVENUE
NORTHGATE STREETPALMYRITA AVENUE
ATLANTA AVENUEIOWA AVE±0 1,000
Feet
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATION#0
4.11-2
92666
12/11/09
JP
RM
92666traf1EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREMORENO VALLEY/
MARCH FIELD STATION
TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATIONS
#0 #0
#0 #0MORENO VALLEY/
MARCH FIELDMISSION GROVE PARKWAYBARTON STREETSYCAMORE CANYONBLVDWOOD ROADALESSANDRO BLVD
CACTUS AVENUE
COTTONWOOD AVENUE
DAY STREET§¨¦215 FRCOFREDERICKDAY S±
0 3,000
Feet
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
#0
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATION
4.11-3
92666
1/30/10
JP
RM
92666traf2EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREDOWNTOWN PERRIS STATION
TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATIONS
#0#0 #0
#0#0#0
#0#0
#0#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
DOWNTOWN PERRIS
§¨¦215A STREETNUEVO RD
PERRIS BLVDWEBSTER AVENUEN
AVAJ
O R
O
A
D A STREETFOURTH STREET
SAN JACINTO AVENUE
REDLANDS AVENUEREDLANDS AVENUEFIRST STREET
D STREETF STREETG STREETTHIRD STREET
B STREETSEVENTH STREET
EIGHTH STREET
SIXTH STREET
PARK AVENUEC
A
S
E R
O
A
D
ELEVENTH STREET
SOUTH PERRIS BLVDGOETZ ROADELLIS AVENUE
E
±0 1,500
Feet
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
#0
PVL ALIGNMENT
SITE BOUNDARY
TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATION
LEGEND
ILEGENDWATSONROADPVLALIGNMENTSITEBOUNDARYATRAFFICSTUDYLOCATIONSOUTHPERRISA01,500I‘FeetPROJECTNO.92666FIGURE,-‘SOUTHPERRISSTATIONIø*4’rIDRAWN:12/11/09TRAFFICSTUDYLOCATIONS,j”DRAWNBY:•JP4.11-4CHECKEDBY.RMENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTRIVERSIDECOUNTYTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION(___cNFELDERFILENAME:PERRISVALLEYLINE92666traf3E1R.MXDRIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-7 April 5, 2010
The key travel routes in the vicinity of each station are described below:
Hunter Park Station options
Iowa Avenue is a six-lane, north-south arterial that carries traffic between the Hunter
Industrial Park neighborhood to the north and the Canyon Crest neighborhood to the south
in Riverside. RTA Route (Rte) 25 runs along Iowa Avenue within the study area.
Center Street is a four-lane undivided arterial oriented in the east-west direction within the
study area, and ends just west of its intersection with I-215.
Palmyrita Avenue between Iowa and Prospect Avenues is a two-lane undivided roadway
extending in the east-west direction, and it is lined with office buildings and warehouses
within the study area.
Columbia Avenue is a four-lane arterial that carries traffic in the east-west direction between
Hunter Industrial Park and the northside areas in Riverside.
Marlborough Avenue is an east-west collector road that becomes an arterial between
Chicago and Rustin Avenues in Riverside. East of Iowa Avenue, a bike lane is provided on
both sides of the street.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Alessandro Boulevard is a six-lane, divided arterial roadway extending in the east-west
direction within the study area, and is served by the Rte 20 bus.
Cactus Avenue between Meridian Parkway and Old 215 is an undivided east-west arterial
within the limits of the city of Moreno Valley providing access to north and southbound I-215.
It provides four lanes east of Old 215, and narrows to two lanes at its intersection with
southbound I-215 ramps.
Downtown Perris Station
Perris Boulevard is a north-south, primary arterial that extends from downtown Perris to
Moreno Valley. The Rte 19, 22, 27, 30, and 74 buses travel along Perris Boulevard in
downtown Perris.
San Jacinto Avenue is a two-lane, secondary arterial oriented in the east-west direction.
SR-74 (now known as 4th Street in downtown Perris) provides regional access to downtown
Perris, and is a four-lane facility oriented in the east-west direction in this area. The Rte 19,
22, 27, 30, 74, and 208 buses travel along a section of SR-74 to serve downtown Perris.
SR-74 extends into the South Perris Station study area.
D Street is a two-lane, north-south collector road that extends from 11th Street to I-215 in
downtown Perris. It is served by the Rte 30 bus. On-street parking is available on the east
and west sides of D Street between 1st and 7th Streets.
C Street is a north-south, local road that extends from 11th Street to San Jacinto Avenue in
downtown Perris.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-8 April 5, 2010
South Perris Station
Sherman Road is a two-lane, undivided roadway that extends in the north-south direction. It
is mostly lined with empty lots and some residential land uses in the study area.
Bonnie Drive is a short, two-lane roadway segment that connects Case Road with
southbound I-215 on- and off-ramps and SR-74.
Traffic Volumes
Intersection counts, including manual turning movement and vehicle classification, were
conducted at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM periods. Additionally, 24
hour automatic traffic recorder machine counts were collected at the following locations
concurrent with turning movement counts:
Iowa Avenue south of Spring Street
Iowa Avenue south of Marlborough Avenue
Columbia Avenue east of Iowa Avenue
Alessandro Boulevard east of Mission Grove Parkway
Cactus Avenue west of Old 215
Perris Boulevard south of Bowen Road
SR-74 east of D Street
Case Road east of Perris Boulevard
SR-74 east of Trumble Road
The manual and automatic traffic recorder count data were reviewed to ensure that traffic
volumes for a representative day (during clear weather and while schools are in session) are
reflected in the traffic analyses. From the data collected, the weekday AM and PM peak traffic
hours throughout the entire PVL study area typically occur during the 7:15 to 8:15 AM and 4:30
to 5:30 PM periods, respectively. However, peak PVL ridership periods within the study area
are from 5 to 7 AM and 5 to 7 PM based on ridership projections (before and after the existing
AM and PM peak travel times for area traffic, respectively, with a little overlap in the PM peak).
This is due to the travel times of PVL passengers to/from stations depending on their desired
arrival/departure times in Los Angeles, with taking approximately one hour 15 minutes to two
hours and 20 minutes of train travel time into account. For analysis purposes, the 6-7 AM and
5-6 PM analysis hours were selected since the combination of project-generated traffic and
background volumes would be highest. Following is a brief description of traffic volumes on the
roadways serving the station areas during these time periods.
Iowa Avenue carries the highest traffic volumes in the Hunter Park Station option areas, with
approximately 330 to 1,490 vehicles per hour (vph) per direction during the 6-7 AM and 5-6 PM
analysis hours. The remaining roadways in the vicinity of Hunter Park Station process up to 280
vph per direction during the AM analysis hour and 615 vph per direction during the PM analysis
hour.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-9 April 5, 2010
The analysis-hour volumes are between 450 and 2,200 vph along eastbound Alessandro
Boulevard and between 810 and 1,815 vph along westbound Alessandro Boulevard (higher
near Mission Grove Parkway) within the study area for the Moreno Valley/March Field Station
option. Westbound Cactus Avenue volumes are between 1,360 and 1,875 vph, and eastbound
Cactus Avenue volumes are between 485 to 720 vph at Old 215, and decrease to 500 -715 vph
and 90-280 vph respectively at southbound I-215 ramps as a result of entering/exiting vehicles
to/from I-215 in between these two intersections.
The traffic volumes within the Downtown Perris Station area are highest along SR-74, ranging
from 430 to 1,200 vph eastbound and from 350 to 1,375 vph westbound. Bi-directional traffic
volumes along the remaining roadways in the area are less than 420 vph during the analysis
hours, with the exception of Nuevo Road, which carries up to 1,170 vph eastbound; and D
Street and Perris Boulevard, both of which carry up to 830 vph southbound during the PM
analysis hour. SR-74 also carries the highest traffic volumes in the vicinity of South Perris
Station. The volumes in this area are higher compared to Downtown Perris, and vary between
600 and 1,095 vph in the eastbound direction and between 820 and 1,145 vph in the westbound
direction.
Existing Conditions
In accordance with the accepted analysis practices of Riverside County and the cities of
Riverside and Perris, the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 procedures were used to determine
the capacities and levels of service for each of the intersections comprising the traffic study
area. For a signalized intersection, levels of service are determined for the intersection and its
individual lane groups and are defined in terms of the average control delays experienced by all
vehicles that arrive in the analysis period, including delays incurred beyond the analysis period
when the intersection or lane group is saturated. For an unsignalized inter section, levels of
service are determined for minor movements only and are defined as the total elapsed time
between a vehicle stopping at the end of the queue and departing from the stop line.
The delay levels for signalized and unsignalized intersectio ns for various levels of service are
detailed below (see Table 4.11-1).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-10 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-1
Level of Service Descriptions
LOS Definition
Signalized
Intersection Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersection
Average Stop
Delay (seconds)
A Describes operations with very low delay. Freedom to
select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely high.
<10 <10
B Describes operations with moderately low delay and
stable flow. Drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted
within platoons of vehicles.
>10 and <20 >10 and <15
C Describes operations with average delays. The range of
flow in which the operation of individual users becomes
significantly affected by interactions with others in the
traffic stream.
>20 and <35 >15 and <25
D Describes a crowded operation, with below average
delays. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely
restricted.
>35 and <55 >25 and <35
E Represents operating conditions at or near the level
capacity. All speeds are reduced to a low but relatively
uniform value.
>55 and <80 >35 and <50
F Forced or breakdown flow. This condition often occurs
with over-saturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed
the capacity of the intersection.
>80 >50
Each of the study intersections was analyzed in terms of its capacity to accommodate existing
traffic volumes as defined by the resulting levels of service.
Hunter Park Station options
Movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM
analysis hours, with the exception of Iowa Avenue at Center Street, where the northbound Iowa
Avenue through movement operates at LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
The intersection operations are at LOS D or better during both analysis hours with the following
exceptions:
• At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro Boulevard
and southbound Mission Grove Parkway left-turn movements operate at LOS E during the
PM analysis hour.
• W estbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement at Old 215 operates at LOS E during the
PM analysis hour.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-11 April 5, 2010
Downtown Perris Station
Movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM
analysis hours, with the exception of D Street northbound shared through/left-turn movements
at SR-74, which operates at LOS E during the PM, and southbound C Street shared
through/left-turn movements at SR-74, which operates at LOS F, during both the AM and PM
analysis hour.
South Perris Station
Movements at the three study intersections operate at LOS C or better during both analysis
hours with the following exceptions:
Bonnie Drive‘s eastbound right-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps operates at LOS
F during the PM analysis hour.
Sherman Road‘s northbound left-turn movement at SR-74 operates at LOS F during both
the AM and PM analysis hours, and the southbound left/right-turn movement operates at
LOS F during the PM analysis hour.
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
Local Policies and Regulations
Riverside County and each city within the county limits maintains a General Plan Circulation
Element that identifies transportation routes, terminals, and facilities and their performance
criteria. The cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris, and the County of Riverside have
adopted the following performance criteria based on their circulation elements.
According to the City of Riverside General Plan:
Maintain LOS D or better on arterial streets and LOS C or better on Local and
Collector streets in residential areas. LOS E may be acceptable as determined
on a case-by-case basis at key locations such as City arterial roadways which
are used as a freeway bypass by regional through traffic a nd at heavily traveled
freeway interchanges.
According to the City of Moreno Valley General Plan:
Maintain LOS C where possible. Peak hour levels of service in the LOS D range
may be acceptable in certain locations including areas of high employment
concentration, north/south roads in the vicinity of SR-60 or other locations in
already developed areas of the City with geometric constraints that prevent LOS
C from being achieved.
According to the City of Perris General Plan:
Maintain LOS E along all Local roads (for both segments and intersections) and
LOS D along I-215 and SR-74 (including intersections with local streets and
roads).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-12 April 5, 2010
According to the Riverside County General Plan:
Maintain LOS C along all County maintained roads and conventional state
highways. As an exception, LOS D may be allowed in Community Development
areas, only at intersections of any combination of Secondary Highways, Major
Highways, Arterials, Urban Arterials, Expressways, conventional state highways
or freeway ramp intersections. LOS E may be allowed in designated community
centers to the extent that it would support transit-oriented development and
walkable communities.
4.11.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significa nce for Transportation and Traffic
is defined by:
1. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)
2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways
3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks
4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
5. Result in inadequate emergency access
6. Does the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)
4.11.4 Project Impacts
Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)
2012 Future Conditions without the Project
The analysis of the 2012 future traffic conditions without the proposed project serves as the
baseline against which opening year impacts of the project are compared. The future
conditions without the project include the traffic volume increases expected due to an overall
growth in traffic through and within the study area, and major approved land developments and
roadway system changes scheduled to be occupied or implemented by the 2012 opening year
for the PVL.
A generally applied background growth rate of two percent per year, resulting in an overall
growth of approximately eight percent by 2012, was assumed for Hunter Park and Moreno
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-13 April 5, 2010
Valley/March Field station option areas per the guidelines of the cities of Riverside and Moreno
Valley. For Downtown and South Perris station options, which are within the city of Perris, an
annual background growth rate of three percent (approximately 13 percent over four years) was
used, per City guidelines.
No major developments are planned in the area surrounding Hunter Park Station by 2012.
According to the City of Riverside, the Hunter Business Park development is not fully built out.
However, this development is not expected to be a significant generator of traffi c due to its
designated industrial/warehouse land use and the size of the remaining parcels. HoweverIn
addition, two three major improvement projects involving railroad grade separations at Columbia
and Iowa Avenues and 3rd Street are planned to be completed in 2010 and 2011prior to 2013,
respectively. The grade separation of Columbia Avenue and the BNSF railroad tracks would
raise Columbia Avenue over the BNSF railroad between La Cadena Drive and Iowa Avenue.
Similarly, the Iowa Avenue grade-separation project would raise Iowa Avenue over the BNSF
tracks between Palmyrita Avenue and Spring Street. These projects are not expected to affect
the traffic volumes in the area, and would neither increase nor reduce roadway capacity.
A number of approved development projects were identified by the City of Moreno Valley within
the Moreno Valley/March Field Station option area:
1. Centerpointe Industrial and Business Park project is located northeast of Cactus Avenue
and Graham Street; it will be a 162-acre business park.
2. Meridian Business Park (formerly known as March Business Center) project is located
southwest of I-215 and Alessandro Boulevard on a 1,290-acre site. The project land
uses consist primarily of industrial park, warehousing, research and development, and
associated business support uses. It is planned to be constructed in three phases, two
of which would be completed by 2012.
3. Gateway Center is an industrial/business park project on a 25-acre site on Day Street
south of Alessandro Boulevard.
4. Cactus/Commerce Commercial Center is a 16,000-square-foot commercial/retail
development on Cactus Avenue between Day and Elsworth Streets.
The trip generation and assignment for these projects were taken from the Cactus Avenue
and Commerce Center Drive Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study (Urban Crossroads,
2008).
5. March Lifecare Village Campus is a development project including a mix of healthcare
and ancillary uses, including hospitals, general and specialty medical offices, medical
retail, research and education, a wellness center, senior center, independent/assisted -
living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and related support facilities. The project will be
developed in five planning areas, of whic h the first two are expected to be developed by
2011, and include a 50-bed hospital, 660 units of institutional residential, 190,000 square
feet of medical office, 200,000 square feet of research and education, and 210,000
square feet of retail land uses. The remaining planning areas will be developed over the
next 20 to 25 years. Therefore, the trip generation and vehicle assignments associated
with only the first two planning areas for this project were incorporated into the 2012
future traffic volumes without the project. Vehicle trip generation and assignments for this
development project were obtained from the March Lifecare Campus Specific Plan Draft
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-14 April 5, 2010
Program Environmental Impact Report (Applied Planning Inc., 2009).approximately 30
acres of medical office/research, educational/institutional and residential land uses, and
a 60-bed hospital.
The trip generation and assignment for these projects were taken from the Cactus Avenue and
Commerce Center Drive Commercial Center Traffic Technical Report (Urban Crossroads,
2008). As previously noted, the AM analysis hour for the PVL is earlier than the AM peak hour
analyzed for these development projects. It was determined that the trip distribution for the 6 -7
AM time period (PVL AM analysis hour) corresponds to 35 percent of the typical AM peak hour
traffic volumes based on the Southern California Association of Governments Year 2000 Post-
Census Regional Travel Survey. Therefore, AM peak hour trip generation for the above projects
was reduced by 65 percent.
In addition to the development projects, a major roadway improvement project to widen Cactus
Avenue and to reconfigure its intersection with southbound I-215 ramps (March Joint Powers
Authority Cactus Avenue Extension/Railroad Bridge Widening project) is planned to be
completed by 2012 within the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field study area. Upon the
completion of this project, Cactus Avenue would provide two east and westbound through lanes,
one westbound left-turn lane, and one eastbound right-turn lane. In addition, southbound
through and left-turn movements from the I-215 off-ramp onto Cactus Avenue would no longer
be allowed.
Two approved projects are to be completed in the proposed Downtown Perris Station study
area by 2012:
1. The Venue at Perris development project is located on the northeast corner of I -215 and
Redlands Avenue. It will include a movie theater, home improvement superstore,
discount superstore, and other retail space. The trip generation for this project was
developed based on rates for Land Use 862 (―Home Improvement Superstore‖), 813
(―Free-Standing Discount Superstore‖), 820 (―Shopping Center‖), and 444 (―Movie
Theater with Matinee‖) from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation,
7th Edition. (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2007). Traffic was assigned based
on existing travel patterns.
2. Perris Marketplace project is a 520,000-square-foot retail center located on the west
side of Perris Boulevard, north of Nuevo Road. It includes a discount supersto re with a
gas station, a home improvement store, restaurants, and specialty retail space. Vehicle
trip generation and assignments for this project were obtained from the project‘s traffic
study prepared for the City of Perris in 2006. This study recommends reconfiguration of
the Nuevo Road/Perris Boulevard intersection to mitigate the impacts of the project as
follows:
Provide two left-turn, two through, one through/right-turn, and one right-turn lane for
eastbound Nuevo Road.
Provide one left-turn, three through, and one right-turn lane for northbound Perris Boulevard.
Provide two left-turn, three through, and two right-turn lanes for southbound Perris
Boulevard.
Westbound Nuevo Road approach remains the same as existing conditions.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-15 April 5, 2010
It was is assumed that these mitigation measures would bewere in place by 20122009.
Roadway system changes by 2012 within the Downtown Perris Station area include the
signalization of the C Street/SR-74 intersection, which is currently stop-controlled and the
widening and restriping of the D and C Street/ intersections at San Jacinto Avenue
intersections, which are currently stop-controlled.
Two approved projects were identified in the proposed South Perris Station study area:
1. Towne Center project is a 470,000-square-foot retail center located in the southeastern
portion of the City of Perris, on the southeast corner of I-215 and Ethanac Road. It
would be anchored by a 220,000-square-foot big-box store, and would also include
specialty retail space, restaurants, and a hotel. The development is expected to be
opened in 2009. The trip generation and assignment for this project were obtained from
the Towne Center Traffic Technical Report Impact Study (Albert A. Webb Associates,
2007).
2. Perris Crossing (formerly known as Ethanac Road Retail Center) development is a
625,000-square-foot retail center located on the north side of Ethanac Road, west of
Case Road. The retail center would include approximately 600,000 square feet of re tail
and restaurant uses, a service station, and 24,000 square feet of office uses. The
Ethanac Road Retail Center Traffic Study (LSA Associates, Inc., 2005) was used in
determining the trip generation and assignment for this development. The development
was not completed at the time of the traffic counts in the South Perris S tation study area
in 2008.
Although this project is within the proposed South Perris Station area, no project-generated trips
were added to the study intersections as project traffic to/from I-215 and SR-74 would be able to
access these roadways via Ethanac Road without traversing through the study intersections.
However, ten percent of in and outbound trips traveling to/from the north, via Case Road, were
assigned to intersections in the Downtown Perris area.
The trip generation for the four projects within the proposed Downtown and South Perris Station
areas was included only in the PM analysis hour traffic volumes, as they all consist of
retail/commercial land uses, which would not generate traffic as early as the PVL AM analysis
hour.
2012 Future traffic levels of service without the project were determined based on the projected
increase in traffic volumes and changes in roadway geometrics (see the Traffic Technical
Report D). A summary of the findings is discussed below.
Hunter Park Station options
Movements at the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service,
with the exception of Iowa Avenue‘s northbound through movement at Center Street, which
would worsen from LOS E (existing) to F (future without the PVL project) during the PM analysis
hour, resulting in the overall intersection LOS to deteriorate from LOS D to E.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-16 April 5, 2010
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Movements at the intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and Old 215 would continue to operate
at acceptable levels. Several movements at the remaining three intersections, however, would
worsen including:
At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro and
southbound Mission Grove Parkway‘s left-turn movements would incur additional delay
within LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
At the intersection of Cactus Avenue and southbound I -215 ramps, westbound Cactus
Avenue‘s left-turn movement and the overall intersection would deteriorate from LOS C
(existing) to F (future without the PVL project) during the PM analysis hour.
Westbound Cactus Avenue‘s through movement would worsen from LOS E to F at Old 215,
and the overall intersection LOS would deteriorate from LOS D to F during the PM analysis
hour.
Downtown Perris Station
The levels of service for movements would remain within acceptable limits during the AM
analysis hour. However, several movements would deteriorate to poor levels of service during
the PM analysis hour, including:
At Nuevo Road and Perris Boulevard, eastbound Nuevo Road‘s left -turn movement would
deteriorate from LOS C (existing) to F (future without the PVL project); southbound Perris
Boulevard‘s left-turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C to E. The overall intersection
LOS would deteriorate from LOS C to E.
At SR-74 and D Street, eastbound SR-74‘s through/right-turn movements would deteriorate
from LOS C to E. Northbound D Street‘s through/left-turn movements would worsen from
LOS E to F, and southbound left-turn movement would deteriorate from LOS D to F. The
overall intersection operations would also deteriorate from LOS C to F.
At the intersection of SR-74 and Perris Boulevard, Perris Boulevard‘s eastsouthbound left-
turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C to F.
Westbound San Jacinto Avenue approach at C Street would worsen from LOS C to E.
At San Jacinto Avenue and D Street, San Jacinto Avenue‘s eastbound left-turn and D
Street‘s southbound through movements would deteriorate from LOS D to F, and the overall
intersection level of service would deteriorate from LOS C to E.
At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, San Jacinto Avenue‘s westbound through/left-turn
movements would deteriorate from LOS B to F. Northbound Redlands Avenue‘s
through/left-turn and right-turn movements would deteriorate from LOS D and B to LOS F,
respectively. Southbound Redlands Avenue‘s left-turn movement would deteriorate from
LOS B to F.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-17 April 5, 2010
South Perris Station
Most movements would continue to operate within acceptable levels of service. However, the
movements that currently operate at LOS F would worsen by incurring significance increases in
delay (i.e., delay increases of more than two seconds), and southbound Sherman Road at SR-
74 would deteriorate from LOS C to E during the PM analysis hour.
2012 Future Conditions with the Project
Project Trip Generation and Modal Split
The PVL is expected to carry 3,705 passengers during each of the AM and PM peak periods in
2012 based on ridership projections. There would be four train s scheduled in the peak direction
of travel (to Los Angeles in the morning, to Perris in the afternoon) during these periods, of
which one would depart from South and Downtown Perris stations and two would depart from
Moreno Valley/March Field and Hunter Park stations during the AM analysis hour (6 AM – 7
AM), and one would arrive at all stations during the PM analysis hour (5 PM – 6 PM). It was
determined that approximately 50 percent of the AM peak period inbound (northbound) riders
would travel on the two analysis-hour trains (leaving South Perris at 5:48 and 6:18 AM) based
on existing ridership data on SCRRA/Metrolink Inland Empire-Orange County, San Bernardino,
and Riverside lines. About 35 percent of the outbound (southbound) riders dur ing the PM peak
period would travel on the analysis-hour train. No outbound trains would arrive in the study area
during the AM analysis hour, and no inbound trains would depart the area during the PM
analysis hour.
Table 4.11-2 lists the number of boarding and alighting passengers per station during the AM
and PM analysis hours.
Table 4.11-2
AM and PM Analysis-Hour Ridership
Proposed Station AM PM
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings
Hunter Park 241 110 83 182
Moreno Valley/March Field 205 93 70 154
Downtown Perris 134 29 45 207
South Perris 221 0 0 340
Total 801 232 198 884
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff (2009)
Passengers would arrive at and depart from the stations by a number of travel modes, including
private autos, transit buses, and walking. Auto trips would consist of drop -offs/pick-ups and
park-and-ride drivers. The modal split of passengers (proportions of different transport modes
used by passengers) was derived from the PVL ridership model, which included separate modal
splits for passengers traveling to and from the area. However, the same modal split was
applied to passengers traveling from the area during the AM and returning to the area during the
PM peak period. Similarly, passengers arriving in the area during the AM and leaving during the
PM exhibited the same modal splits. For example, for Hunter Park Station options, it was
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-18 April 5, 2010
assumed that 61 percent of boarding passengers and one percent of alighting passengers
would travel to/from the station by auto during the AM peak period, between 5 and 7 AM (see
Table 4.11-3). During the PM peak period, between 5 and 7 PM, 61 percent of alighting
passengers and one percent of boarding passengers would travel by auto.
Table 4.11-3
Modal Split of Passengers for the AM Peak Period
(PM peak period modal splits are reversed)
Proposed
Station
Percentage of Passengers
Walk Bus Park-and-Ride Drop-off/Pick-up
Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting
Hunter Park 4 57 9 42 61 1 26 0
Moreno Valley/
March Field 0 0 19 99 63 1 18 0
Downtown
Perris 20 40 10 52 56 8 14 0
South Perris 3 0 4 56 79 44 14 0
Using these modal splits, 300 drop-offs/pick-ups and 529 park-and-ride trips would be
generated by the project within the overall study area during the AM analysis hour, and 302
drop-offs/pick-ups and 530 park-and-ride trips would be generated during the PM analysis hour.
Drop-offs/pick-ups were assumed to make a complete in-and-out cycle within the analysis
hours, i.e., arrive full and depart empty within the AM analysis hour, and arrive empty and
depart full in the PM analysis hour. Table 4.11-4 lists the auto trips by station during the AM
and PM analysis hours.
Table 4.11-4
Auto-Trip Generation (Number of Vehicles)
Proposed Station
AM PM
Park-and-Ride Drop-off/
Pick-up Bus Park-and-Ride Drop-off/
Pick-up Bus
In Out In Out In Out In Out
Hunter Park 146 2 63 63 2 1 111 47 47 2
Moreno Valley/
March Field 129 1 37 37 4 1 30 28 28 4
Downtown Perris 75 2 19 19 5 4 115 29 29 5
South Perris 174 0 31 31 3 0 268 47 47 3
Total 524 5 150 150 14 6 524 151 151 14
Project Vehicle Assignment
The distribution of auto trips to the stations was developed from the station access maps based
on the ridership model as follows:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-19 April 5, 2010
Hunter Park Station options
As discussed in Chapter 2.0, the Hunter Park Station would be located at one of three
proximate sites. The Palmyrita Station option is proposed to be located on the east side of the
SJBL main track east of Iowa Avenue between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues. The
proposed station access road for this option would connect Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues,
and allow entry/exit to the station from both avenues. The Columbia Station option would be
along the west side of the main track with only one entry/exit point from Columbia Avenue. The
Marlborough Station option would also be located on the west side of the main track, with a
single entry/exit point from Marlborough Avenue.
The project vehicle assignment for the three alternative locations for the Hunter Park Station
would be the same in terms of approach routing to the station option: Approximately 55 percent
of drop-offs/pick-ups and 60 percent of park-and-ride passengers would come from areas north
of the station. The majority of these passengers would approach the station from southbound
Iowa Avenue (35 percent), with the remaining traveling southbound on Northgate Street or
eastbound on Columbia Avenue. About 20 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups and park-and-ride
passengers would come from the south via northbound Iowa Avenue. The remaining
passengers would approach from the east along Palmyrita Avenue.
Vehicle assignments at the study intersections, particularly individual movements, would differ
slightly among the three alternative station locations due to the varying location of the proposed
station access road for the Palmyrita Station option, and are presented in the Traffic Technical
Report to this EIRD.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Almost all of the passengers would come from east of the station. Of the drop -offs/pick-ups, 30
percent would approach the station from westbound Alessandro Boulevard, 35 percent would
approach from westbound Cactus Avenue, 15 percent would approach from southbound I-215,
and 20 percent would approach from northbound I-215. Park-and-ride passengers would travel
westbound on Alessandro Boulevard (35 percent) and Cactus Avenue (25 percent), southbound
on I-215 (20 percent) and Old 215 (five percent), or northbound on I-215 (15 percent).
Downtown Perris Station
Approximately 40 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups and 30 percent of park-and-ride passengers
would approach the station from the north via southbound Perris Boulevard, 35 percent of park
and-ride passengers and 25 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups would approach from the west via
eastbound SR-74, and ten percent of each would approach from the east via westbound SR-74
and from the south via D Street. The remaining would approach from the northwest via A
Street.
South Perris Station
The majority of the passengers would come from areas south of the station via I -215 (50
percent of park-and-ride passengers and 30 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups) or by following
Murrieta and Goetz Roads to Case Road (15 percent of park-and-ride passengers and 25
percent of drop-offs/pick-ups). The remaining would come from the east via SR-74.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-20 April 5, 2010
The assignment of vehicle trips generated by the PVL project during the AM and PM analysis
hours is presented in the Traffic Technical Report to this EIRD. Overall, the increases in traffic
would be less than significant in relation to the existing load and capacity of the roadways at
most locations (less than five percent increase); however, traffic increases would result in
significant impacts in terms of added congestion at a few intersections as explained in the LOS
discussion below.
Grade Crossing Closures
In addition to new trips that would be generated by the project, an increase in traffic volumes
along a few roadways would also be experienced due to the permanent closure of two existing
grade crossings by the project (Poarch Road in Riverside and 6th Street in Perris). Poarch Road
is an unimproved dirt road that provides alternate access to a small number of residences and
terminates approximately half a mile north of the grade crossing. It connects with Morton Road
via Gernert Road to the south, and provides access to an apartment complex and connection to
Box Springs Road. The grade crossing is directly across from the northbound I-215 on-ramp,
and thus, is mostly used by drivers wanting to bypass the traffic on Box Springs Road to access
northbound I-215. As part of the PVL project, the existing grade crossing at Poarch Road is
planned to be closed to the public with access by emergency vehicles only (with a locked gate).
The closure of the Poarch Road crossing to the public wouldis not expected to significantly
affect the traffic volumes in the area, but may increase traffic volumes on Gernert Road since
this will be used as the primary means of access to the adjacent residential neighborhood .
While this proposed change could present an inconvenience to some nearby residents, the
impact would not be significant. In Perris, as part of the PVL project, the existing grade crossing
at 6th Street is planned to be closed to vehicles but would still be accessible by pedestrians to
cross. The closure of 6th Street to vehicular traffic would result in the diversion of east and
westbound traffic (up to 35 vph per direction during the AM and PM analysis hours) to 7th
Street, the closest grade crossing to remain open. The changes in traffic volumes due to this
diversion would be less than significant, and are reflected in the 2012 analyses with the project.
It should be noted that in downtown Perris, as part of the Perris Multimodal Transi t Facility
project (not a part of the PVL project), grade crossings at 2nd and 5th Streets were closed in
2008. The impacts of these closures on travel patterns are already incorporated into the
existing traffic network and analyses as the closures were i n effect at the time the traffic data
collection program was conducted. In addition, the grade crossing at 5th Street has been
temporarily closed by the City of Perris and will be formally vacated by for this project.
In addition, the northern end of Commercial Street would be closed to the public (with locked
gates) where it intersects with D Street and Perris Boulevard, which would allow access to
emergency vehicles only. This closure is necessary due to potential safety issues at the tracks
as the turning movements involve an acute angle and can present the motorist with limited sight
distance. In terms of traffic volumes, a count of vehicle movements taken in mid-November
2010 indicated that less than five vehicles travel through this intersection in any one hour during
the day, and most hours show no vehicles at all using it. Although this closure would affect few
vehicles, 9th Street, which is currently a dirt road, would be paved to accommodate local
property access. As there would be little inconvenience to the current low volumes along
Commercial Street, and motorists can access Commercial Street via Perris Boulevard less than
one-quarter mile south of D Street, the closure of Commercial Street would not be a significant
impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-21 April 5, 2010
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways
As described under the regulatory setting, the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris,
and the County of Riverside have adopted minimum LOS thresholds in their general plans to
determine future infrastructure needs. While the agencies strive to maintain these thresholds,
they recognize that certain roadways do not currently meet the desired performance criteria and
that those roadways would continue to operate below the agencies‘ LOS standards if no
improvements were made to the roadway system. Therefore, the roadways within the PVL
study areas that currently exceed the LOS standards would continue to do so under the future
conditions, and operating below these standards would not in itself be considered an impact.
However, deterioration in LOS caused by the project would be considered a significant impact.
Based on the LOS thresholds established by the cities and county, deterioration from LOS A, B,
C, or D conditions without the project to LOS E or F conditions with the project is considered a
significant impact. For LOS E or F conditions without the project, an increase of two or more
seconds of delay as a result of the project is also considered a significant impact.
The LOS analyses for the 2012 Future Conditions with the Project indicated that the majority of
the study intersections would continue to operate at the same levels of service as the 2012
conditions without the PVL; however, significant traffic impacts would be expected at a number
of intersections as a result of the increase in traffic volumes (due to new vehicular trips
generated by the project) as shown in Table 4.11-5 through Table 4.11-8.
Hunter Park Station options
No impacts would be expected at the study intersections in the vicinity of Hunter Park Station for
any of the three alternative station locations, as shown in Table 4.11-5.
Table 4.11-5
Hunter Park Station Options 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Palmyrita Option
Center Street at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Center Street EB LTR 0.63 40.7 D 0.95 51.1 D
WB L 0.25 31.2 C 0.43 32.3 C
T 0.52 34.5 C 0.83 52.8 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.20 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.31 43.9 D 0.38 32.0 C
T 0.56 36.6 D 1.21 134.7 F
R 0.10 31.7 C 0.15 23.1 C
SB L 0.12 42.1 D 0.39 38.7 D
T 0.55 36.2 D 0.60 28.7 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 23.8 C
Overall Intersection - 36.7 D 76.3 E
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-22 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-5 (cont’d)
Hunter Park Station Options 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.13 11.6 B 0.09 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.06 13.4 B
WB L 0.46 14.2 B 0.90 39.4 D
TR 0.07 11.2 B 0.44 15.8 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 32.0 C 0.09 24.7 C
T 0.33 19.9 B 0.80 21.0 C
R 0.11 18.6 B 0.26 13.9 B
SB L 0.84 52.8 D 0.46 27.8 C
T 0.46 19.5 B 0.62 16.8 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection - 21.8 C 21.6 C
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.22 42.0 D 0.43 32.2 C
T 0.46 33.6 C 0.22 28.7 C
R 0.16 30.4 C 0.43 30.6 C
WB L 0.26 42.4 D 0.75 43.3 D
T 0.10 29.8 C 0.45 30.4 C
R 0.04 29.3 C 0.14 28.2 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.44 42.4 D 0.71 41.5 D
T 0.47 29.9 C 0.89 36.4 D
R 0.22 27.5 C 0.08 20.4 C
SB L 0.28 40.9 D 0.07 35.3 D
T 0.59 31.8 C 0.89 37.8 D
R 0.08 26.1 C 0.11 22.0 C
Overall Intersection - 32.4 C 36.0 D
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.32 27.5 C 0.45 28.6 C
TR 0.43 30.4 C 0.30 30.8 C
WB L 0.19 26.5 C 0.60 31.7 C
T 0.05 27.5 C 0.29 30.7 C
R 0.19 28.3 C 0.44 32.1 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 26.3 C 0.15 32.6 C
T 0.54 17.1 B 0.68 18.8 B
R 0.06 13.7 B 0.02 12.8 B
SB L 0.26 22.0 C 0.18 32.8 C
T 0.44 14.9 B 0.90 28.0 C
R 0.04 12.4 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection - 18.0 B 25.2 C
Palmyrita Avenue at Station Access Road – Signalized
Palmyrita Avenue EB TR 0.27 5.9 A 0.37 6.5 A
WB LT 0.34 6.3 A 0.36 6.4 A
Station Access Road NB L 0.12 19.9 B 0.28 20.9 C
R 0.04 19.5 B 0.14 20.0 C
Overall Intersection - 7.5 A 8.8 A
Columbia Avenue at Station Access Road – Signalized
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.20 5.6 A 0.06 5.0 A
T 0.17 5.5 A 0.08 5.1 A
WB TR 0.10 5.1 A 0.13 5.3 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.02 19.3 B 0.04 19.4 B
R 0.10 19.8 B 0.26 20.8 C
Overall Intersection - 7.0 A 10.0 A
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.06 7.7 A 0.24 9.4 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.16 12.4 B 0.33 32.8 D
R 0.24 9.7 A 0.17 10.4 B
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-23 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-5 (cont’d)
Hunter Park Station Options 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.12 8.8 A 0.06 8.9 A
TR 0.15 8.8 A 0.08 8.8 A
WB L 0.14 9.6 A 0.56 14.9 B
T 0.10 8.7 A 0.20 8.9 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.04 8.2 A 0.02 8.6 A
R 0.26 8.7 A 0.15 8.5 A
Overall Intersection - 8.8 A 11.8 B
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.20 7.8 A 0.08 7.5 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.12 9.8 A 0.34 10.4 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue – Unsignalized
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.8 A 0.18 8.1 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.36 12.3 B 0.31 16.0 C
Columbia Option
Center Street at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Center Street EB LTR 0.63 40.7 D 0.95 51.1 D
WB L 0.25 31.2 C 0.43 32.3 C
T 0.52 34.5 C 0.83 52.8 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.20 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.31 43.9 D 0.38 32.0 C
T 0.56 36.6 D 1.21 134.7 F
R 0.10 31.7 C 0.15 23.1 C
SB L 0.12 42.1 D 0.39 38.7 D
T 0.55 36.2 D 0.60 28.7 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 23.8 C
Overall Intersection - 36.7 D 76.3 E
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.13 11.6 B 0.09 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.06 13.4 B
WB L 0.46 14.1 B 0.89 38.6 D
TR 0.03 11.0 B 0.30 14.8 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 32.0 C 0.09 24.7 C
T 0.36 20.1 C 0.86 23.5 C
R 0.11 18.6 B 0.26 13.9 B
SB L 0.43 28.4 C 0.32 26.3 C
T 0.54 20.3 C 0.64 17.1 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection - 18.9 B 22.6 C
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.22 42.0 D 0.43 32.2 C
T 0.46 33.6 C 0.22 28.7 C
R 0.16 30.4 C 0.43 30.6 C
WB L 0.27 42.5 D 0.75 43.5 D
T 0.10 29.8 C 0.45 30.4 C
R 0.12 30.0 C 0.39 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.44 42.4 D 0.71 41.5 D
T 0.47 29.9 C 0.89 36.4 D
R 0.22 27.5 C 0.08 20.4 C
SB L 0.66 49.2 D 0.18 36.0 D
T 0.58 31.7 C 0.89 37.8 D
R 0.08 26.1 C 0.11 22.0 C
Overall Intersection - 33.4 C 35.9 D
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-24 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-5 (cont’d)
Hunter Park Station Options 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.32 27.5 C 0.45 28.6 C
TR 0.43 30.4 C 0.30 30.8 C
WB L 0.19 26.5 C 0.60 31.7 C
T 0.05 27.5 C 0.29 30.7 C
R 0.19 28.3 C 0.44 32.1 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 26.3 C 0.15 32.6 C
T 0.54 17.1 B 0.68 18.8 B
R 0.06 13.7 B 0.02 12.8 B
SB L 0.26 22.0 C 0.18 32.8 C
T 0.44 14.9 B 0.90 27.9 C
R 0.04 12.4 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection - 18.0 B 25.2 C
Columbia Avenue at Station Access Road – Signalized
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.38 6.7 A 0.09 5.2 A
T 0.17 5.5 A 0.08 5.1 A
WB TR 0.16 5.4 A 0.15 5.3 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.07 19.6 B 0.19 20.3 C
R 0.22 20.5 C 0.53 23.1 C
Overall Intersection - 8.3 A 13.5 B
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.06 7.6 A 0.22 9.4 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.21 12.4 B 0.32 29.8 D
R 0.20 9.5 A 0.17 10.5 B
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.13 9.1 A 0.09 9.1 A
TR 0.16 9.1 A 0.12 9.1 A
WB L 0.15 9.7 A 0.56 15.1 C
T 0.24 9.9 A 0.23 9.2 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.05 8.5 A 0.02 8.7 A
R 0.28 9.1 A 0.16 8.7 A
Overall Intersection - 9.3 A 11.9 B
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.20 7.8 A 0.08 7.5 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.12 9.8 A 0.34 10.4 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue – Unsignalized
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.8 A 0.18 8.1 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.36 12.3 B 0.31 16.0 C
Marlborough Option
Center Street at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Center Street EB LTR 0.63 40.7 D 0.95 51.1 D
WB L 0.25 31.2 C 0.43 32.3 C
T 0.52 34.5 C 0.83 52.8 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.20 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.31 43.9 D 0.38 32.0 C
T 0.56 36.6 D 1.21 134.7 F
R 0.10 31.7 C 0.15 23.1 C
SB L 0.12 42.1 D 0.39 38.7 D
T 0.55 36.2 D 0.60 28.7 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 23.8 C
Overall Intersection - 36.7 D 76.3 E
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-25 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-5 (cont’d)
Hunter Park Station Options 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.13 11.6 B 0.09 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.06 13.4 B
WB L 0.46 14.1 B 0.89 38.6 D
TR 0.03 11.0 B 0.30 14.8 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 32.0 C 0.09 24.7 C
T 0.36 20.1 C 0.86 23.5 C
R 0.11 18.6 B 0.26 13.9 B
SB L 0.43 28.4 C 0.32 26.3 C
T 0.54 20.3 C 0.64 17.1 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection - 18.9 B 22.6 C
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.22 42.0 D 0.44 32.8 C
T 0.34 32.2 C 0.18 28.9 C
R 0.29 31.7 C 0.48 31.7 C
WB L 0.19 41.8 D 0.63 37.1 D
T 0.07 29.6 C 0.39 30.3 C
R 0.04 29.3 C 0.14 28.7 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.50 43.2 D 0.81 49.3 D
T 0.49 30.2 C 0.92 39.6 D
R 0.11 26.4 C 0.05 19.9 B
SB L 0.28 40.9 D 0.07 35.8 D
T 0.67 33.6 C 0.91 41.3 D
R 0.08 26.1 C 0.11 22.4 C
Overall Intersection - 33.1 C 38.6 D
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue – Signalized
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.32 27.5 C 0.45 28.6 C
TR 0.43 30.4 C 0.30 30.8 C
WB L 0.27 27.1 C 0.75 39.9 D
T 0.06 27.6 C 0.29 30.7 C
R 0.52 31.8 C 0.80 52.8 D
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 26.3 C 0.15 32.6 C
T 0.51 16.7 B 0.67 18.7 B
R 0.15 14.2 B 0.04 12.9 B
SB L 0.65 27.7 C 0.45 35.3 D
T 0.43 14.8 B 0.87 26.1 C
R 0.04 12.4 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection - 19.3 B 26.3 C
Marlborough Columbia Avenue at Station Access Road – Signalized
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.40 6.8 A 0.10 5.2 A
T 0.19 5.5 A 0.14 5.3 A
WB TR 0.19 5.5 A 0.21 5.6 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.07 19.6 B 0.19 20.3 C
R 0.22 20.5 C 0.53 23.1 C
Overall Intersection - 8.2 A 12.1 B
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.06 7.6 A 0.22 9.4 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.22 12.5 B 0.32 29.8 D
R 0.20 9.5 A 0.17 10.5 B
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-26 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-5 (cont’d)
Hunter Park Station Options 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.12 9.1 A 0.05 9.0 A
TR 0.15 9.1 A 0.08 8.9 A
WB L 0.30 11.2 B 0.60 16.2 C
T 0.10 8.8 A 0.21 9.1 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.05 8.5 A 0.02 8.6 A
R 0.31 9.4 A 0.21 9.0 A
Overall Intersection - 9.7 A 12.5 B
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street – Unsignalized
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.22 7.9 A 0.11 7.6 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.20 9.9 A 0.35 10.5 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue – Unsignalized
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.9 A 0.19 8.3 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.38 13.1 B 0.34 17.9 C
Notes:
1. ―EB‖ refers to the eastbound direction, ―WB‖ to westbound, ―NB‖ to northbound, and ―SB‖ to southbound.
2. ―Mvt.‖ refers to the specific intersection approach lane(s) and how the lane(s) operate and/or specific pavement
striping. TR is a combined through-right-turn lane(s), R or L refers to exclusive right- or left-turn movement lane(s),
and LTR is a mixed lane(s) that allows for all movement types. It is possible that lane uses change in different time
periods. For example, a very heavy right-turn volume may exceed a single lane capacity, thus forcing drivers to use
(or ―share‖) an adjacent lane for additional travel capacity in the AM, but as flows decrease later in the day, a
shared lane may not be needed. DefL is a defacto left-turn lane automatically input by the HCS software when the
volume of the left turns is high enough to create a ―natural‖ turn lane to accommodate the demand; though
movements would then use the adjacent travel lane.
3. V/C is the volume-to-capacity ratio for the Mvt. Listed in the first column. Values above 1.0 indicate an excess of
demand over capacity.
4. Level of service (LOS) for signalized intersections is based upon average control delay per vehicle
(seconds/vehicle) for each lane group listed in the Mvt. Column as noted in the 2000 HCM-TRB.
5. The delay calculation for signalized intersections represent the average control delay experienced by all vehicles
that arrive in the analysis period, including delays incurred beyond the analysis period when the lane group is
saturated.
6. LOS for unsignalized intersections is based upon total average delay per vehicle (seconds/vehicle) for each lane
group listed in the Mvt. Column as noted in the 2000 HCM-TRB.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-27 April 5, 2010
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
W estbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement at Old 215 would experience a significant
impact by incurring just over two seconds of delay within LOS F during the PM analysis hour
(Mitigation Measure TT-1), as shown in Table 4.11-6.
Table 4.11-6
Moreno Valley/March Field Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Cactus Avenue at Southbound I-215 Ramps – Signalized
Cactus Avenue EB T 0.21 13.0 B 0.82 22.87 C
WB L 0.900.94 28.635.1 CD 1.511.73 251.8349.1 F
T 0.18 0.0 A 0.09 0.0 A
Overall Intersection - 15.3 18.7 B 136.9196.9 F
Cactus Avenue at Old 215 – Signalized
Cactus Avenue EB L 0.34 14.9 B 0.49 17.1 B
TR 0.400.41 13.413.5 B 0.700.72 16.016.4 B
WB T 1.01 44.246.0 D 1.491.48 244.0239.9 F
R 0.100.11 11.4 B 0.070.16 9.810.4 AB
Old 215 NB L 0.38 16.0 B 0.26 20.0 B
TR 0.13 13.9 B 0.09 18.5 B
SB L 0.050.06 13.413.5 B 0.21 19.4 B
TR 0.16 14.1 B 0.31 20.3 C
Overall Intersection - 31.432.2 C 152.1146.3 F
Alessandro Boulevard at Old 215 – Signalized
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.33 29.1 C 0.51 38.4 D
T 0.550.58 19.720.1 BC 0.932 35.636.9 D
WB L 0.14 28.1 C 0.10 35.7 D
T 0.780.77 24.524.4 C 0.820.77 28.226.1 C
Old 215 NB L 0.49 32.8 C 0.63 40.9 D
T 0.25 30.3 C 0.12 33.9 C
SB L 0.04 29.2 C 0.19 33.8 C
T 0.03 29.2 C 0.11 33.9 C
Overall Intersection - 24.1 C 33.0 C
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-28 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-6 (cont’d)
Moreno Valley/March Field Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Alessandro Boulevard at Mission Grove Parkway – Signalized
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.18 44.3 D 0.38 53.4 D
T 0.40 17.9 B 0.980.99 40.341.7 D
R 0.03 14.6 B 0.16 15.1 B
WB L 0.36 45.2 D 0.72 59.6 E
T 0.88 28.728.8 C 0.750.76 22.823.1 C
R 0.08 15.0 B 0.11 14.7 B
Mission Grove Parkway NB L 0.39 45.5 D 0.35 50.9 D
T 0.76 54.4 D 0.38 46.8 D
R 0.46 41.9 D 0.49 48.2 D
SB L 0.56 50.1 D 0.83 78.2 E
TR 0.34 40.2 D 0.32 45.9 D
Overall Intersection - 29.7 C 36.637.2 D
Downtown Perris Station
Significant impacts would be expected at two study intersections during the PM analysis hour
as shown in Table 4.11-7:
• At the intersection of SR-74 (4th Street) and D Street, north and southbound D Street’s
through/left-turn movements would incur approximately ten and 20 seconds of additional
delay within LOS F, respectively (Mitigation Measure TT-2).
• At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, westbound San Jacinto Avenue’s through/left-turn
movements and northbound Redlands Avenue would incur four to eight seconds of
additional delay within LOS F.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-29 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-7
Downtown Perris Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
SR-74 at Navajo Road – Signalized
SR-74 EB L 0.13 26.9 C 0.23 30.5 C
T 0.28 4.8 A 0.52 5.3 A
WB TR 0.39 10.9 B 1.04 52.5 D
Navajo Road SB L 0.27 19.3 B 0.71 31.6 C
R 0.01 17.9 B 0.03 24.2 C
Overall Intersection - 9.8 A 32.8 C
SR-74 andat C Street – Signalized
SR-74 EB L 0.61 21.3 C 0.92 50.4 D
TR 0.51 9.8 A 0.76 16.2 B
WB L 0.04 24.2 C 0.09 23.9 C
TR 0.80 25.9 C 0.97 41.5 D
C Street NB L 0.00 24.0 C 0.00 23.5 C
TR 0.07 20.0 B 0.12 19.8 B
SB L 0.08 24.4 C 0.09 23.9 C
TR 0.32 21.5 C 0.80 35.4 D
Overall Intersection - 17.8 B 31.5 C
SR-74 at D Street – Signalized
SR-74 EB L 0.62 32.6 C 0.62 32.5 C
TR 0.65 24.2 C 1.06 71.9 E
WB L 0.07 25.9 C 0.16 26.5 C
TR 0.46 21.5 C 0.75 26.9 C
D Street NB LT 0.43 21.5 C 1.32 192.7 F
R 0.02 18.1 B 0.09 18.6 B
SB LT 0.26 19.9 B 1.37 216.9 F
R 0.08 18.5 B 0.16 19.1 B
Overall Intersection - 23.6 C 86.8 F
SR-74 at Perris Boulevard – Signalized
SR-74 EB L 0.60 30.2 C 0.84 49.7 D
TR 0.44 17.1 B 0.70 20.6 C
WB L 0.18 25.0 C 0.56 36.4 D
TR 0.35 16.4 B 0.59 22.5 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.11 18.3 B 0.76 39.0 D
T 0.32 19.7 B 0.76 30.2 C
R 0.06 18.0 B 0.19 20.0 C
SB L 0.15 18.7 B 1.24 186.8 F
T 0.25 19.2 B 0.63 25.6 C
R 0.08 18.1 B 0.17 19.9 B
Overall Intersection - 19.1 B 34.2 C
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-30 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-7 (cont’d)
Downtown Perris Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
San Jacinto Avenue andat Perris Boulevard – Signalized
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.18 30.0 C 0.71 48.4 D
TR 0.27 30.7 C 0.29 27.0 C
WB L 0.06 29.3 C 0.08 34.8 C
T 0.14 29.8 C 0.18 26.1 C
R 0.17 30.1 C 0.28 27.0 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.45 35.8 D 0.45 41.6 D
TR 0.36 11.7 B 0.90 44.1 D
SB L 0.14 32.6 C 0.47 41.8 D
TR 0.32 11.4 B 0.95 52.7 D
Overall Intersection - 16.3 B 44.1 D
Nuevo Road andat Perris Boulevard – Signalized
Nuevo Road EB L 0.37 34.2 C 1.39 214.1 F
T 0.31 27.0 C 0.83 32.9 C
R 0.08 25.1 C 0.25 22.3 C
WB L 0.30 33.6 C 0.57 32.9 C
TR 0.25 26.4 C 0.47 26.5 C
R 0.05 24.9 C 0.31 25.8 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.40 34.0 C 0.88 52.2 D
T 0.17 28.0 C 0.57 25.5 C
R 0.10 27.5 C 0.28 23.3 C
SB L 0.22 38.7 D 0.95 66.0 E
T 0.19 31.1 C 0.82 32.8 C
R 0.05 15.3 B 0.52 16.7 B
Overall Intersection - 29.4 C 65.7 E
San Jacinto Avenue at D Street - Signalized
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.65 27.4 C 0.88 45.0 D
T 0.00 13.8 B 0.03 15.4 B
R 0.01 13.9 B 0.01 15.3 B
WB L 0.36 31.5 C 0.41 37.2 D
TR 0.29 26.0 C 0.64 37.5 D
D Street NB L 0.06 29.0 C 0.11 34.6 C
TR 0.67 23.8 C 0.85 40.7 D
SB L 0.52 33.7 C 0.61 37.0 D
T 0.45 19.6 B 0.67 22.4 C
R 0.19 17.7 B 0.47 18.6 B
Overall Intersection - 24.2 C 32.7 C
San Jacinto Avenue at C Street – Unsignalized
San Jacinto Avenue EB LTR 0.00 7. 3 A 0.00 7.2 A
WB LTR 0.0824 9.37.5 AB 0. 3392 40.88.4 EA
C Street NB L 0.00 10.7 A 0.00 14.330.4 D
LTR 0.284 8.29.4 A 0. 2356 14.38.0 BA
SB LTR 0.01 7.914.2 A 0.105 10.333.8 BD
San Jacinto Avenue at D Street – Unsignalized
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.55 18.9 C 0.97 65.6 F
TR 0.01 9.2 A 0.06 11.1 B
WB L 0.09 11.8 B 0.12 13.6 B
TR 0.14 10.8 B 0.32 15.5 C
Redlands Avenue NB L 0.02 9.9 A 0.03 11.7 B
TR 0.67 21.7 C 0.90 49.5 E
SB L 0.12 10.8 B 0.32 15.2 C
T 0.42 14.0 B 1.05 84.4 F
R 0.20 10.0 A 0.81 34.1 D
Overall Intersection - 16.3 C 55.8 F
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-31 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-7 (cont’d)
Downtown Perris Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue – Unsignalized
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.14 10.8 B 0.26 16.5 C
TR 0.12 9.3 A 0.41 18.8 C
WB LT 0.37 13.3 B 1.68 338.3 F
R 0.07 8.6 A 0.58 21.6 C
Redlands Avenue NB LT 0.29 11.4 B 1.36 200.0 F
R 0.15 9.1 A 1.58 292.8 F
SB L 0.04 9.6 A 0.87 51.3 F
TR 0.41 12.8 B 0.44 18.2 C
Overall Intersection - 11.6 B 194.7 F
6th Street andat C Street – Unsignalized
6th Street EB LTR 0.01 7.2 A 0.01 7.2 A
C Street NB LT 0.00 8.8 A 0.03 9.3 A
SB TR 0.02 9.4 A 0.05 9.3 A
6th Street andat D Street – Unsignalized
6th Street WB LR 0.01 10.6 B 0.06 11.3 B
D Street SB LT 0.00 7.8 A 0.01 7.8 A
7th Street andat C Street – Unsignalized
76th Street EB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.00 7.4 A
WB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.02 7.3 A
C Street NB LTR 0.01 8.7 A 0.02 8.8 A
SB LTR 0.03 9.1 A 0.08 10.3 B
7th Street andat D Street – Unsignalized
76th Street EB LTR 0.08 11.5 B 0.24 17.8 C
WB LTR 0.02 11.7 B 0.16 18.5 C
D Street NB LTR 0.00 7.5 A 0.03 8.0 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.8 A 0.01 7.9 A
7th Street andat Perris Boulevard – Unsignalized
7th Street EB LTR 0.07 12.211.8 B 0.290.27 24.422.8 C
WB LTR 0.019 13.111.2 B 0.630.19 41.318.0 EC
Perris Boulevard NB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.00 8.3 A
SB LTR 0.00 8.07.9 A 0.01 8.23 A
7th Street and Redlands Avenue – Unsignalized
7th Street EB LR 0.26 10.2 B 0.31 10.9 B
Redlands Avenue NB L 0.00 7.6 A 0.02 7.9 A
Case Road and Goetz Road – Unsignalized
Case Road EB T 0.13 9.3 A 0.60 17.6 C
R 0.15 8.7 A 0.39 11.6 B
WB L 0.18 10.4 B 0.32 12.7 B
T 0.24 10.4 B 0.55 16.3 C
Goetz Road NB L 0.32 10.7 B 0.34 12.8 B
R 0.19 8.5 A 0.16 9.8 A
Case Road and G Street – Unsignalized
Case Road EB L 0.09 8.3 A 0.05 8.4 A
G Street SB L 0.08 14.0 B 0.62 35.0 D
R 0.05 9.8 A 0.15 11.2 B
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-32 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-7 (cont’d)
Downtown Perris Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Intersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Case Road and Ellis Avenue – Unsignalized
Case Road NB L 0.00 7.6 A 0.00 9.0 A
Redlands Avenue and Ellis Avenue – Unsignalized
Ellis Avenue EB LT 0.00 7.3 A 0.00 7.2 A
Redlands Avenue SB LR 0.01 8.6 A 0.01 8.6 A
South Perris Station
Significant impacts would be expected at all three study intersections as shown in Table 4.11-8:
Eastbound Bonnie Drive‘s left-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps would deteriorate
from LOS D to F during the AM and PM analysis hours, and right-turn movement would
worsen within LOS F by incurring approximately 240 seconds of additional delay during the
PM analysis hour (Mitigation Measure TT-43).
SR-74 at northbound I-215 off-ramp would deteriorate from LOS D to E during the AM and
PM analysis hours.
At the intersection of SR-74 and Sherman Road‘s, northbound left-turn movement onto SR-
74 would incur approximately 110 and 290 seconds of additional delay within LOS F during
the respective AM and PM analysis hours. Southbound Sherman Road would deteriorate
from LOS E to F during the AM, and worsen within LOS F by incurring 160 seconds of
additional delay during the PM analysis hours.
Table 4.11-8
South Perris Station 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
cIntersection and Approach Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C
Control
Delay LOS V/C
Control
Delay LOS
Relocated Mapes Road at Station Access Road – Signalized
Relocated Mapes Road EB L 0.13 5.8 A 0.03 7.6 A
T 0.08 5.5 A 0.20 8.4 A
WB TR 0.33 6.6 A 0.18 8.3 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.14 17.6 B 0.92 38.8 D
R 0.04 17.1 B 0.19 14.4 B
Overall Intersection - 7.3 A 21.4 C
Bonnie Drive at Southbound I-215 Ramps – Unsignalized
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.30 78.5 F 1.51 320.2 F
R 0.36 18.7 C 1.78 397.2 F
Southbound I-215 Ramps NB L 0.63 15.9 C 0.47 15.5 C
SR-74 at Northbound I-215 Off Ramp – Unsignalized
SR-74 EB L 0.01 8.7 A 0.03 8.3 A
I-215 Northbound Off-Ramp SB LR 0.80 43.9 E 0.69 42.5 E
SR-74 at Sherman Road – Unsignalized
SR-74 EB L 0.09 13.4 B 0.08 10.5 B
WB L 0.11 10.1 B 0.21 14.5 B
Sherman Road NB L 1.02 304.4 F 2.00 854.1 F
R 0.21 12.6 B 0.42 20.6 C
SB LR 0.53 52.3 F 1.71 592.9 F
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-33 April 5, 2010
Grade Crossings
In addition to impacts at key intersections that would experience increases in traffic volumes as
a result of project-generated trips, the PVL could also result in impacts at grade crossings by
creating additional delays to vehicles that would be stopped during periods of train movements.
However, these additional delays would not be considered significant considering that the
project would operate with twelve trains per day and only one train during the peak traffic hours
in 2012, and that the wait time of vehicular traffic (30 seconds for typical operations) would not
be any more disruptive to traffic operations than a single red phase of a typical traffic signal
cycle.
Further, as noted in Chapter 2.0, the project would make improvements at several existing
grade crossings including the installation of new signals at several of them. These signals
would be placed to improve safety and meet jurisdictional requirements, and would remain
inactive (i.e. display a steady green signal for vehicular traffic) unless a train is detected.
Therefore, no significant delays would be expected due to the installation of these new signals.
Construction Period Impacts
The construction activities for the proposed PVL project would result in an increase of auto and
truck trips generated by construction crews, and the delivery/removal of materials to and from
the construction sites. It should be noted that the delivery of construction materials and
equipment, such as the rail, rail ties, ballast, and specialized track equipment, would be
accomplished using the existing rail, as opposed to being delivered by truck. The volume of
construction traffic would be expected to be modest (less than 50 vehicles per hour) given that
no significant excavation is expected, and most construction-related materials deliveries would
likely occur during non-peak hours so as to limit congestion along adjacent roads. In addition,
traffic diversions would occur during partial and complete roadway and grade crossing closures.
As a result, the construction activities could potentially create short-term significant traffic
impacts although, due to their temporary nature, such impacts may be tolerated and the
thresholds of significance during construction periods may be redefined by reviewing agencies
(Mitigation Measure TT-4). RCTC will develop a traffic management plan in consultation with
local jurisdictions to determine detours, length and timing of any closures, temporary access
routes, and signagethat will contain measures proven to improve traffic levels of service in order
to and mitigate significant impacts to acceptable levelsless than significant levels. RCTC will be
responsible for the development and enforcement of this measure.
In terms of estimated truck volumes, the cut/fill estimates were examined to identify volumes of
earth that would potentially be moved off site. A conservative approach estimated truck
volumes using an average number of tons of material in a cubic yard of earth (1.35 tons/cubic
yards) and the typical weight capacity of a dump truck (15 tons/truck). Also, a single work shift
was included, though two work shifts per day would be more likely. The estimate yields 30
empty trucks in and 30 filled truck trips out. Again, using a single work shift, this would indicate
on average four ―ins‖ and 4 ―outs‖ each hour, which is a low figure not likely to generate any
significant traffic impact. Moreover, the cut/fill estimates were calculated for the entire corridor,
so it is unlikely that any volume of truck trips would be concentrated in any particular area or
through any one intersection.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-34 April 5, 2010
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks
The project does not propose any actions which would result in an increase in air traffic or a
change in air traffic patterns, and therefore, would not create any impacts in this context.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
The proposed project would involve track upgrades to an existing rail line to allow for commuter
rail service, but would not introduce design features that would increase hazards. The track and
grade crossing improvements are required to bring the existing freight facility up to commuter
rail standards, thereby resulting in safer operations.
Result in inadequate emergency access
As mentioned above, the proposed project would include the closure of two grade crossings,
Poarch Road in Riverside and 6th Street in downtown Perris. The existing grade crossing at
Poarch Road is planned to be closed to the public with access by emergency vehicles only (with
a locked gate). The closure of the Poarch Road crossing would redirect public access to the
small number of residences northeast of the crossing via Watkins Drive. However, these
residences would remainare accessible via Gernert Road. As Poarch Road will remain
accessible to emergency vehicles only, the project would not result in a change in emergency
access to this neighborhood. , and the emergency access is not deemed to be inadequate.
Closure of the 6th Street crossing in downtown Perris would also not create inadequate
emergency access as alternate routes (4th and 7th Streets being the nearest) around the
closure could be readily used by emergency personnel.
In addition, the northern end of Commercial Street would be closed to the public (with locked
gates) where it intersects with D Street and Perris Boulevard, which would allow access to
emergency vehicles only. As Commercial Street will remain accessible to emergency vehicles,
the project would not result in a change in emergency access. Local fire stations and other
emergency responders would be notified of these permanent closures to allow for adjustments
in their emergency routes and to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained.
Further, new signals and gates would be installed at 15 grade crossings by the project to
promote safe traffic flow. The operation of the gates at the crossings for the passing of a train
could potentially delay emergency vehicles for approximately 30 seconds during the presence of
a train crossing. However, given that the train crossings would occur only twelve times each
day, and would block the crossing for a total of six minutes during a 24 -hour period, the
probability of an emergency vehicle experiencing this delay is slight, and this measure is not
expected to significantly impact emergency access.
Does the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)
The implementation of the PVL commuter rail service would serve as an alternative
transportation option, help alleviate existing and future congestion in the I -215 corridor, provide
bus connections to several RTA bus routes at all stations, implement improvements at several
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-35 April 5, 2010
grade crossings, and provide park-and-ride facilities, all of which would be aligned with the
policies of the Cities of Riverside and Perris to encourage increased use of public transportation
and multi-modal transportation as means of reducing roadway congestion, to ensure adequate
connections among all alternative modes, and to reconstruct existing grade separations as
necessary for the smooth flow of traffic to name a few. As such, the proposed project would
reinforce, rather than conflict with, adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-36 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-9
2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project PVL Mitigation
Measures Notes V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
PM Peak
TT-1:
Reduce
north/southbo
und Old 215's
maximum
green time to
15 seconds.
Less than
significant
after
mitigation.
Cactus Avenue at Old
215
Cactus Avenue EB L 0.36 14.1 B 0.49 17.1 B L 0.41 8.6 A
TR 0.6971 15.816.2 B 0.707
2 16.40 B TR 0.59.57 7.64 A
WB T 1.4849 241.5237.4 F 1.484
9 244.0239.9 F T 1.2322 119.0115.7 F
R 0.1607 9.810.4 AB 0.160
7 9.810.4 BA R 0.1306 4.97 A
Old 215 NB L 0.25 19.8 B 0.26 20.0 B L 0.47 25.6 C
TR 0.09 18.5 B 0.09 18.5 B TR 0.15 22.5 C
SB L 0.,21 19.4 B 0.21 19.4 B L 0.34 24.1 C
TR 0.30 20.2 C 0.31 20.3 C TR 0.52 25.5 C
Overall Intersection - 151.4145.6 F 152.1146.3 F 75.571.8 E
Downtown Perris Station
PM Peak TT-2:
Restripe
north/
southbound D
Street to
provide one
left -turn and
one shared
through/ right -
turn lane.
Reduce the
maximum
green time for
the
east/westboun
d SR-74 left-
turn phase to
14 seconds.
Less than
significant
after
mitigation.
SR-74 at D
Street
SR-74 EB L 0.57 31.0 C 0.62 32.5 C L 0.,6266 32534.3 C
TR 1.06 71.9 E 1.06 71.9 E TR 1.056 71.967.0 E
WB L 0.16 26.5 C 0.16 26.5 C L 0.176 26.95 C
TR 0.76 27.0 C 0.75 26.9 C TR 0.7475 26.09 C
D Street NB LT 1.30 183.1 F 1.32 192.7 F L 0.551.29 176.524.5 FC
R 0.09 18.6 B 0.09 18.6 B TR 0.5809 18.223.6 BC
SB LT 1.32 194.2 F 1.37 216.9 F L 0.461.32 193.722.6 FC
R 0.17 19.2 B 0.16 19.1 B TR 0.1660 18.724.1 BC
Overall Intersection
-
82.8 F
86.8 F
-
80.242.8 BF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-37 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-9 (cont’d)
2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project PVL Mitigation
Measures Notes V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
San Jacinto Avenue
at Redlands Avenue Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Iinstallation of
a new traffic
signal to be
completed by
a private
developer as
part of an
unrelated
development.
San Jacinto
Avenue
EB L 0.26 16.5 C 0.26 16.5 C L 0.68 40.3 D
TR 0.41 18.8 C 0.41 18.8 C TR 0.56 30.2 C
WB LT 1.67 333.9 F 1.68 338.3 F L 0.94 44.0 D
R 0.58 21.6 C 0.58 21.6 C TR 0.57 18.2 B
1As presented herein, a few individual turning movements would continue to operate below acceptable levels of service with mitigation measures. However, these would not be
considered impacts of the project per impact criteria, as the future conditions without the project would already be at unacceptable levels.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-38 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-9 (cont’d)
2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project
Mitigation Measures Notes V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
Downtown Perris Station (Continued)
Redlands AvenueD
Street
NB LT 1.34 193.1 F 1.36 200.0 F L 0.66 36.7 D
R 1.56 284.2 F 1.58 292.8 F T 0.90 40.6 D
- - - - - - - R 0.66 6.6 A
SB L 0.87 51.3 F 0.87 51.3 F L 0.92 39.8 D
TR 0.44 18.2 C 0.44 18.2 C TR 0.32 16.0 B
Overall Intersection - 189.9 F 194.7 F - 27.9 C
South Perris Station
AM Peak
Bonnie Drive at Southbound
I-215 Ramps Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
TT-3:
Install new traffic
signal.
Less than significant
after mitigation.
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.03 27.8 D 0.30 78.5 F L 0.07 25.9 C
R 0.30 17.5 C 0.36 18.7 C R 0.54 30.5 C
Southbound I-215 NB L 0.38 11.7 B 0.63 15.9 C L 0.91 36.5 D
Ramps T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.20 3.6 A
Southbound I-215 SB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.89 32.0 C
Ramps R N/A N/A - N/A N/A - R 0.08 13.2 B
Overall Intersection N/A - N/A - - 28.4 C
SR-74 at Northbound I-215
Off-Ramp Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
Installation of a new
traffic signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part of
another program.
The signal will be in
place for the 2012
opening year.
SR-74 EB L 0.01 8.5 A 0.01 8.7 A L 0.02 4.5 A
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.52 11.9 B
WB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.31 10.3 B
Northbound I-215 Off-
Ramp SB LR 0.54 28.9 D 0.80 43.9 E LR 0.77 32.2 C
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 14.9 B
SR-74 at Sherman Road Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
Installation of a new
traffic signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part of
another program.
The signal will be in
place operation for
the 2012 opening
year.
SR-74 EB L 0.09 12.8 B 0.09 13.4 B L 0.19 8.6 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.53 11.9 B
WB L 0.11 10.0 A 0.11 10.1 B L 0.24 5.7 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.83 17.9 B
Sherman Road NB L 0.71 192.7 F 1.02 304.4 F L 0.11 18.9 B
R 0.21 12.5 B 0.21 12.6 B R 0.35 20.5 C
SB LR 0.46 43.4 E 0.53 52.3 F LR 0.19 19.4 B
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 15.6 B
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-39 April 5, 2010
Table 4.11-9 (cont’d)
2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project
Mitigation Measures Significance After
Mitigation V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
South Perris Station (Continued)
PM Peak
TT-3:
Install new traffic
signal.
Less than significant
after mitigation.
Bonnie Drive at
Southbound I-215
Ramps
Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.06 28.4 D 1.51 320.2 F L 0.52 22.2 C
R 1.20 159.4 F 1.78 397.2 F R 0.68 17.2 B
Southbound I-215
Ramps NB L 0.40 14.3 B 0.47 15.5 C L 0.86 35.3 D
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.17 4.3 A
SB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 1.00 40.8 D
R N/A N/A - N/A N/A - R 0.01 7.1 A
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 30.2 C
SR-74 at Northbound I-215
Off-Ramp Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Installation of a new
traffic signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part of
another program.
The signal will be in
place for the 2012
opening year.
SR-74 EB L 0.02 8.2 A 0.03 8.3 A L 0.05 4.5 A
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.82 17.7 B
WB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.27 10.0 A
Northbound I-215 Off-
Ramp SB LR 0.59 32.9 D 0.69 42.5 E LR 0.46 21.4 C
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 16.2 B
SR-74 at Sherman Road Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Installation of a new
traffic signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part of
another program.
The signal will be in
place operation for
the 2012 opening
year.
SR-74 EB L 0.07 10.4 B 0.08 10.5 B L 0.18 6.0 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.82 17.8 B
WB L 0.19 13.4 B 0.21 14.5 B L 0.41 10.1 B
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.60 12.8 B
Sherman Road NB L 1.48 563.9 F 2.00 854.1 F L 0.12 18.9 B
R 0.39 18.6 C 0.42 20.6 C R 0.46 21.6 C
SB LR 1.40 431.7 F 1.71 529.9 F LR 0.19 19.2 B
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 15.8 B
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-40 April 5, 2010
4.11.5 Future Conditions
In the future, it would be expected that the PVL would experience an increase in ridership to a
total of 7,054 passengers during each of the AM and PM peak periods based on ridership
projections (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2009). RCTC also expects to identify additional funding to
support the completion of the PVL full build out. Thus, when ridership increases and additional
funding is identified, RCTC would construct two additional stations in the future, Ramona
Station and UC Riverside Station, in addition to the four stations that would be completed by the
opening year of 2012 (Hunter Park, Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris and South
Perris stations).
The proposed UCR Station would be located north of Watkins Drive between Blaine Street and
Mount Vernon Avenue. This station would not include a parking area. The proposed Ramona
Station would be located south of Cajalco Expressway and east of Harvill Avenue; this statio n
would have an associated parking area with a capacity of approximately 500 vehicles. It is also
expected that the parking lots of the four opening year stations would be enlarged to
accommodate projected increases in ridership, as summarized in Table 4.11-7 10 below.
Table 4.11-10
Station Parking Lot Capacities
Station 2012 Opening Year 2030 Horizon Year
Hunter Park 480 570
Moreno Valley/March Field 445 660
Downtown Perris 440 740
South Perris 880 1,390
As the new stations and parking lot expansions are promulgated by RCTC as a result of
increased ridership and the availability of funding, RCTC will prepare supplemental analyses for
the purpose of identifying impacts and appropriate mit igation. The opening year stations would
not be expanded, and additional stations would not be built unless RCTC identifies a need for
and then, additional sources of funding. Therefore, when these conditions are met, RCTC will
commit to preparation of new reviews under CEQA, and developing mitigation appropriate to
future conditions. In this manner, RCTC can be responsive, and committed to undertaking its
fair proportion of traffic mitigation measures related to the PVL.
4.11.6 Mitigation Measures
TT-1: Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for Moreno Valley/March Field Station)
Reduce north/southbound Old 215‘s maximum traffic signal green time to 15 seconds during
the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour. This would reduce delays for westbound Cactus Avenue‘s
through movement from 244240 to 119116 seconds and improve the overall intersection
LOS from LOS F with 152146 seconds of delay to LOS E with 7672 seconds of delay, while
maintaining LOS C for Old 215.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-41 April 5, 2010
TT-2: SR-74 (4th Street) at D Street (for Downtown Perris Station)
Reduce the maximum green time for the east/westRestripe north/southbound SR-74 left-turn
phaseD Street approaches to 14 seconds during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hourprovide one
left-turn and one through/right turn shared lane. The levels of service for north and
southbound D Street‘s through/left-turn movements, and the overall intersection, would be
improved beyond future levels of service without the project during the PM analysis hour
with this mitigation measure.
TT-3: Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps (for South Perris Station)
Install a new traffic signal. This would improve eastbound Bonnie Drive‘s right-turn
movement from LOS F to LOS B during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour and left-turn
movement from LOS F to LOS C during the AM (6-7 AM) and PM analysis hours.
*RCTC shall design the above-proposed improvements, and execute agreements with the
affected jurisdictions to provide funding for the installation of the signals or to install the
signals in conjunction with the development of the project. With these mitigation measures
in place, the significant impacts of the proposed project at the three above-mentioned
intersections will be eliminated (out of the six locations where significant impacts are
expected). At the remaining three locations where si gnificant impacts are expected (San
Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, SR-74 at northbound I-215 Off-Ramp, and SR-74 at
Sherman Road), traffic signals are planned to be installed by other projects (unrelated to the
PVL) as part of the future condition without the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures
will need to be implemented by the proposed PVL project at these intersections. However,
in the event that the signalization of these three locations by other projects (unrelated to the
PVL) does not occur prior to the 2012 opening year of the PVL, the installation of traffic
signals at these additional locations will be incorporated as PVL project features.
TT-4: RCTC shall Ddevelop a traffic management plan in consultation with local
jurisdictions to determine minimize impacts to existing traffic levels of service. At a
minimum, the traffic management plan shall address: detours routes,; coordination with
other construction projects (if applicable); length and timing of any street closures, ; length
and timing of any grade crossing closures; coordination with police and fire departments
regarding changes in emergency access routes; temporary access routes, and signage if
any commercial properties are affected; and contact information for RCTC and its
contractors. RCTC will be responsible for development and enforcement of this measure.
4.11.7 Mitigation Summary
RCTC will shall design the above-proposed improvements, and execute agreements with the
affected jurisdictions to provide funding for the installation of the signals, or to install the signals
in conjunction with the development of the project. With these mitigation measures in place, the
significant impacts of the proposed project at the three above mentioned intersections would will
be eliminated (out of the six locations where significant impacts are expected, as shown in
Table 4.11-9). At the remaining three locations where significant impacts are expected (San
Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, SR-74 at northbound I-215 Off-Ramp, and SR-74 at Sherman
Road), traffic signals are planned to be installed by other projects (unrelated to the PVL) as part
of the future conditions without the project. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures will
need to be implemented by the proposed PVL project at these inter sections. However, in the
event that the signalization of these intersections does not occur prior to the opening year of the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.11-42 April 5, 2010
PVL, the installation of traffic signals at these additional locations will be incorporated as PVL
project features. Comparison of future levels of service with and without the project, and with
mitigation, is listed in Table 4.11-9.
In addition, traffic impacts during the construction period would be expected at intersections
where traffic is diverted to in the course of partial and complete roadway and grade crossing
closures, which could be mitigated as described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 4.7.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-1 April 5, 2010
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section evaluates the potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems related
to the PVL project. Specifically, this section discusses power distribution (electricity), water
supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage and run-off, the existing and proposed PVL
communications systems, and solid waste collection and removal, including recycling.
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Power Distribution
Electricity is supplied to the PVL corridor and surrounding area by Southern California Edison
(SCE) and Riverside Public Utilities Department (RPUD). RPUD supplies electricity within the
city of Riverside, while SCE supplies electricity throughout the remainder of the PVL corridor.
Overhead electrical transmission lines are also located along the PVL corridor, generally along
the outside edge of the ROW, and are used for local distribution.
Water Supply
Water is supplied to the area immediately adjacent to the Citrus Connection by the Riverside
Public Utilities Service Area. The proposed Hunter Park area and Moreno Valley/March Field
Station area would have water supplied by Western Municipal Water District (WMWD).
WMWD‘s primary source of water is the Metropolitan Water District, with a secondary supply
provided by the City of Riverside. The City of Perris Water District owns, operates, and
maintains water lines near the proposed Downtown Perris Station.
During construction, water would be supplied by water trucks with supplies dependant upon
location along the corridor.
Wastewater Treatment
Sanitary sewer systems within the PVL corridor are owned and maintained by four water and
sewer districts. The WMWD and the Riverside Public Works Department cooperatively own and
maintain the sanitary sewer system in the area around Hunter Park. Treatment in this area
occurs at the Riverside Regional Water Quality Treatment Plant. The EMWD owns and
maintains the sanitary sewer system located at the Moreno Valley/March Field Station, South
Perris Station, and the Layover Facility. Near the Downtown Perris Station, the local sanitary
sewer system is owned and maintained by the City of Perris Sewer District. The City of Perris
Sewer District sewers discharge into EMWD trunk lines and the wastewater is processed at t he
Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (PVRWRF) south of Case Road and west of
the I-215 Freeway (City of Perris, 2005).
Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater drains within the PVL corridor are owned and maintained by RCTC alon g the SJBL
alignment. Currently, stormwater runoff flows across the SJBL ROW from adjacent areas into a
local storm drain system. The local stormwater drainage systems, known as the MS4, conveys
the stormwater away from the ROW. This flow of stormwater would eventually discharge into
the Santa Ana River from the northern portion of the project, or the San Jacinto River from the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-2 April 5, 2010
southern portion of the project. The San Jacinto River flow, if high enough, could eventually
reach the San Ana River after flowing through Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore.
The stormwater drainage from the station sites will connect into the local MS4 ‘s as follows:
Marlborough station connects from an on-site catch basin via an underground pipe at the
northern boundary of the project into the local MS4: Moreno Valley/March Field drains into an
onsite detention basin and into the drainage channel located between the parking area and the
platform; Downtown Perris connects to underground piping located near the center of the
station; and South Perris and the Layover Facility utilize the drainage swale located in the ROW
to drain into the San Jacinto River.
Communications
Currently on the SJBL alignment there are 17 18 existing grade crossings (Table 4.12-1).
Solid Waste Collection and Removal
Currently local solid waste collected along the corridor is transported to the Robert A. Nelson
Transfer Station, located on Agua Mansa Road in Riverside . This facility is owned by the
County of Riverside. The waste is then transferred to either the Badlands Landfill in Moreno
Valley or the El Sobrante Landfill located east of I-15 south of the City of Corona.
Table 4.12-1
Existing Grade Crossings
Location Existing Device Type
Crossbuck Signs (“X” – shaped signs signifying a grade crossing)
Citrus Street, Riverside County and City of Riverside border,
MP 0.57 Two standard reflective signs.
Gernert/Poarch Road, Riverside County, MP 5.02 Warning sign
San Jacinto Avenue, City of Perris, MP 18.05 One standard crossbuck sign
West 5th Street, City of Perris, MP 18.95 One standard crossbuck sign with concrete
West 6th Street, City of Perris, MP19.03 One standard crossbuck sign
West 7th Street, City of Perris, MP 19.10 One standard crossbuck sign
South D Street., City of Perris, MP 19.17 One standard crossbuck sign
South Perris Street, City of Perris, MP 19.37 One standard crossbuck sign
G Street, City of Perris, MP 19.68 One standard crossbuck sign
East Ellis Avenue, City of Perris, MP 19.87 One standard crossbuck sign
Warning Lights/Bell
Spruce Street, City of Riverside, MP 2.02 Two No. 8 flashers
Mapes Road, City of Perris, MP 21.59 Two flashing warning signs
Gates
Palmyrita Avenue, City of Riverside, MP 1.00 Two standard No. 9 gates1 with flashing lights
Columbia Avenue, City of Riverside, MP 1.24 Two standard No. 9 crossing gates for the
existing tracks
Marlborough Avenue, City of Riverside, MP 1.50 Two standard No. 9 gates with flashing lights
West Blaine and Watkins Drive, City of Riverside, MP 2.66 Standard No. 9 gate with flashing lights
Mt. Vernon Avenue, City of Riverside, MP 3.41 Four standard No. 9 gates with flashing lights
Box Springs-River Crest Drive, City of Riverside, MP 7.00 Standard No. 9 gates with flashing lights
West 4th Street, City of Perris, MP 18.34 Two standard No. 9A gates with flashing lights
Note: 1Standard No. 9 gates refer to flashing light signals with automatic gates (CPUC, 2006).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-3 April 5, 2010
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Policies and Regulations
Clean Water Act
The CWA is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution (33 USC
1251-1376). The CWA established the goals of eliminating releases to water of high amounts of
toxic substances, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface
waters would meet standards necessary for human sp orts and recreation by 1983. Under the
CWA, the USEPA‘s Office of Waste Management works together with USEPA regions, states
and tribes to regulate discharges into surface waters such as wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries,
bays and oceans. Specifically, the Office of Waste Management focuses on control of water that
is collected in discrete conveyances (also called point sources), including pipes, ditches, and
sanitary or storm sewers (USEPA, 2009).
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to navigable
waters unless the discharge is authorized by a NPDES permit. Since 1990, operators of
stormwater systems have been required to develop a stormwater management program
designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed away by stormwater runoff and
discharged into local water bodies. In California, the SARWQCB administers the NPDES
permitting program (SARWQCB, 2009).
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA defines solid waste as any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment
plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material,
including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities (USEPA, 2009).
―Other‖ wastes regulations are set forth in 40 CFR 273, including batteries, pesticides, and
some conditionally exempt small quantity generators.
Federal Transit Administration’s Final Rule, Title 49 CFR 659
Under Title 49 of CFR, the FTA published a set of regulations to create a state-managed safety
and security oversight program for rail transit agencies not regulated by FRA. This regulation
was published as "Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; State Safety Oversight" on December 27,
1995, and referred to as the SSO Rule or Part 659. FTA recently amended 49 CFR 659,
publishing the revised Rule in the FR on April 29, 2005. The revised Rule adds clarifying
sections, further specification concerning what the state must require to monitor safety and
security of rail transit systems, and incorporates into the body of the regulation material
previously incorporated by reference (FTA, 2006).
Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act
Under §202 of the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, by October 16, 2009, the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation is to have identified ten states that have had
the most grade crossing collisions on average over the past three years and require those
states to submit grade crossing safety plans. The plans must identify specific solutions for
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-4 April 5, 2010
improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade
separations, and must focus on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or are at
high risk for such accidents. Because of the number of accidents recorded in the past, it is likely
that California will be chosen as one of these states to provide safety plans under Federal Rail
Safety Improvement Act (CPUC, 2009).
Title 23, United States Code, §130
Under 23 USC §130, California as well as all other states are required to maintain a survey of all
of its highways to identify those grade crossings that may require grade separation, relocation,
or protective devices (e.g., automatic crossing gates), and to establish and implement a
schedule of projects for these purposes. The CPUC maintains such a database of crossings,
and conducts an annual evaluation of crossing data to identify crossings where safety can be
improved (CPUC, 2009).
State Policies and Regulations
California Public Utilities Commission
The CPUC is a state public utilities commission which regulates privately-owned utilities in the
state of California, including electric power, telecommunications, natural gas and water
companies. In addition, the CPUC regulates household goods movers, passenger transportation
companies and grade crossing safety. The CPUC is the designated state oversight agency in
California, in accordance with the FTA‘s Final Rule, Title 49 CFR 659, and effective May 5, 2007
(CPUC, 2009).
CPUC General Order 95 and General Order 128
The Commission's General Order 95 defines safe practices for utility poles and wiring. It defines
safe separation between high voltage conductors, guy wires, cable television, and telephone
cable. For example, GO-95 defines how high a telephone cable must pass over a roadway. It
restricts attachments to poles to allow adequate, safe climbing space for personnel who work
aloft. By ensuring an orderly and reliable system is used, risks to the public and track
employees are reduced. A similar system is specified for underground utilities in the
Commission's General Order 128.
Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations
Title 27 of the CCR, Division 2, is the SWRCBs regulations applicable to the discharge to land
of waste that is not hazardous waste. All of the active landfills currently located in Riverside
County are classified as Class III landfills; accepting only non hazardous and municipal solid
wastes (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2009).
California Department of Water Resources
The California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) manages California‘s water resources.
The regulations overseen by CDWR regarding water service availability include the Urban
Water Management Planning Act and Senate Bills (SB) 221 and 610. The California Act,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-5 April 5, 2010
adopted in 1983, requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare an Urban Water
Management Plan and update them every five years (CDWR, 2003).
California Integrated Waste Management Act
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (PRC §40000 et seq.) requires municipalities
to divert 25 percent of their solid waste from landfills to recycling facilities by 1995 and 50
percent by 2000.
Local Policies and Regulations
Riverside Public Utilities Department Guidelines, Standards, and Policies
RPUD provides electricity to most of the City of Riverside. SCE provides electricity to the other
parts of the City and County of Riverside. RPUD has established its own set of guidelines,
standards, and policies relating to the use and construction of electrical utilities for projects
within the City limits. The City of Riverside General Plan Public Facilities and Infrastructure
Element includes several applicable policies:
Public Facilities Goal 6.2: Ensure that adequate back-up facilities are available to meet
critical electrical power needs in the event of shortages or temporary outages.
Plan Public Facilities Goal 6.3: Promote and encourage energy conservation.
County of Riverside General Plan
The Riverside County General Plan Land Use Element (2003) includes several applicable
policies:
Land Use Goal 1.6: Coordinate with local agencies, such as LAFCO, service providers and
utilities, to ensure adequate service provision for new development.
Land Use Goal 5.1: Ensure that development does not exceed the ability to adequately
provide supporting infrastructure and services, such as libraries, recreational facilities,
transportation systems, and fire/police/medical services.
Land Use Goal 5.2: Monitor the capacities of infrastructure and services in coordination with
service providers, utilities, and outside agencies and jurisdictions to ensure that growth does
not exceed acceptable levels of service.
Land Use Goal 5.4: Ensure that development and conservation land uses do not infringe
upon existing public utility corridors, including fee owned ROW and permanent easements,
whose true land use is that of ―public facilities.‖ This polic y will ensure that the ―public
facilities‖ designation governs over what otherwise may be inferred by the large scale
general plan maps.
City of Perris General Plan
The City of Perris General Plan Conservation Element includes the following goals:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-6 April 5, 2010
Conservation Element Goal V – Water Supply:
Provide an adequate water supply to support existing and future land uses, as anticipated in
the Land Use Element.
Conservation Element Goal VI – Water Quality:
Achieve regional water quality objectives and protect the beneficial uses of the region‘s
surface and groundwater.
March Joint Powers Authority General Plan
The March Joint Powers Authority General Plan Land Use Element includes several applicable
policies:
Land Use Goal 15: In compliance with state laws, ensure solid waste collection, siting and
construction of transfer and/or disposal facilities, operation of household hazardous waste
disposal programs and education are consiste nt with the County Solid Waste Management
Plan.
Land Use Goal 16: Adequate supplies of natural gas and electricity from utility purveyors and
the availability of communications services shall be provided within the March JPA Planning
Area.
Land Use Goal 17: Adequate flood control facilities shall be provided prior to, or concurrent
with, development in order to protect the lives and property within the March JPA Planning Area.
4.12.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for Utilities and Service
Systems is defined by:
1. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB
2. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects
3. Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects
4. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed
5. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-7 April 5, 2010
6. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs
7. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste
4.12.4 Project Impacts
Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB
The proposed project does not intend to have restroom facilities at the proposed station sites.
The only restroom facilities would be located on the trains themselve s, and at the Layover
Facility.
The toilets and other wastewater collected on the trains would be discharged into the sanitary
sewer connection at the Layover Facility and treated at the PVRWRF. In addition, the Layover
Facility would provide restroom facilities for approximately 70 crew members. The volume of
waste generated by the trains and Layover Facility would not exceed wastewater treatment
capacities established by SARWQCB (City of Perris, 2005); therefore, there will be no impacts
related to wastewater treatment requirements.
During construction of the PVL, construction personnel would use rented portable restrooms
and sinks, which would be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatm ent.
Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects
The project is expected to require water for landscaping at each of the station sites, and at the
Layover Facility. The Layover Facility will require water for maintenance of landscaped areas,
and the crew restroom facilities. The quantity of water necessary for the stations is expected to
be very low since the landscaping will be drought tolerant. The project would not require the
construction of new water treatment facilities, and therefore no impact is anticipated. The only
wastewater generated by the project will be at the Layover Facility. The wastewater generated
will be from the restrooms on the trains, and the crew facilities.
Since the source of wastewater is very limited, no new treatment facilities are necessary, nor
are existing facilities required to expand. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects
In accordance with the requirements of the SWRCB, which administers the State‘s construction
stormwater program, the proposed project, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, mus t
obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with
Construction Activity (CGP). This CGP requires the preparation and implementation of a
SWPPP to reduce or eliminate soil erosion. The SWPPP will identify BMPs to minimize erosion
and sediment loss.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-8 April 5, 2010
Parking lots will be constructed at each of the four proposed station sites. During construction of
proposed parking lots, run-off water may contain sediments that may cause environmental
effects to the stormwater drainage system. The parking lots at the proposed stations will consist
of an underground drainage system, which will connect to the local stormwater drainage
system. Parking lots at the Hunter Park Station option, March Field/Moreno Valley Station, and
South Perris Station will each have an underground detention facility for stormwater associated
with the drainage system, as a means to slow the influx of stormwater into the local sto rmwater
drainage system. A stormwater detention basin will also be constructed at the Layover Facility
to facilitate this same purpose.
Within the PVL corridor, there are 53 culverts of which approximately 30 would be replaced or
reconstructed as part of the project. These would be replacements or extensions of existing
culverts and therefore there would be no change in the current stormwater drainage patterns.
Because of the use of stormwater detention facilities, BMPs associated with the SWPPP , and
replacement or reconstruction of culverts, there would be no impact in regards to stormwater
drainage.
Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed
During construction of the PVL corridor, water trucks will supply water to the project. The use of
water trucks is required during construction to comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403. This water
will be supplied by local sources.
When fully operational, the proposed project would require limited water supplies for landscape
irrigation, an office for approximately 70 employees at the Layover Facility, and maintenance
requirements. The proposed stations and Layover Facility would be landscaped using drought
tolerant and low water demand plants. The irrigation systems at each of the proposed stations
and Layover Facility would use recycled water from the local water providers. The Layover
Facility will connect to an existing EMWD waterline for potable water near Case Road, which is
adjacent to the site.
Because of the limited amounts of water needed for the Layover Facility and the use of recycled
water for irrigation of landscaping and maintenanc e, there would be no impacts in regards to
water supply for the project.
Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments
During construction of the PVL, construction personnel would use rented portable restrooms
and sinks, which would be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment.
The toilets and other wastewater collected on the trains would be discharged into the
wastewater sewer system at the Layover Facility and treated at the PVRWRF. In addition, the
Layover Facility would provide restroom facilities for approximately 70 crew members. The
volume of waste generated by the trains and Layover Facility would not exceed wastewater
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 4.12-9 April 5, 2010
treatment capacities. Therefore, there will be no impacts in regards to wastewater treatment
capacities.
Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs
The project will rehabilitate the existing rail, create a new by-pass track, and build new stations
and a Layover Facility. This work will generate limited solid waste because the rail and ties that
will be removed will be reused within the overall rail system and not disposed of in a landfill.
The remaining work will be new construction which will generate used concrete forms and other
waste.
Limited amounts of solid waste would be generated by employees at the Layover Facility, train
passengers and personnel, and maintenance personnel for the PVL. Although limited amounts
of solid waste are anticipated during operation of the PVL, recycling programs developed by the
cities of Riverside and Perris would be implemented at the proposed stations, and Layover
Facility. Therefore, there will be no impacts related to solid waste disposal.
Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste
The proposed project would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste, which includes recycling programs developed by the cities of Riverside and
Perris. During construction, small quantities of non-recyclable solid waste, in the form of
construction waste and other debris will be generated by the project. This material would be
recycled, reused to the full extent practicable. Any remaining material would be disposed of at
an approved Class III landfill in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. This includes
the California Integrated Waste Management Act requirements for municipalities to divert 50%
of their solid waste to recycling facilities by 2000.
During the operation and maintenance of the PVL, very small quantities of solid waste
(miscellaneous litter and debris from the trains), proposed stations, and Layover Facility would
be disposed at a Class III landfill in compliance with applicable rules and regulations.
Therefore, no impacts would occur from the implementation of the project.
4.12.5 Mitigation Measures
There are no significant impacts, therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-1 April 5, 2010
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines §§15126.2(c), 15126.2(d), and 15355, respectively, an
EIR must identify and discuss any significant irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources, significant growth-inducing effects, and significant cumulative impacts. These three
areas of concern are referred to collectively as Other Environmental Considerations. The
potential for significant irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, growth-inducing
impacts, and cumulative impacts are discussed below.
The assessment of Other Environmental Considerations is generally limited to reasonable
geographic boundaries and a specific time period. In the case of the PVL project, the study
area boundaries are extended to include the effects of projects that could overlap with or
contribute to Other Environmental Consequences associated with the PVL in 2012. Certain
effects may be localized in nature, while others may be more regional in their potential effects.
Both potentially adverse and beneficial effects are considered.
5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c), an EIR must identify any significant
irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project. For
example, the use of nonrenewable resources, particularly mineral resources or land, either for
construction or operations, may comprise an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources, though the significance could vary, given the circumstances of the project under
review. Commitments of resources could be current, as well as future, the latter potentially
associated with (i.e., being a secondary effect of) growth-inducing impacts discussed below in
Section 5.2.
Construction and operation of the PVL would contribute to the depletion of resources, including
renewable and non-renewable resources. Resources such as timber used in the construction of
stations and other buildings, are generally considered renewable resources, and would be
replenished over the lifetime of the project. Renewable resources would not be considered
irreversibly or irretrievably committed. Non-renewable resources, however, such as diesel fuel,
petroleum products, steel, concrete, copper, and other materials are typically considered to be
in finite supply, and would not be replenished over the lifetime of the project.
As the PVL would be developed within an existing rail corridor, the commitment of land
resources to the use has already been made historically, a nd the PVL would not require the
commitment of similar resources elsewhere. Further, some existing track would be rehabilitated
and reused, thus accounting for a reduction in the amount of steel from the amount typically
required of a similar rail project. At the same time, by introducing new track and a revised line
configuration, the PVL would ensure the continued usefulness of the historic commitments of
existing rails, sidings and the warehousing properties they serve to which resources are already
historically committed.
The general demand for some of the resources listed above may be expected to increase
whether or not the PVL is developed. The PVL project would use less than the typical amount
of steel required for a similar sized rail project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-2 April 5, 2010
Further, as the PVL is introduced to the region as a new mode of transportation, there would be
a corresponding reduction in the number of automobile trips made in the region. Although the
PVL would rely on petroleum resources to operate, it would result in a comparable or greater
reduction in petroleum resources than would otherwise be utilized in the o peration of
automobiles driven without the PVL project.
Other demands for energy, as associated with the PVL, would be related to the basic operations
of stations and facilities, and to the greater extent, the electrical draw for parking lot lighting.
While these energy demands in the form of electricity generated from natural gas, would
constitute a commitment of nonrenewable resources, the PVL would not contribute to a
significant increase in the rate of natural gas depletion. Moreover, the energy needs of the PVL
would be met by the available market energy, and so it is reasonable to conclude that energy
not utilized for the PVL would be available for use by others.
The commitments of non-renewable resources to the construction and operation of the PVL
would not be considered significant. Similar non-renewable resources demand would otherwise
occur without the PVL and in some cases would comprise a net decrease in the use of non-
renewable resources. It is inherent to the public service nature of the PVL, that such
commitment of resources would constitute investments directed toward the benefit of the public,
as well as the prevention of environmental impacts that could otherwise be associated with
automobile pollution and additional highway construction and expansion. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d) requires a discussion of the potential growth-inducing impacts of
a project. This discussion addresses how implementation of the project would foster economic
or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly upon
the surrounding environment.
The PVL constitutes the introduction of new infrastructure and services aimed at providing a
new mode of access between existing origin and destination points along the I-215/SJBL
corridor. It would not introduce new access to an area that was previously vacant or
undeveloped, or remove access barriers. The PVL is contemplated as a new mode of
transportation to serve populations already present in Riverside County, and accommodates the
projected future population anticipated by regional and city plans.
Although the project is intended to reduce congestion on highways, this benefit does not rise to
the level of removing an access barrier to growth. Accordingly, the project does not directly
induce growth through the provision of housing or expansion of water infrastructure, and neither
does it indirectly induce growth by removing an access barrier. To the contrary, the project is
merely intended to partially address existing and anticipated growth that would occur even
without the project. As such, the project has a less than significant impact on growth.
5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A cumulative impact is defined in §15355 of the CEQA Guidelines as ―two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound o r increase
other environmental impacts.‖ Individually minor impacts, whether from a single project or
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-3 April 5, 2010
multiple projects, may together amount to cumulative impacts. Consistent with the direction of
CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)(1)(A), all past, present, or probably future projects which have
impacts. There are 14 development projects in the area that are under construction or have
recently been completed near the project area. The cumulative list is consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A), which states that ―a list of past, present, and probable future
projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those projects outside
the control of the agency‖ should be included in analysis of cumulative effec ts in the EIR. The
information for the cumulative projects was garnered from interviews with county and city
planning agencies (Appendix E), and shown in Figure 5.3-1. The cumulative projects shown
here were also analyzed within the technical reports for air, noise and vibration, and traffic and
include:
Riverside Grade Separations, projects of the City of Riverside, includes three railroad
grade-separations of the BNSF at 3rd Street, Columbia Avenue, and Iowa Avenue.
These projects are scheduled to be completed between 2010 and 2013. The grade
separation of Columbia Avenue and the BNSF railroad tracks would raise Columbia
Avenue over the BNSF railroad between La Cadena Drive and Iowa Avenue. Similarly,
the Iowa Avenue grade separation project would raise Iowa Avenue over the BNSF
tracks between Palmyrita Avenue and Spring Street. These projects are expected to
improve traffic circulation in the area. short-term impacts related to construction.
Hunter Park Distribution Center is a 520,000-square foot distribution center on the north
side of Columbia Avenue and east of the ROW.
Perris Station Apartments is a mixed use development that includes; 84 units of senior
housing, 155,526 square feet of retail and office space, 77 parking spaces and 16,000
square feet of courtyard and open space.
The I-215 Freeway Widening Project would be completed in three segments. These
segments include I-215/SR-60 and Nuevo Road; between Nuevo Road and Scott Road,
south of Perris; and between Scott Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
The UCR Long Range Development Plan contemplates planning and enhancements to
the UCR campus. The most recent update of UCR‘s development plan projects an
additional 7,105,691 square feet of classrooms, labs, dormitories and office spaces to be
completed by 2016. Because the UCR Long Range Plan does not identify specific
pieces to be complete by 2012, the entire program is assumed to be in place for the
PVL‘s opening year.
Centerpointe Industrial and Business Park project is located northeast of Cactus Avenue
and Graham Street. This will be a 162-acre business park.
Meridian Business Park (formerly known as March Business Center) project is located
southwest of I-215 and Alessandro Boulevard on a 1,290-acre site. The project land
uses consist primarily of industrial park, warehousing, research and development, and
associated business support uses. It is planned to be constructed in three phas es, two
of which would be completed by 2012. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station is
located within this business park.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-4 April 5, 2010
Gateway Center is an industrial/business park project on a 25-acre site on Day Street
south of Alessandro Boulevard.
Cactus/Commerce Commercial Center is a 16,000-square-foot commercial/retail
development on Cactus Avenue between Day and Elsworth Streets.
March Lifecare Campus is a development project including a mix of healthcare and
ancillary uses, including hospitals, general and specialty medical offices, medical retail,
research and education, a wellness center, senior center, independent/assisted -living
facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and related support facilities. The project will be
developed in five planning areas, of which the first two are expected to be developed by
2011, and include a 50-bed hospital, 660 units of institutional residential, 190,000 square
feet of medical office, 200,000 square feet of research and education, and 210,000
square feet of retail land uses. The remaining planning areas will be developed over the
next 20 to 25 years.
The Venue at Perris development project is located on the northeast corner of I -215 and
Redlands Avenue. This will include a movie theater, home improvement superstore,
discount superstore, and other retail space.
Perris Marketplace project is a 520,000 square-foot retail center located on the west side
of Perris Boulevard, north of Nuevo Road. This project includes a discount superstore
with a gas station, a home improvement store, restaurants, and specialty retail space.
Towne Center project is a 470,000 square-foot retail center located in the southeastern
portion of the City of Perris, on the southeast corner of I-215 and Ethanac Road. It
would be anchored by a 220,000 square-foot big-box store, and would also include
specialty retail space, restaurants, and a hotel. The development is expected to be
opened in 2009.
Perris Crossing (formerly known as Ethanac Road Retail Center) development is a
625,000 square-foot retail center located on the north side of Ethanac Road, west of
Case Road. The retail center would include approximately 600,000 square feet of retail
and restaurant uses, a service station, and 24,000 square feet of office uses.
5.3.1 Aesthetics
Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with related projects within the area,
would cumulatively add to the loss of vacant land and the conversion of undeveloped areas for
the station sites. The station sites are relatively small size and when viewed in the context of
the twenty one mile rail corridor should be viewed as de minimus reductions in vacant land.
There is lighting proposed at the four station sites along the rail corridor. During servic e hours
the lighting is provided for security at the parking areas and boarding platforms. After hours the
lighting will cycle in the parking areas so that half the lights are off at any one time. This allows
for energy savings. The lighting will be an increase over existing levels, but the stations are
located in areas of exiting ambient light resulting from existing commercial building, adjacent
street and freeway interchange lighting, and lighting from existing industrial facilities. This small
increase in ambient night lighting would not be in areas of sensitive receptors and therefore
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-5 April 5, 2010
would not cumulatively contribute to a significant impact in aesthetics in relation to the identified
projects.
5.3.2 Agricultural Resources
Implementation of the proposed project will not cumulatively impact agricultural resources. The
station sites are currently designated for development (see previous list) within the local
planning documents. Even if the proposed project does not proceed the agricultural lands will
be developed regardless, and therefore this will not be cumulatively significant.
5.3.3 Air Quality
While the other transit and traffic projects planned for the region and noted above may on their
own or together impact air quality, any potential impacts associated with these projects would
not be induced or exacerbated by the PVL. Rather, the PVL would reduce some trip-making
that now occurs via automobile, resulting in a corresponding drop in Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) and a concomitant improvement in air quality.
The analysis of MSAT emissions indicates negligible direct emissions, and the cumulative
contribution of the operations of SCRRA/Metrolink engines along the PVL would also not result
in cumulative emissions impact.
The proposed rail service would result in a significant decrease in CO and GHG emissions,
offsetting to a very limited degree the additional VMT and GHG directly and indirectly produced
within the region. Air quality impacts from construction activities are not significant. In context
with respect to cumulative air quality impacts from construction activities along the corridor,
including adjacent unrelated development projects are also not significant due to the time and
distance in those projects and the expected construction of the PVL.
Although the total air quality improvement is small compared to the generation of pollutants
throughout the region, the introduction of commuter rail service provides an ongoing opportunity
for vehicle trip reduction and air quality improvement. Consequently, the PVL will not result a
cumulatively significant impact.
Greenhouse Gases
Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with related projects within the area,
would not cumulatively add to the regional air pollution. Construction activities associated with
the proposed project could result in temporary construction related cumulative contributions.
However, all cumulative projects would be subject to required best management practices for
construction, it is anticipated that construction emissions would not be cumulatively significant.
On an operational level, the project will contribute to regional air emission through commut er
train use, although this would be less than the corresponding personal vehicle usage.
Therefore no cumulative air quality impacts would occur as the project would occur as the
project is consistent with the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the region which is based
on General Plan land uses, and is anticipated within the General Plans within the corridor.
The production of energy is one of the major generators of greenhouse gases (GHGs ).
Therefore, energy usage by the proposed project is a consideration in addressing project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-6 April 5, 2010
impacts to climate change. The proposed project is in compliance with required energy
efficiency programs, and also proposes several design features that will reduce GHG emissions
that could result in risks associated with climate change. The proposed project is required to
conform to Title 24, which is the California Building Code that governs all aspects of building
construction. Standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction are
included in Part 6 of the code. The Energy Efficiency Standards require mandatory measures to
be installed in new construction. These standards are designed to: (1) respond to California's
energy crisis to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to
an improved economic condition for the state; (2) respond to the Assembly Bill (AB) 970
(Statutes of 2000) urgency legislation to adopt and implement updated and cost -effective
building energy efficiency standards; (3) respond to the Senate Bill (SB) 5X (Statutes of 2001)
urgency legislation to adopt energy efficiency building standards for outdoor lighting; and (4)
emphasize energy efficiency measures that save energy at peak periods and seasons, improve
the quality of installation of energy efficiency measures, incorporate recent publicly funded
building science research, and collaborate with California utilities to incorporate results of
appropriate market incentive programs for specific technologies. Accordingly, this analysis
shows that pursuant to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines (Energy Conservation) the
proposed project will not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
Public Health
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of
conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to
ozone formation are projected to increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range
to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone
levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air
quality standards. GHG emissions from the project are almost entirely attributable to the
consumption of energy, particularly fossil fuels, and the proposed project has incorporated
project features and programs to reduce the amount of energy used, as described above. The
proposed project also provides close proximity to a variety of alternative mass transit options
that would reduce vehicular trips and their corresponding generation of GHGs. In addition to
increased air pollution, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days
per year with temperatures above 90° F in Los Angeles. Because of similar climate patterns
and its proximity to Riverside County, it can be assumed that the number of high heat days in
Los Angeles would be similar to Riverside County. This is a large increase over historical
patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below
the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration,
heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.
5.3.4 Biological Resources
Implementation of the proposed project, within and existing rail corridor, is not anticipated to
cumulatively add to the loss of vegetation communities, and common plant and wildlife species.
The project would, however, be consistent with all the policies and guidelines of the Western
Riverside MSHCP. The MSHCP is a long-range conservation effort with which all future
projects must be consistent. Since the proposed project is consistent with t he MSHCP, no
cumulative impact to biological resources is identified. Other projects in the area would also be
required to be consistent with the MSHCP and as such cumulative impacts are less than
significant.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-7 April 5, 2010
5.3.5 Cultural Resources:
With more development in the County there is an increased possibility of encountering
historical, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources. However, mitigation measures
would be implemented for the proposed project and other projects subject to CEQA. Through
recordation and curation of resources to provide the public and historians the opportunity to
review these resources, the proposed project and other development in the area would not
result in a cumulatively significant impact.
5.3.6 Geology and Soils:
The PVL project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects
would not contribute to a cumulative impact to geology and/or soils, as all impacts are site
specific. Although project-level impacts may be considered significant and/or potentially
significant for this or other projects, these impacts would be mitigated on a project specific basis
to below a level of significance. Therefore the PVL project would not contribute to a cumulative
impact to geology or soils. A less than significant impact is identified.
5.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with other development in the area would
not result in a cumulatively significant impact for hazardous materials since all future
developments in the area would be subject to the same local, regional, state, and federal
regulations. These regulations require individual site evaluation and clean up, and therefore
would not contribute cumulatively. As with the proposed project, environmental review would be
required for future projects and compliance with County of Riverside Department of
Environmental Health regulations would be necessary. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
5.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality:
The proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects is not anticipated to result in a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality. The
EPA requires projects indicate a ―no-rise‖ in flood elevations resulting from the project
development (whether one or all on the list) within the flood hazard zone, thus no impacts to
hydrology. Additionally all projects in RWQCB Region 8 are required to meet the current
stormwater permit requirements. These permit requirements include BMP provisions that
ensure no cumulative water quality impacts.
Under the higher warming scenario, it is anticipated for sea level to rise 4 to 30 inches in
southern California by 2100. In general, sea level elevation change of this magnitude would
inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and
inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
Changes in climate would increase the risk of flooding and erosion from sea level rise or
changes in precipitation, creating different drainage needs. The proposed project is not at risk
of flooding as a result of sea level rise; however, localized flooding does occur along the San
Jacinto River and could increase in the future because of a change in precipitation.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-8 April 5, 2010
Changes in precipitation will alter the sources of water that currently serve southern California.
A network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the
state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River to southern California. The current
distribution system relies on the Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack to supply water during the
dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in
precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water
shortages.
If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the
snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as
70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming scenario, snowpack losses are expected to be only
half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How
much snowpack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for
which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of
snowpack would pose challenges to water supply managers, hamper hydropower generation,
and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities. The state's water
supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California's
estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is
a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the
Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta- a major state fresh water supply. Ultimately, however,
and as discussed previously, the project will not result in any cumulatively considerable GHG
impacts. Thus, any impacts are less than significant.
Climate change is defined by the State of California as a global effect, not susceptible to full
mitigation by any proposed project within the state. There is no de minimis threshold
established for the reduction of GHG on a project level, and no comprehensive program, even
on a statewide level, specifically targeting the emission of GHG, or exposure to risks associated
with global warming, in which the project could participate. In the absence of such yardsticks to
measure effective participation in the effort to reduce climate change risks, the incremental
contribution of the project to climate change is considered potentially significant and
unavoidable. The overall project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by moving people from
individual vehicles to mass transit, however, these reductions would not be enough to reduce
the cumulative impact.
5.3.9 Land Use and Planning:
Riverside County has adopted the RCIP General Plan to coordinate various aspects of the long-
range planning process. As a part of this effort three plans have been created, including the
MSHCP, the CETAP, and a Riverside County General Plan. The General Plan is designed to
direct future land use decisions throughout Riverside County. It would combine the MSHCP and
the CETAP recommendations along with land use, safety, noise, housing, and air quality
guidelines. The plan advocates the extension of the Riverside rail service corridor along the
SJBL.
The overall growth of Riverside County and individual communities is driven by market forces,
employment, the cost of housing, and availability of land. The location, types and amounts of
development are directed and shaped by local jurisdictions through their land use powers. The
PVL is contemplated in the land use elements of the Perris and Riverside General Plans, as
well as the County’s General Plan; as such, the introduction of commuter rail service may have
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-9 April 5, 2010
an influence on the types and timing of development, allowing local jurisdictions to develop
more transit-oriented development as part of specific area plans. The PVL is expected to
accommodate existing transportation demand that exists within the I-215/SJBL alignment, and
so, from a cumulative impact perspective, the proposed commuter rail service would not
generate any new development. Further, the UCR Long Range Development Plan, Perris
Downtown Improvements, March Lifecare Village, various planned business parks and retail
centers, and transit and traffic improvements would not be affected by the PVL.
Therefore, no cumulative impacts on land use and zoning would be expected as a result of the
introduction of PVL service.
5.3.95.3.10 Noise:
Implementation of the PVL project, in conjunction with cumulative projects identified would
incrementally increase noise levels in the region. During construction of the PVL project and
cumulative projects, it is not anticipated that a cumulative construction noise impact would occur
because construction activities would not be concurrent and in proximity to the PVL project.
Therefore, construction noise from the PVL project and cumulative projects would not
accumulate to result in a significant cumulative construction impact. During operation of the
PVL project the permanent increase in ambient noise is not considered substantial because it is
less than 3.0 dBA. Therefore the PVL project would not substantially contribute to noise level
increases in the region. A less than significant cumulative operational impact is identified. The
PVL project would not result in significant cumulative noise impacts.
5.3.105.3.11 Utilities and Service Systems:
Development of the project, in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
future projects is not anticipated to result in a cumulative impact to utilities and service systems.
As part of the engineering design for the project, capacity for utilities and service systems is
analyzed in conjunction with the service provider to ensure adequate capacity for both this
project as well as other projects related to the capacity of the overall systems. Therefore, the
PVL project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to utility and service systems. A less
than significant impact is identified.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
7 - WIDENING
BETWEEN
SCOTT ROAD
AND
MURRIETA HOT
SPRINGS ROAD
6 - WIDENING BETWEEN NUEVO
ROAD AND SCOTT ROAD
5 - WIDENING BETWEEN
I-215/SR60 AND NUEVO ROAD""""""SCOTT ROAD
MURRIETA HOT
SPRINGS ROAD
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#CHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXWY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLVD
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
OH
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
5.3-1
92666
1/30/10
JP
LF
92666impr2EIR.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
PROJECTS NEAR PVL CORRIDOR
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Citrus Connection
Downtown
Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Hunter Park
!R
PALMYRITA
AVENUE
COLUMBIA AVENUE NORTHGATE STREETIOWA AVENUEHunter
Park 4
#
#2
3§¨¦215
RIVERSIDE PROJECTS
PERRIS PROJECTS
!R
10a
10b
10c
9
8
Downtown
Perris
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
LOCATION
!R
!R
1 - 3RD STREET GRADE
SEPARATION
2 - IOWA AVENUE GRADE
SEPARATION
3 - COLUMBIA AVENUE
GRADE SEPARATION
4 - HUNTER PARK DISTRIBUTION
CENTER
5, 6, 7 - FREEWAY WIDENING
PROJECT
8 - PERRIS STATION APARTMENTS
9 - VILLAGE WALK PROJECT
10a, 10b, 10c - SOUTH PERRIS
INDUSTRIAL PROJECT
#
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
±
0 2,0001,000
Feet
±
0 5,0002,500
Feet
1
±402
Miles
BASEMAP SOURCE: STV INCORPORATED 10-3-08
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 5-11 April 5, 2010
5.3.11 Transportation and Traffic
Other transportation projects, as noted above, are expected to be complete by 2012, with the
effect of accommodating anticipated development and addressing select traffic flow prob lems
that currently exist. The traffic analyses conducted for the PVL included these projects and
concluded that no unmitigatable significant adverse impacts to traffic and parking would result
from the PVL. Consequently, the introduction of the PVL would neither improve nor deteriorate
the effectiveness of these other transportation projects.
Further, the project could create a cumulative benefit through small improvements to regional
traffic flow; the diversion of vehicle trips to PVL ridership would result in a measurable reduction
in VMT. This improved traffic flow, however, may not be represented as a net improvement to
LOS along the regional arteries.
Overall, the PVL may result in beneficial cumulative impacts, including improved mobility and
access for residents, workers and visitors, support of economic and community development in
the region.
5.3.12 Construction Impacts
There is a potential for construction of the PVL to overlap construction of the I-215 widenings
and other development projects detailed above. If concurrent cumulative construction occurs,
there may be the potential for construction-related impacts. However, each project is bound to
comply with SCAQMD construction air quality requirements; would be generally contained and
localized in nature; and would also need to provide for appropriate maintenance and protection
of traffic, under the direction and authority of the approving city. Further, construction-related
impacts are, by nature, localized and limited in duration; therefore, e ither alone or in
combination these projects, in compliance with applicable regulations, would not be expected to
result in cumulative construction-related impacts.
Construction of the commuter rail elements would include BMP measures required to assure
that activities do not exceed SCAQMD quarterly impact thresholds. Measures to control fugitive
dust would be used to avoid violation of the SCAQMD PM10 criterion, and the proposed
sequencing of construction activities would avoid violation of the NOX criterion. By compliance
with these mitigation measures, the proposed project would avoid exc eeding SCAQMD criteria
and reduce the potential for cumulative construction period impacts. Further, traffic
management plans are required, so that the overall potential for cumulative traffic impacts would
be reduced. Therefore, no cumulative impacts associated with construction activities would
occur.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 6-1 April 5, 2010
6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The following is a discussion of the environmental effects that were determined not to be
significant based on the analysis completed in the Initial Study (Appendix B).
6.1 MINERAL RESOURCES
According to the City of Riverside General Plan (2007), the General Plan of the March JPA
(2003), and the City of Perris General Plan (2005), there are no identified mineral resources
within or adjacent to the PVL corridor. Based on the General Plan information, implementation
of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource of regional or state value.
According to the Riverside County General Plan (2008), the project corridor extends through an
area classified by the California State Mining and Geology Board (2007) as Mineral Resource
Zone 3. This classification indicates that there is available geologic i nformation indicating that
mineral deposits are likely to exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.
None of the local land use plans indicate that a locally important mineral resource recovery site
exists within the PVL corridor and therefore, implementation of the project will have no impact
on mineral resources.
6.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
No residential or commercial construction is proposed as part of the PVL project. The proposed
project would enhance transportation infrastructure by extending commuter rail service to
additional portions of Riverside County. The PVL project is expected to accommodate a portion
of the existing transportation demand within Riverside County, but would not be expected to
directly or indirectly induce or alter the population growth within these communities.
Because the proposed project would be limited to the existing SJBL ROW, with limited
acquisition of properties not used for residential purposes, there is no potential for the project to
displace substantial numbers of existing housing. The proposed PVL project would also not
displace a substantial number of people, which would necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere and therefore, implementation of the project will have no impact
on population and housing.
6.3 PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project involves the implementation of a commuter rail service along existing rail
lines and does not include residential or commercial components that would permanently
increase human presence in the area. The commuter rail would not encourage more people to
enter the area; it would only serve to provide an alternate mode of transportation to people
currently commuting. Accordingly, additional public facilities, such as schools and parks, would
not be required to accommodate the PVL project.
As part of the proposed project, two grade crossings (Poarch Road at MP 5.02, 6th Street and
at MP 19.03) would be closed and 15 grade crossings would be enhanced to facilitate train
movements and safe traffic flow. The Poarch Road crossing is currently located along a portion
of the SJBL alignment that is adjacent to Box Springs Mountain Reserve. Since there are two
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 6-2 April 5, 2010
other crossings nearby that provide access to the area, the closure of the Poarch Road crossing
would not create a need for additional public services in the area. In its current configuration,
the Poarch Road grade crossing does not meet applicable design and safety standards. Poarch
Road will continue to be accessible to emergency vehicles only (with a locked gate).
Additionally, this crossing is unsafe and cannot be improved without considerable expense.
Regardless of the PVL project, it should be closed.The 6th Street crossing is located in
downtown Perris between the 4th Street and 7th Street crossings. The 6th Street grade crossing
is planned to be closed to vehicles but would still be accessible by pedestrians to cross.
Because nearby crossings are within a few blocks, the closing of the 6th Street crossing would
not create a need for additional public services in the area.
In addition, the northern end of Commercial Street would be closed to the public (with locked
gates) where it intersects with D Street and Perris Boulevard, which would allow access to
emergency vehicles only. This closure is necessary due to potential safety issues at the tracks
as the turning movements involve an acute angle and can present the motorist with limited sight
distance. Although this closure is expected to affect fewer than five vehicles during any one
hour, 9th Street, which is currently a dirt road, would be paved to accommodate local property
access. As there would be little inconvenience to the current low volumes along Commercial
Street, and motorists can access Commercial Street via South Perris Boulevard less than one-
quarter mile south of D Street, the closure of Commercial Street would not create a need for
additional public services in the area.
At the remaining 15 grade crossings, 30 seconds prior to the arrival of a train at each crossing,
the lights would begin to flash and the bells would commence ringing for a period of three to five
seconds before the gates come down. The gates would then descend for a period of 12-15
seconds and reach the fully horizontal position anywhere from 15 -20 seconds after the lights
begin to flash. The gates would remain horizontal for a period of 10 -15 seconds prior to the
train entering the crossing, and once the train leaves the crossing, the gates would remain down
for an additional five seconds before ascending to its upright position.
Emergency access from one side of the tracks to the other side would not be significantly
impacted because the gates would only be fully closed for approximately 20 seconds at a time.
Therefore, the addition of commuter trains would not create a need for additional public services
in the area. Local police and fire departments would be notified of any temporary or permanent
closures to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained. Because the proposed
project would not increase the demand for fire, police, schools , parks, and other facilities, no
impact on these public services is anticipated.
6.4 RECREATION
North Park, Hunter Park, Highland Park, Box Springs Mountain Reserve, Quail Run Open
Space, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, Motte Rimrock Reserve, Russell Stewart Park,
Metz Park, Foss Field Park, and Banta Beatty Park are located i n the vicinity of the proposed
PVL project. The proposed project does not include any elements that would increase the use
of these existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Additionally,
implementation of the project would not encroach upon any existing parks or facilities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 6-3 April 5, 2010
Therefore, parks and recreational facilities within the area would not substantially deteriorate
due to this project. There would be no adverse physical effect on the environment due to the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the PVL near recreational facilities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
7.0 REPORT PREPARATION
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 7-1 April 5, 2010
7.0 REPORT PREPARATION
7.1 LEAD AGENCY
RCTC is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation of the PVL project EIR.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
(951) 787-7141
RCTC PROJECT MANAGER:
Edda Rosso, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER:
Steve Keel
Bechtel
3850 Vine Street, Suite 210
Riverside, California 92507
7.2 REPORT PREPARERS
Kleinfelder
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
Project Staff:
Robert Motschall, Ph.D. (Project Manager)
Mark Peabody, P.E.
Chuck Cleeves
Lauren Ferrell, EIT
Elyssa Figari
Jeremy Janusziewicz
Janet Patay
Melissa McKindley
Kathleen McCracken
STV Incorporated
9130 Anaheim Place, Suite 210
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Project Staff:
Richard Quirk (Project Manager)
Molly MacQueen
Sarah Butler
Cade Hobbick
Steven Scalici, P.E.
Nil Simsek
Kenon Tutein
Douglas Swann
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-1 April 5, 2010
8.0 REFERENCES
AECOM, 2009. Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report, Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis.
Prepared for STV Inc. and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
Ailsa, Allaby, and Allaby, 1999. A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, ―splay fault.‖
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-splayfault.html
Albert A. Webb Associates, 2007. Towne Center Traffic Impact Study.
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), 2009,
http://www.arema.org/
Applied EarthWorks, Inc., 2008. Archaeological Resources Report for the Perris Valley Rail Line
Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for the Riverside County Transportation
Commission.
Applied EarthWorks (AE), Inc., 2009. Archaeological Testing Plan for CA-RIV-805 for the Perris
Valley Rail Line Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for the Rive rside County
Transportation Commission and the Federal Transit Administration.
Applied Earthworks (AE), Inc., 2009. Significance Assessment and Determination of Effects to
Historical Resources along the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line.
Applied Earthworks (AE), Inc., 2009. Supplement to Archaeological Resources Report for the
Perris Valley Rail Line Project, Riverside County, California.
Applied Planning Inc., 2009. March Lifecare Campus Specific Plan Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report.
AREMA, 2007 Communications and Signals Manual of Recommended Practices.
http://www.arema.org/eseries/scriptcontent/custom/e_arema/pubs/cs_manual.html
ATS Consulting, 2005. Perris Valley Line Noise and Vibration Technical Report.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2009. 1999-08-12 California Air Toxics Program
Background. http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/background.htm
CARB, 2009. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Reviewed November 24, 2009
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm
CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, §§15000-15387. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ,
Statutes and Guidelines. Amended July, 2007. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines
CCR, Title 5, Chapter 13. School Facilities Constructions.
California Department of Conservation (CDC), 1965. Williamson Act.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/Pages/Index.aspx
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-2 April 5, 2010
CDC, 1991. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.
CDC, 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA ) Model
Instruction Manual. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LESA/lesamodl.pdf
CDC, 1998. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP).http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/pubs/1996-1998/FCR/Documents/chapter1.pdf
CDC, 2006. California Farmland Conversion Report, The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP). http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx
California Department of Education, 2009. School Facilities Planning Division, School Site
Selection and Approval Guide.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP), 2000. West Riverside County,
Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon
Monoxide Protocol (UCD-ITS-RR-97-21).
California Energy Commission, 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Staff Final Report, Publication CEC-600-2006-013-D, December 2006.
Caltrans, 2007. California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Riverside County.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm
Caltrans, 2009. Scenic Highway Guidelines.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/guidelines/scenic_hwy_guidelines.pdf)
California Department of Water Resources, 2003. California‘s Groundwater: Bulletin 118 –
Update 2003 Report.
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/bulletin118update2003.cfm
California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990 to 2004, Staff Final Report, Publication CEC-600-2006-013-D, December 2006.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/Documents/
note_36.pdf
CGS, 2003. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment - Peak Ground Acceleration.
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pga.htm
CGS, 2007. California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazard Zonation Program:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/shzp/Pages/SHMPrealdis.aspx
California Government Code (CGC), 1986. California Government Code, §§8877.1-8877.6,
Chapter 12.4. http://law.justia.com/california/codes/gov/8877.1-8877.6.html
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-3 April 5, 2010
California Health and Safety Code, 2009. Updated January, 2009. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc&codebody=&hits=20
California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2009. Regulations: Title 27, Environmental
Protection, Division 2, Solid Waste. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/regulations/Title27/default.htm
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 2006. Guidelines for the Federal Aid At-Grade
Highway-Rail Crossing Program (§130 Program).
ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/static/transportation/crossings/061130+section130guidelines.pdf
CPUC, 2009. Analysis of Senate Bill No. 53, Submission to the California Research Bureau.
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/334D359F-0F7B-4BE1-98DA-
AAD274F5C2FE/0/SB53_SubmissionAbsoluteFinalSB53.pdf
CPUC, 2009. Rail Transit Systems. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/transportation/transit.htm.
City of Moreno Valley, 2006. City of Moreno Valley General Plan, Adopted July 11, 2006.
http://www.moreno-valley.ca.us/city_hall/general_plan.html
City of Perris, 1990. Green Valley Specific Plan, Adopted March 5, 1990.
http://www.cityofperris.org/city-hall/specific-plans.html
City of Perris, 1992. Riverglen Specific Plan, Adopted April 1, 1992.
http://www.cityofperris.org/city-hall/specific-plans.html
City of Perris, 1993. Downtown Specific Plan, Adopted March 6, 1993.
http://www.cityofperris.org/city-hall/specific-plans.html
City of Perris, 1997. Ordinance Number 1051. http://www.cityofperris.org/city-gov/ordinances-
old.html
City of Perris, 2000. Ordinance No. 1086: Amending and Restating Perris Municipal Code
Chapter 7.34 Regulating Noise Levels.
City of Perris, 2005. Comprehensive General Plan 2030, Adopted June 14, 2005.
http://www.cityofperris.org/city-hall/general-plan.html
City of Perris, 2007. Village Walk District: Perris Downtown Draft Specific Plan Amendment,
Adopted, January 2007. http://www.cityofperris.org/city-hall/specific-plans.html
City of Perris, 2009. Ordinance No. 1253, Effective 2009.
City of Riverside, 1993. Specific Plan/EIR: Sycamore Canyon Business Park (formerly Box
Springs Industrial Park), Adopted May 4, 1993.
http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/cityplans
City of Riverside, 2002. Hunter Business Park Specific Plan, Revised August 2002.
http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/cityplans-csp-hunterbp.asp
City of Riverside, 2007. Municipal Code, Title 7: Noise Control. Updated, December 17, 2007
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-4 April 5, 2010
City of Riverside, 2007. Riverside General Plan 2025, Adopted November 2007.
http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/2008%2D0909/general-plan.asp
City of Riverside, 2007. Sycamore Highlands Specific Plan (formerly Lusk Highlander Specific
Plan), Adopted November 27, 2007. http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/cityplans-csp-
sychigh-sp.asp
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 33, Parts 200 et seq.: Navigation and Navigable
Waters, Updated July, 1, 2007.
CFR, Title 36, Part 60: Protection of Historic Properties, Amended August 5, 2004.
CFR, Title 40: Protection of the Environment, May 19, 1980.
CFR, Title 40, Part 51, subpart A: Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, Updated December
17, 2008.
CFR, Title 43, Part 3: Preservation of American Antiquities, December 23, 1954.
CFR Title 44, Part 60: Criteria for Land Management and Use, Updated, January 1, 2004.
CFR, Title 49, Part 659: Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; State Safety Oversight, Updated June
22, 2005.
CFR, Title 50, Part 21: Migratory Bird Permits, Updated July 23, 1999.
Davis, Daniel and Julie Davis, 2006. Hazardous Material Reference Book: Cross-Index.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2009. California Hazardous Waste
Classification. http://ccelearn.csus.edu/wasteclass/intro/intro_01.html
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. Map Service Center: Riverside County
Maps and DFIRM data. http://www.fema.gov/
FEMA, 2009. Disaster Information: Flood. http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm
FEMA, 2009. Floodplain Management Requirements.
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/fm_sg.shtm
FEMA, 2009. The National Flood Insurance Program.
http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 2009. Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/460
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Office of Planning and Environment, May 2006.
Fennie, 2005. The Space Place, Space Planning: Seismic Retrofit Requirements and Their
Triggers. http://www.thespaceplace.net/articles/fennie200501b.php
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-5 April 5, 2010
General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR), 2005. 6.0 Movement of Trains and Engines, April 3,
2005.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2007. Trip Generation, 7th Edition.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997. Handbook to the 1997 Uniform
Building Codes.
J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc., 2008. Perris Valley Line San Jacinto Branch Segment
Between Highgrove, CA and South Perris, CA Draft Existing Conditions Report. Prepared
for STV Inc. and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc., 2009. Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report, Volume I.
Prepared for STV Inc. and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
Kleinfelder, 2008. Geotechnical Field Exploration and HazMat Investigation Work Plan
(Revised from October 31, 2008). Prepared for STV Inc. and Riverside County
Transportation Commission.
Kleinfelder, 2008. Hazardous Materials Corridor Study Technical Report. Prepared for STV Inc.
and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
Kleinfelder, 2009. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report: Perris Valley Line Corridor
Project Station 200+00 to Station 1296+00. Prepared for STV Inc. and Riverside County
Transportation Commission.
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), 2009. Riverside County.
LSA Associates, Inc., 2005. Ethanac Road Retail Center Traffic Study.
LSA Associates, Inc., 2006. Perris Marketplace Traffic Study.
March JPA, 2003. Meridian Specific Plan (formerly March Business Center), Adopted February
2003. http://www.marchjpa.com/planning.html
March JPA, 2003. Final Focused Environmental Impact Report, Volume I, Meridian Business
Park (formerly March Business Center), Adopted February 2003.
http://www.marchjpa.com/planning.html
Morton, D.M., 2001, Geologic Map of the Perris 7.5‘ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California,
United States Geological Survey, Open File Report OF 03 270, scale 1:24000, version 1.0.
Morton, D.M., and Cox, 2001, Geologic Map of the Riverside East 7.5‘ Quadrangle, Riverside
County, California, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 01-452, scale
1:24000, version 1.0.
Morton, D.M., 2001, Geologic Map of the Steel Peak 7.5‘ Quadrangle, Riverside County,
California, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 01 449, scale 1:24000,
version 1.0.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-6 April 5, 2010
Morton, D.M., 2003. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Perris 7.5‘ Quadrangle, Riverside County,
California, version 1.0. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-270. Digital
preparation by K.R. Bovard and R.M. Alvarez.
Morton, D.M., and F.K. Miller, 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30‘ X
60‘ Quadrangle, California, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-2006-
1217, scale 1:100000.
Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., 2003. San Jacinto Branch Line, Riverside County, California,
Determination of Eligibility and Effects Report. Prepared for STV Inc ., Riverside County
Transportation Commission, and the Federal Transit Administration.
National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), 2008. National Soil Survey Handbook, Updated July,
2008.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1971. Soil Survey Western Riverside Area,
California.
NRCS, 1983. National Engineering Handbook.
NRCS, 2008. Official Soil Series Descriptions.
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html
NRCS, 2008. Web Soil Survey 2.0. www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
NRCS, 2009. LESA System Design and Uses.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/lesa/lesa_sysdes_uses.html
Pajak, A.F., Scott, E. and Bell, C., 1996. A review of the biostratigraphy of Pliocene and
Pleistocene sediments in the Elsinore Fault Zone, Riverside County, California, PaleoBios v.
17(2-4), p. 28-49.
Plummer, Charles, David McGeary, and Diane Carlson, 1999. Physical Geology, Eighth Edition.
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Riverside County, 1988. Ordinance No. 509, Amended June 16, 1988.
http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/ords/500/509.2.pdf
Riverside County, 1988. Ordinance No. 655, Effective July 7, 1988.
http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/ords/600/655.htm
Riverside County, 2003. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Vol. 1.
http://www.rctlma.org/genplan/content/eir/volume1.html
Riverside County, 2003. Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), Updated October 7, 2003.
Riverside County, 2003. RCIP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Adopted
June 17, 2003.
Riverside County, 2007. Ordinance No. 847: Regulating Noise. Amended, July 19, 2007 .
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-7 April 5, 2010
Riverside County, 2008. General Plan: http://www.rctlma.org/genplan/content/gp.aspx
Riverside County, 2008. Riverside County Transportation & Land Management Agency, Area
Plan Volume 1 and Area Plan Volume 2.
http://www.rctlma.org/genplan/general_plan_2008/general_plan_2008.aspx
RCFCWCD, 2005. Establishment of Interim Development Criteria Within the Lower San Jacinto
River Floodplain.
http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2005/a2005_04_26/15.01.pdf
RCFCWCD, 2009. District Overview. http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/
RCFCWCD, 2009. Master Drainage Plans.
http://www.rcflood.org/downloads/Master%20Drainage%20Plans/MDPs.pdf
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA), 2007. Stephens‘ Kangaroo Rat
Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan & Fire Management Plan for RCHCA lands in the
Lake Mathews and Steele Peak Reserves.
RCHCA, 2009. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Stephens‘ Kangaroo Rat (SKR) in
Western Riverside County, California. http://www.skrplan.org/skr.html
Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS), 2008. County of Riverside Transportation
and Land Management Agency Geographic Information Services.
http://www3.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 2006. Development Plan and Negative
Declaration for the construction of Phase I of the proposed Perris Multimodal Facility.
RCTC, 2009. I-215 Improving Mobility. http://www.i215project.info/
RCTC, 2009. State Route 91/State Route 71 Interchange Improvement Project:
http://www.sr91-sr71project.info/schedule.asp
Roberts, Neil, 1998. The Holocene: An Environmental History (2nd Ed.). Blackwell Publishers,
Inc.; Malden, MA.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), 2002. Waste Discharge
Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, The
County of Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County within the Santa Ana
Region Area Wide Urban Runoff.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2002/02_
011_wdr_rcfcwcd_10252002.pdf
SARWQCB, 2008. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Updated February, 2008.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml
SARWQCB, 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency, Santa Ana Region.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-8 April 5, 2010
Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA), 2009. Species information.
http://www.sawatershed.org/endangered.htm
Scott, Eric, 2008. Unpublished Paleontology Literature and Records Review, Perris Valley
Commuter Rail Line Project, Riverside County, California. Letter from the Division of
Geological Sciences of the San Bernardino County Museum to Applied EarthWorks, Inc.,
dated July 21, 2008.
Solow, 2009. Letter to Federal Railroad Administration, Joseph Szabo. SCRRA comments on
Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Positive Train Control. August 20, 2009.
Springer, K.B., E. Scott, L.K. Murray, and W.G. Spaulding, 1998. Partial Skeleton of a Large
Individual of Mammut Americanum from the Domenigoni Valley, Riverside County,
California. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18(3): 78-A.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2008. Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP). http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtip/
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2003. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/
SWRCB, 2009. Construction Stormwater Permit.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml
SWRCB, 2009. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Amended January 1, 2009.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf
STV Incorporated, 2004. San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study/Alternatives Analysis.
Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission.
STV Incorporated, 20092011. Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Air Quality Technical Report.
Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission.
STV Incorporated, 20092011. Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Noise and Vibration Technical
Report. Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission.
STV Incorporated, 20092011. Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Traffic Technical Report.
Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission.
STV Incorporated, 2009. Riverside County Transportation Commission, Perris Valley Line
Project, MP 7.20 to 9.80 (BNSF) and MP 0.40 to 21.80 (RCTC), Volume 2 of 3, Civil Works
(Grade Separation), Stations – (Civil, Landscape, Architectural, Structural, Electrical),
Conceptual (30%) Design Submittal, May 19, 2009.
Transportation & Land Management Agency (TLMA), 2003. Riverside County General Plan:
Area Plans Volume 1 and Area Plans Volume 2.
http://www.rctlma.org/genplan/content/gp.aspx
University of Berkeley Library, 1996. California Division of Mines, Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zones of California. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/UCONLY/CDMG/
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-9 April 5, 2010
Urban Crossroads, 2008. Cactus Avenue and Commerce Center Drive Commercial Center
Traffic Impact Study.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 7, §4201: Farmland Protection Policy, Updated January 8, 2008.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 16, §§431-433: Antiquities Act of 1906, June 8, 1906.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 16, §470: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, October 15, 1966.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 16, §§661-667E: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, March 10, 1934
U.S. Code (USC), Title 16, §§703-712: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, July 13, 1918.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 16, §§1531-1544: Endangered Species Act, December 28, 1973.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 23, §130: Railway-highway Crossings.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 33, §1251-1376: Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
U.S. Code (USC), Title 42, §§4321-4370: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Updated
January 19, 2004.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), 2000. 23 USC 162, National Scenic Byways
Program.
USDOT, 2009. National Scenic Byways Online. http://www.byways.org/
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999. Compliance with Railroad Operating Rules and
Corporate Culture Influence. http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord9909.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2000. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Superfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
http://epa.gov/superfund/20years/index.htm
USEPA, 2009. Introduction to the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/
USEPA, 2009. History of the Clean Water Act.
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwahistory.html
USEPA, 2009. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program_id=45
USEPA, 2009. Office of Waste Management. http://www.epa.gov/owm/
USEPA, 2009. Wastes - Non-Hazardous Waste. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/index.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2009. Endangered Species Program.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), 2003.
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Adopted June 17, 2003
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
8.0 REFERENCES
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 8-10 April 5, 2010
Wilbur Smith Associates, 2008. Final Report, Perris Valley Line Freight Study presented by San
Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee, May 14, 2008,
http://www.rctc.org/downloads/11.SW.PVL%20Freight%20Study.pdf
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
9.0 INDEX
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 9-1 April 5, 2010
9.0 INDEX
AA (Alternatives Analysis), 2-9, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4
Acquisition, ES-2, ES-10, 2-1, 2-3, 2-34, 2-
37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 3-10, 3-
11, 3-12, 3-14, 4.4-17, 4.7-8, 4.7-18, 6-1
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), 1-3,
2-14, 2-15, 2-19, 2-21
Airport, 1-5, 4.1-3, 4.1-18, 4.7-1, 4.7-2, 4.7-
8, 4.7-10, 4.7-11, 4.7-15, 4.7-16, 4.10-
26, 4.10-39
BFE (Base Flood Elevation), 4.8-3
Box Springs, ES-4, 2-1, 2-15, 2-53, 4.1-3,
4.1-4, 4.1-7, 4.1-8, 4.1-9, 4.1-10, 4.1-13,
4.1-16, 4.1-17, 4.3-30, 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-
4, 4.4-5, 4.4-6, 4.4-11, 4.4-19, 4.4-22,
4.4-24, 4.4-27, 4.4-28, 4.5-2, 4.5-10,
4.5-11, 4.5-14, 4.6-1, 4.6-9, 4.6-16, 4.7-
1, 4.7-2, 4.7-17, 4.8-1, 4.9-2, 4.9-3, 4.9-
6, 4.10-36, 4.11-20, 4.12-2, 6-2, 8-3
Bridge, ES-4, 2-43, 2-45, 4.4-5, 4.4-22, 4.4-
25, 4.4-27, 4.6-12, 4.8-1, 4.8-11, 4.8-16,
4.8-17
Burrowing Owl, 4.4-6, 4.4-11, 4.4-12, 4.4-22
CAA (Clean Air Act), 2-11, 4.3-7, 4.3-8, 4.3-
12
CARB (California Air Resources Board),
4.3-2, 4.3-3, 4.3-4, 4.3-5, 4.3-8, 4.3-10,
4.3-11, 4.3-12, 4.3-13, 4.3-22, 4.3-25,
4.3-29, 8-1
CDFG (California Department of Fish and
Game), ES-4, 1-5, 4.4-13, 4.4-15, 4.4-
16, 4.4-18, 4.4-19, 4.4-22, 4.4-23, 4.4-
24, 4.4-26, 4.8-8, 4.9-5, 4.9-8
CETAP (Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability), 4.9-11, 5-
8
CGP (Construction General Permit), 4.6-17,
4.7-12, 4.8-7, 4.12-7
City of Perris, 1-4, 1-5, 2-35, 2-43, 4.1-3,
4.1-7, 4.1-9, 4.1-17, 4.1-18, 4.1-19, 4.1-
21, 4.2-6, 4.2-10, 4.2-11, 4.3-30, 4.4-25,
4.5-9, 4.6-14, 4.7-2, 4.7-8, 4.7-16, 4.8-8,
4.8-16, 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 4.9-4, 4.9-7, 4.9-8,
4.9-9, 4.9-11, 4.10-25, 4.10-26, 4.11-11,
4.11-14, 4.11-15, 4.11-20, 4.12-1, 4.12-
2, 4.12-5, 4.12-7, 5-4, 6-1, 8-3
City of Riverside, 1-5, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-
48, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-7, 4.1-12, 4.1-16,
4.2-1, 4.2-6, 4.2-10, 4.2-11, 4.4-2, 4.4-5,
4.4-25, 4.5-9, 4.5-10, 4.6-14, 4.7-2, 4.7-
8, 4.7-10, 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 4.9-3, 4.9-6, 4.9-
7, 4.9-9, 4.9-10, 4.10-24, 4.10-25, 4.10-
26, 4.11-1, 4.11-11, 4.11-13, 4.12-1,
4.12-2, 4.12-5, 5-3, 6-1, 8-3, 8-4
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), 4.3-6, 4.3-22, 4.3-23,
4.3-24, 4.3-25, 4.3-26
Coastal California Gnatcatcher, ES-4, 4.4-
11, 4.4-12, 4.4-22, 4.4-28
Communication Tower, 2-11, 2-14, 2-48,
4.1-10, 4.1-19
Construction, ES-1, ES-4, ES-6, ES-7, ES-
8, ES-9, ES-10, ES-11, ES-16, 1-1, 2-3,
2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-14, 2-21, 2-35,
2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 4.1-3,
4.1-6, 4.1-9, 4.1-10, 4.1-12, 4.1-14, 4.1-
17, 4.1-20, 4.1-21, 4.2-10, 4.3-1, 4.3-11,
4.3-12, 4-3-14, 4.3-21, 4.3-23, 4.3-24,
4.3-25, 4.3-26, 4.3-27, 4.4-1, 4.4-13,
4.4-14, 4.4-17, 4.4-18, 4.4-24, 4.4-25,
4.4-26, 4.4-27, 4.4-28, 4.5-2, 4.5-4, 4.5-
6, 4.5-8, 4.5-9, 4.5-10, 4.5-11, 4.5-12,
4.5-13, 4.5-14, 4.5-15, 4.5-16, 4.5-17,
4.6-1, 4.6-11, 4.6-12, 4.6-13, 4.6-14,
4.6-16, 4.6-17, 4.6-18, 4.7-1, 4.7-4, 4.7-
11, 4.7-12, 4.7-13, 4.7-14, 4.7-16, 4.7-
17, 4.7-18, 4.7-19, 4.8-1, 4.8-3, 4.8-7,
4.8-8, 4.8-10, 4.8-11, 4.8-12, 4.8-13,
4.8-14, 4.8-15, 4.9-4, 4.9-12, 4.9-13,
4.10-6, 4.10-14, 4.10-21, 4.10-23, 4.10-
24, 4.10-25, 4.10-26, 4.10-36, 4.10-37,
4.10-38, 4.10-39, 4.11-34, 4.12-1, 4.12-
5, 4.12-6, 4.12-7, 4.12-8, 4.12-9, 5-1, 5-
2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9, 5-11, 6-1, 6-3, 8-7,
8-8
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
9.0 INDEX
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 9-2 April 5, 2010
County of Riverside, 2-36, 2-43, 4.4-25, 4.6-
11, 4.6-14, 4.6-16, 4.6-17, 4.7-7, 4.7-9,
4.9-1, 4.9-6, 4.9-7, 4.11-11, 4.11-21,
4.12-2, 4.12-5, 5-7, 8-7, 8-8
CPUC (California Public Utilities
Commission), 2-43, 4.7-8, 4.10-7, 4.10-
22, 4.10-26, 4.10-27, 4.12-2, 4.12-4, 8-3
Culvert, ES-4, 4.4-12, 4.4-22, 4.4-27, 4.4-
28, 4.8-13, 4.9-3, 4.10-38
dB (Decibel), ES-14, 4.10-2, 4.10-4, 4.10-17,
4.10-23, 4.10-37, 4.10-38, 4.10-41,
4.10-43
Derailment, 4.7-12, 4.7-13
Earthquake, 4.6-4, 4.6-8, 4.6-9, 4.6-12, 4.6-
13, 4.6-15, 4.6-16, 4.7-10
ESA (Endangered Species Act), 4.4-14, 8-9
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
Agency), 4.8-2, 4.8-3, 4.8-8, 4.8-15, 4.8-
18, 4.8-19, 4.9-1, 4.9-5, 4.9-8, 8-4
FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Maps), 4.8-3,
4.8-15, 4.8-16, 4.8-18, 4.8-19, 4.9-4,
4.9-5
FMMP (Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program), 4.2-5, 4.2-6, 8-2
FPPA (Farmland Protection Policy Act), 4.2-
2, 4.2-3
FRA (Federal Railroad Administration), 2-
54, 3-11, 4.7-13, 4.10-22, 4.10-26, 4.10-
27, 4.12-3, 8-4
Freight, ES-2, 2-1, 2-3, 2-9, 2-15, 2-49, 2-
52, 2-53, 2-54, 3-9, 3-10, 3-14, 4-1, 4.1-
1, 4.1-20, 4.3-24, 4.3-27, 4.7-1, 4.7-12,
4.7-13, 4.9-1, 4.10-6, 4.10-7, 4.10-18,
4.10-19, 4.10-20, 4.10-21, 4.10-33,
4.10-36, 4.11-35
FTA (Federal Transit Administration), ES-1,
ES-12, 2-9, 3-14, 4.3-14, 4.3-20, 4.10-1,
4.10-2, 4.10-4, 4.10-6, 4.10-14, 4.10-16,
4.10-17, 4.10-19, 4.10-20, 4.10-21,
4.10-22, 4.10-27, 4.10-29, 4.10-30,
4.10-31, 4.10-32, 4.10-33, 4.10-35,
4.10-36, 4.10-38, 4.10-39, 4.10-40,
4.10-43, 4.12-3, 4.12-4, 8-5
GBN (Ground-Borne Noise), 4.10-14, 4.10-
16, 4.10-17, 4.10-18, 4.10-32
GBV (Ground-Borne Vibration), 4.10-14,
4.10-16, 4.10-17, 4.10-18, 4.10-20,
4.10-21, 4.10-32
GHG (Greenhouse Gas), 4.3-6, 4.3-13, 4.3-
21, 4.3-22, 4.3-23, 4.3-24, 4.3-25, 5-5,
5-6, 5-8
Grade Crossing, ES-13, ES-14, 1-3, 1-5, 2-
6, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-11, 2-14, 2-43, 2-48,
2-54, 3-11, 4.1-20, 4.7-18, 4.10-1, 4.10-
7, 4.10-19, 4.10-20, 4.10-22, 4.10-26,
4.10-27, 4.10-37, 4.10-40, 4.11-1, 4.11-
20, 4.11-34, 4.11-35, 4.11-36, 4.11-42,
4.12-2, 4.12-3, 4.12-4, 6-1, 6-2,
HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey),
ES-8
HAER (Historic American Engineering
Record), ES-8, 4.5-16
HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan), 4.4-6,
4.4-14, 4.4-16, 4.4-22, 4.9-9, 4.9-11,
4.9-12, 8-7
HMCS (Hazardous Materials Corridor
Study), 4.7-1, 4.7-4, 4.7-14
Horn, 4.10-7, 4.10-19, 4.10-20
JPA (March Joint Powers Authority), 2-21,
2-34, 4.1-9, 4.1-12, 4.1-17, 4.1-21, 4.2-
11, 4.5-12, 4.7-15, 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 4.9-3,
4.9-7, 4.9-11, 4.10-39, 4.12-6, 6-1, 8-5
LA Union Station (Los Angeles Union
Station), 2-1, 2-3, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 4.3-
28, 4.7-12, 4.10-27
Landscape Walls, 2-11, 2-14, 2.48, 2-49,
4.1-12, 4.1-13, 4.1-19, 4.3-24, 4.5-13
Landslide, 4.6-1, 4.6-9, 4.6-13, 4.6-14, 4.6-
16
Ldn (Day-night average sound), 4.10-2, 4.10-
4, 4.10-6, 4.10-8, 4.10-9, 4.10-12, 4.10-
13, 4.10-14, 4.10-20, 4.10-27, 4.10-28,
4.10-29, 4.10-30
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
9.0 INDEX
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 9-3 April 5, 2010
Leq (Equivalent noise level), 4.10-2, 4.10-4,
4.10-6, 4.10-9, 4.10-12, 4.10-14, 4.10-
31
Leq (h) (Hourly value of equivalent noise
level), 4.10-2
Least Bell‘s Vireo, ES-4, 4.4-6, 4.4-22, 4.4-
27
LESA (Land Evaluation Site Assessment),
4.2-3, 4.2-4, 4.2-7, 4.2-10, 8-2, 8-6
LPA (Locally Preferred Alternative), 3-12, 3-
13, 3-14
MAFB (March Air Force Base), 4.4-6, 4.9-3,
4.9-12
Maintenance, 2-5, 2-21, 2-52, 4.1-18, 4.3-7,
4.3-8, 4.3-19, 4.4-17, 4.4-19, 4.4-22,
4.4-23, 4.5-10, 4.5-11, 4.5-12, 4.5-13,
4.5-14, 4.6-12, 4.6-16, 4.6-17, 4.6-18,
4.7-2, 4.7-11, 4.7-12, 4.7-14, 4.7-17,
4.7-18, 4.7-19, 4.8-1, 4.8-5, 4.8-7, 4.8-
10, 4.8-11, 4.8-12, 4.8-13, 4.8-14, 4.8-
15, 4.10-22, 4.10-32, 4.12-7, 4.12-8,
4.12-9, 5-11, 6-3
MP (Mile Post), ES-8, 2-11, 2-14, 2-15, 2-
43, 4.1-19, 4.4-6, 4.4-11, 4.4-12, 4.4-13,
4.5-11, 4.5-14, 4.5-15, 4.5-16, 4.6-9,
4.8-11, 4.8-16, 4.12-2, 6-1, 8-9
MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems), 4.8-1, 4.8-11, 4.8-12, 4.8-13,
4.8-14, 4.8-15, 4.12-1, 4.12-2
MSAT (Mobile-Source Air Toxics), 4.3-12,
4.3-20, 4.3-21, 5-5
MSHCP (Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan), ES-4, 1-5, 3-13,
4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-5, 4.4-6, 4.4-15, 4.4-16,
4.4-17, 4.4-19, 4.4-21, 4.4-22, 4.4-24,
4.4-25, 4.4-26, 4.4-27, 4.4-28, 4.9-9,
4.9-11, 4.9-12, 4.9-13, 5-6, 5-8, 8-7, 8-
10
Multimodal Facility, 4.1-17, 4.9-11
NAHC (Native American Heritage
Commission), ES-9, 4.5-16
Narrow Endemic Plant Species, 4.4-19, 4.4-
20
Noise Barrier, 4.1-13, 4.4-24, 4.10-41
NOX (Nitrogen Oxide), 4.3-5, 4.3-26, 5-11
NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System), 4.4-18, 4.6-12, 4.8-
2, 4.8-8, 4.12-3
NRHP (National Register of Historic
Places), 4.1-17, 4.5-6, 4.5-8, 4.5-12
Operation, 2-5, 2-21, 2-49, 2-50, 3-9, 3-10,
3-11, 4.1-1, 4.1-8, 4.1-16, 4.3-1, 4.3-11,
4.3-21, 4.3-22, 4.3-23, 4.3-25, 4.3-28,
4.5-10, 4.5-11, 4.5-12, 4.5-13, 4.5-14,
4.7-12, 4.7-14, 4.7-17, 4.8-1, 4.8-2, 4.8-
10, 4.8-11, 4.8-12, 4.8-13, 4.8-14, 4.8-
15, 4.9-13, 4.10-19, 4.10-21, 4.10-25,
4.10-32, 4.11-10, 4.11-35, 4.12-6, 4.12-
9, 5-1, 5-2, 5-9, 6-3
Park, 4.1-3, 4.1-8, 4.1-10, 4.1-12, 4.1-13,
4.1-18, 4.1-19, 4.1-21, 4.2-1, 4.2-11,
4.4-1, 4.4-11, 4.9-4, 4.9-6, 4.9-7, 4.9-10,
4.10-4, 4.10-9, 4.11-13, 4.11-17, 4.11-18,
4.11-19, 4.11-36, 5-3, 5-4
Parking, 2-4, 2-15, 2-21, 4.1-7, 4.1-8, 4.1-
13, 4.1-18, 4.1-20, 4.1-21, 4.3-15, 4.3-
17, 4.3-18, 4.3-24, 4.3-27, 4.3-29, 4.3-
30, 4.6-16, 4.7-2, 4.7-15, 4.8-10, 4.8-11,
4.8-12, 4.8-13, 4.8-14, 4.8-15, 4.8-16,
4.8-17, 4.9-4, 4.10-20, 4.10-32, 4.10-35,
4.10-38, 4.11-7, 4.11-41, 4.12-2, 4.12-8,
5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-11
PM10 (Particulate Matter), 4.3-2, 4.3-3, 4.3-
4, 4.3-5, 4.3-7, 4.3-9, 4.3-10, 4.3-12, 4.3-
18, 4.3-19, 4.3-20, 4.3-21, 4.3-23, 4.3-
26, 4.3-29, 4.7-13, 5-11
PM2.5 (Particulate Matter), 4.3-2, 4.3-3, 4.3-
4, 4.3-5, 4.3-7, 4.3-9, 4.3-10, 4.3-12,
4.3-18, 4.3-19, 4.3-20, 4.3-21, 4.3-23,
4.3-26, 4.3-29
PTC (Positive Train Control), 2-54
RCA (Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority), 1-5, 4.4-25,
4.9-12, 4.9-13
RCFCWCD (Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
9.0 INDEX
92666/DRAFT_EIR_Rev July 2011 9-4 April 5, 2010
District), 4.8-7, 4.8-8, 4.8-17, 4.8-20,
4.9-8, 8-7
RCIP (Riverside County Integrated Project),
4.4-16, 4.9-5, 5-8, 8-7
RCLIS (Riverside County Land Information
System), 4.2-6, 8-7
Riparian, ES-4, 4.4-5, 4.4-11, 4.4-12, 4.4-
13, 4.4-17, 4.4-18, 4.4-22, 4.4-23, 4.4-
26, 4.4-28
Riverine, 4.4-25
RTA (Riverside Transit Agency), 2-21, 3-9,
4.11-7, 4.11-35
RTIP (Regional Transportation
Improvement Program), 4.3-11, 4.3-14,
4.3-27, 4.3-29, 4.9-5, 8-8
Safety, ES-10, 1-3, 4.3-6, 4.6-13, 4.6-14,
4.6-16, 4.6-17, 4.7-1, 4.7-3, 4.7-8, 4.7-9,
4.7-10, 4.7-18, 4.10-22, 4.10-23, 4.12-3,
8-3, 8-4
SCAG (Southern California Association of
Governments), 4.3-11, 4.3-14, 4.3-19,
4.3-21, 4.3-29, 4.9-5, 8-8
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality
Management District), 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.3-
4, 4.3-11, 4.3-12, 4.3-13, 4.3-14, 4.3-15,
4.3-17, 4.3-21, 4.3-24, 4.3-25, 4.3-26,
4.3-27, 4.3-29, 4.3-31, 5-11
School, ES-14, 2-11, 2-14, 2-48, 2-49, 2-54,
4.1-13, 4.1-14, 4.3-21, 4.3-29, 4.3-30,
4.4-24, 4.5-13, 4.7-1, 4.7-3, 4.7-8, 4.7-9,
4.7-10, 4.7-11, 4.7-13, 4.7-15, 4.7-17,
4.9-2, 4.9-3, 4.9-4, 4.9-8, 4.10-4, 4.10-7,
4.10-9, 4.10-12, 4.10-13, 4.10-14, 4.10-
18, 4.10-19, 4.10-23, 4.10-24, 4.10-27,
4.10-31, 4.10-32, 4.10-33, 4.10-35,
4.10-36, 4.10-38, 4.10-43, 4.11-8, 6-1,
6-2
SCRRA (Southern California Regional Rail
Authority), ES-1, 1-1, 1-5, 2-1, 2-3, 2-10,
2-11, 2-14, 2-15, 2-43, 2-50, 2-52, 2-54,
4.3-19, 4.3-28, 4.6-16, 4.6-17, 4.9-10,
4.9-11, 4.10-6, 4.10-21, 4.10-35, 4.10-
36, 4.11-17, 5-5, 8-8
SFHAs (Special Flood Hazard Areas), 4.8-
3, 4.9-5
SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office State
Historic Preservation Office), 4.5-17
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, ES-4, 4.4-
12, 4.4-22
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, 4.4-4
SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan), ES-4, 4.4-26, 4.6-17, 4.7-12, 4.8-
7, 4.8-11, 4.12-7, 4.12-8
TAC (Toxic Air Contaminant), 4.3-12, 4.3-13
TCWG (Transportation Conformity Working
Group), 4.3-19, 4.3-21
TLMA, 4.9-5, 4.9-7, 8-9
UCR (University of California, Riverside), 2-
1, 2-3, 4.1-3, 4.5-2, 4.5-17, 4.6-1, 4.8-
16, 4.9-3, 4.10-13, 4.10-14, 4.10-27,
4.10-31, 4.10-32, 4.10-35, 4.10-36,
4.10-43, 4.11-41, 5-3, 5-9
USACE (United States Army Corps of
Engineers), 1-5, 4.4-13, 4.4-18, 4.4-22,
4.4-23, 4.4-24, 4.8-8, 4.9-8
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife
Service), ES-4, 1-5, 4.4-14, 4.4-15, 4.4-
16, 4.4-18, 4.4-19, 4.4-23, 4.4-26, 4.8-8,
4.9-8, 8-10
VdB (Vibration Decibels), 4.10-14, 4.10-16,
4.10-17, 4.10-18, 4.10-34, 4.10-35,
4.10-43
Water Quality Control Board, 1-5, 4.4-17,
4.8-4
Wetlands, 4.4-17
WQCB (Water Quality Control Board), 8-7
2009 Draft IS/MND Public Issues
In 2009, a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) was prepared for
the project and circulated for public comment. Comments were received, but a Final IS/MND to
address those comments was not published.
In recognition that comments were made on the Draft IS/MND, this EIR contains a table of those
comments. Public comments are arranged by topical issue and location within this EIR is
provided to direct the reader to where the issue is addressed. As noted in the EIR, a new 45-
day public comment period will be announced and initiated by RCTC. Specific comments
received during this new comment period will be addressed in the Final EIR.
Table 1.0
2009 Draft IS/MND Public Issues
Topical Issue of Comments Reference Section in EIR
Station Selection Issues:
Station Relocation- Palmyrita to Highgrove 2.4.3
Future Stations (Fair Isle and Ramona) lack details 2.4.2
Eliminate the UCR station No discussion included
Agriculture Issues:
Conversion of Prime Farmland should be considered a
‘significant’ impact (not less than significant) 4.2.4
Air Quality Issues:
Inhaling particulates from diesel exhaust 4.3.4
Biology Issues:
Impacts to wildlife 4.4.4
Geology Issues:
No mention of the fault at Valencia Hill Drive and Watkins Drive 4.6.1
Hazards Issues:
Freight carrying hazardous materials 4.7.4
Leaks and spills of hazardous materials on tracks 4.7.1
Noise Issues:
Train Noise (whistles, bell, engine, etc.) 4.10.1
Sound walls DO NOT mitigate 4.10.5
Sound walls obstruct residents’ views 4.10.5
Quiet Zones 4.10.1
Construction Noise 4.10.4
Freight Issues:
Improved tracks lead to an increase in freight shipment 2.4.12
Increased freight with MARCH and commercial developments
planned along the corridor 2.4.12
Maintenance Issues:
Railroad maintenance (trash and landscape) 2.4.11, 4.1.4, 4.12.4
Traffic Issues:
Traffic congestion in residential areas 4.11.4
Shuttles & Buses from other stations 4.11.1
Station Parking Size/Info (provide more detail) 4.11.1
Watkins Crosswalk/ UCR traffic and parking/Blaine Crosswalk
4.11.1 (No discussion
included for crosswalks)
A-1
Table 1.0
2004 Draft EA Public Issues (continued)
A-2
Topical Issue of Comments Reference Section in EIR
Justify Revisions 4,350 Cars per Day 4.11.4
Moreno Valley/March Field Station traffic only associated from
the east (analysis does not consider impacts from additional
intersections); signal optimization retiming needs to occur after
commencement of operations 4.11.1
Baseline analysis period (2011 w/o project) includes approved
projects only shows cumulative impacts, recommend an
analysis of Existing Volumes plus Ambient Growth without and
with the project to identify direct impacts. 4.11.4
Meridian Parkway traffic analysis not sufficient should install
traffic signal 4.11.4
Planning Issues:
Cost of project value (related to STIP and PD/ purpose and
need) 3.3
Not cost effective (Cost of Gas vs. Ridership) 3.3.3
Student use of PVL (Ridership) data is flawed, not procured
from the University
Parking in Neighborhoods 7.12
Diminish Property Value 4.14 (Historic property value)
Grade separations/crossings
4.3.4,
4.7.4, 4.10.4, 4.11.4
Bus Rapid Transit 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
Train Schedule is inadequate 2.4.10
Public Safety Issues:
Inadequate emergency access 4.7.4
Derailment concerns: high pressure fuel line, freight shipments
of hazardous materials, and school proximity) 4.7.4
UCR station early arrivals provide inadequate shelter and safety
until campus opens 7.14
School proximity to railroad: Safety and Health concerns (air
quality, noise, crossings, and derailment) 2.4.13, 4.3.4, 4.7.4
Improved tracks with faster trains 2.4.1, 2.4.14
Earth berm near school location to mitigate debris and
derailment concerns No discussion included.
Water Quality Issues:
Stream restoration and enhancements should be in excess to its
“pre-construction condition” which was outlined in the mitigation. 4.4.5
Certifications from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board are also required for impacts to placing structures in the
100-year flood plain. 4.8.2
Should identify on large-scale maps where impacts to water
quality standards are likely to occur within the channels. 4.8.4
Should include any jurisdictional wetland delineation that has
been completed in appendix 4.4.4
Draft IS/MND Analysis
Analysis Provided Insufficient ES 1.0, 1.4
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR July 13, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
INITIAL STUDY
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2009011046
Prepared for:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Contact: Edda Rosso, P.E., Program Manager
Prepared by:
Kleinfelder
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 320-2000
and
STV Incorporated
9130 Anaheim Place, Suite 210
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
(909) 484-0660
July 7, 2009
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 1 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
INITIAL STUDY PROJECT DETAILS
1. Project Title: Perris Valley Line
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Riverside County Transportation Commission
County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
3. Contact Person and Phone
Number:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Attention: Edda Rosso, P.E., Program Manager
County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
(951) 787-7141(
4. Project Location: The proposed project is located in western Riverside
County, extending about 24 miles between the Cities
of Riverside and Perris. The proposed project would
extend commuter rail service into the Interstate 215
corridor.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and
Address:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
6. General Plan Designation: Variable
7. Zoning: Variable
8. Description of Project: The proposed project includes extending commuter
rail service into the Interstate 215 corridor between
the Cities of Riverside and Perris. Project features
include:
• Construction of a fourth track along the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Line
• Construction of a connection between the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Line to the San
Jacinto Branch Line in Riverside
• Initial construction of four commuter rail
stations and appurtenances
• Construction of a maintenance-of-way facility
• Replacement of two existing bridges over the
San Jacinto River
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 2 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
• Construction of a train layover facility
• Rehabilitation of existing track, as necessary
• Closure of two grade crossings and
improvements to twenty grade crossings
9. Surrounding Land Uses and
Setting:
The proposed project is located within the existing
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and San Jacinto
Branch Line rail corridors and adjacent parcels.
Adjacent land uses include: commercial, light
industrial, open space, residential, professional
office, public facilities, general industrial, aviation,
historic districts, and agricultural lands.
10.Other agencies that may be
required to review or approve
aspects of the project:
• United States Army Corps of Engineers
• United States Fish and Wildlife Services
• California Department of Fish and Game
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
• State Historic Preservation Office
• Riverside County
• City of Perris
• City of Riverside
• March Air Reserve Base and March Joint Powers
Authority
• Southern California Regional Rail Authority
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
• Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
1-1
92666
7/13/09
JP
RM
92666vicEIR.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP
10120.5
Miles
±
Basemap Source: STV Incorporated
10-3-08
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
CALIFORNIA
PROJECT
AREA
"
www.kleinfelder.com
LEGEND
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PROJECT
!R
!R
Hunter Park
HUNTER PARK AREA
COLUMBIA
(WEST SIDE)
MARLBOROUGH
(WEST SIDE)
PALMYRITA
(EAST SIDE)
Citrus Connection
Layover
Facility
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 4 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
PROJECT BACKGROUND
As the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) prepared an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) and circulated the document for public and agency review in early 2009.
As part of the public involvement for the IS/MND document, RCTC held two public outreach
workshops in June 2008, a public information meeting in February 2009, and two public
hearings in February 2009. Input received on the PVL project through the public involvement
process has been focused on three concerns: safety, noise, and increased rail traffic. In
addition, there has been public controversy related to the station proposed in the vicinity of the
University of California, Riverside (UCR). As a result, RCTC has decided to proceed with
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR follows a previously prepared Environmental
Assessment (EA) that has been publicly distributed and commented on, with Federal Transit
Agency (FTA) as the federal Lead Agency.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 6 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [Potentially Significant Impact]
It is anticipated that construction of noise barriers along portions of the PVL corridor will be
required to address potential noise impacts associated with commuter rail service.
Implementation of the project could affect scenic vistas, and therefore this issue will be
analyzed in more detail in the EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [Less Than Significant
Impact]
There are no designated state scenic highways located within or adjacent to the project
area, but there is one scenic highway considered eligible for future designation and one
National Scenic Byway which intersect the PVL corridor. State Route 74 (SR 74), from west
of the San Bernardino National Forest to Route 111 in Palm Desert, is considered an eligible
state scenic highway (California Scenic Highway Mapping System 2008). The Ramona
Expressway, from I-215 east through Lakeview to SR 74, is a National Scenic Byway
(National Scenic Byway Program 2008). This issue will be explored further in the EIR.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? [Potentially Significant Impact]
As described above, the construction of noise barriers is anticipated along portions of the
PVL corridor to address potential noise impacts associated with commuter rail operations.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 7 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
The project could potentially affect the existing visual character or quality of the area, and
therefore will be analyzed in the EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The proposed project would involve the construction of new stations with adequate lighting
for station operations, parking lots, and the safety of station patrons. Implementation of the
PVL would result in six round-trip commuter trains, which would introduce additional sources
of light. Metrolink commuter rail trains are outfitted with light sources at the lower half of the
train which are used to illuminate the track for safety of the train and the surrounding areas.
The light source from the trains is not expected to affect day or nighttime views. This issue
will be explored in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 8 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
II. Agriculture Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a W illiamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
[Potentially Significant Impact]
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2006) and the Riverside
County Land Information System (RCLIS) (2008), portions of the proposed PVL project
contain areas designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance, which will
be converted to non-agricultural uses.
To evaluate the conversion of Farmland resulting from the project, the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model will be employed to analyze the
significance of the impacts. The LESA Model is intended to provide an additional
quantitative method for evaluating the environmental significance of agricultural land
conversions. The results of the LESA Model will be presented in the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or the W illiamson Act contract? [No Impact]
None of the components of the PVL project, including the proposed stations and the Citrus
Connection, are located within areas zoned for agricultural use or on lands enrolled in
Williamson Act contracts.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature,
could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 9 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
As described above, implementation of the PVL project would convert mapped Farmland to
non-agricultural uses. The impacts to agricultural resources associated with the proposed
project will be assessed using the LESA model, and the results will be presented in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 10 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
III. Air Quality
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or
State ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [No Impact]
Because one of the primary objectives of the PVL is to reduce congestion in the I-215
corridor by providing an alternative means of transportation, implementation of the proposed
project is not expected to conflict with or obstruct any of the applicable air quality plans.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? [Less Than Significant Impact]
Impacts to air quality standards will be analyzed in an air quality study being prepared for
the project. Because one of the primary objectives of the PVL is to reduce congestion in the
I-215 corridor by providing an alternative means of transportation, implementation of the
proposed project is not expected to violate any air quality standard. This issue will be
addressed in the EIR.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 11 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is listed as non-
attainment for 1-hr O3, PM10, and PM2.5 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the SCAB listed as Severe-17
non-attainment for O3, Serious non-attainment for PM10, and non-attainment for PM2.5 under
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because one of the primary
objectives of the PVL is to reduce congestion in the I-215 corridor by providing an alternative
means of transportation, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. This issue will be analyzed
in the EIR.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
The air quality study will analyze carbon monoxide (CO) “hotspots” at station parking lots for
the PM “cold start” condition, as well as Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) to determine
whether sensitive receptors will be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. This
issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
e) Create an objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people? [Less Than
Significant Impact]
The proposed project would result in limited diesel fuel exhaust that could cause odors near
operating train engines. W hile the trains are traveling, the impacts are expected to be
insignificant as the duration of time for odors to be emitted would be short and the
movement of the train would cause the emissions to quickly dissipate. While the trains are
stationary, the running exhaust emission may cause odors to accumulate near the train
engine. Idling times for the entire route, however, are not anticipated to exceed a total of 30
minutes, thereby minimizing the localized impacts of diesel fuel exhaust. This issue will be
explored further in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 12 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by CDFG or USFW S?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by CDFG or USFW S?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean W ater Act (CW A) (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFW S? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 13 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Although the proposed project is located in a primarily urban area, there are areas along the
PVL corridor which may contain habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. A
detailed evaluation of potential impacts to these species will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
Some areas of the PVL corridor may contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities which may be adversely affected by the proposed project. This issue will be
analyzed in the EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean W ater Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [Potentially
Significant Impact]
The proposed project involves the construction or rehabilitation of facilities which could
affect Federally protected wetlands. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The SJBL and the BNSF corridors are established rail facilities that are primarily at-grade
and unfenced, except for the more urban and industrial areas (that is, I-215 and the City of
Riverside). It is anticipated that construction of noise barriers along portions of the corridor
will be required to address potential noise impacts associated with commuter rail service.
Because the corridor already has extensive residential fencing, it is anticipated that the
proposed project would not introduce any elements that would degrade or substantially
interfere with wildlife movement. This issue will be explored further in the EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? [No Impact]
The historical maintenance of the rail facilities has removed trees and other vegetation. No
trees protected by policies or ordinances are expected to be impacted by the project.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
[Potentially Significant Impact]
The project corridor is located within the boundaries of the W estern Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat
Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP), and therefore could contain species or habitat
protected by the MSHCP and SKR HCP. The requirements for complying with the MSHCP
and SKR HCP will be discussed in greater detail in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 14 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
V. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
15064.5? [Potentially Significant Impact]
There are historical resources within the PVL corridor which could be subject to substantial
adverse change as a result of the proposed project. This issue will be analyzed in greater
detail in the EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5? [Potentially Significant Impact]
Prehistoric and historic archaeological resources are known to be located within the PVL
corridor, and therefore could be impacted by ground-disturbing activities associated with
project construction. Impacts are considered potentially significant and will be addressed in
the EIR.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? [Potentially Significant Impact]
Portions of the PVL corridor are located in areas mapped as old and very old alluvial fans,
and are therefore highly sensitive for paleontological resources. Ground-disturbing activities
could impact paleontological resources. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [No
Impact]
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 15 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
The PVL project is not expected to disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries. In the event of the accidental discovery of human remains
during project construction, the procedures outlined in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA
Guidelines shall be strictly followed. A detailed discussion of these procedures will be
provided in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 16 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VI. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to the Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [No Impact]
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 17 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
According to the 2007 Interim Revision to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map (California Geological Survey 2007), western Riverside County is a seismically
active region. The northern portion of the PVL corridor is located approximately 6 miles
southwest of the San Jacinto fault zone, while the southern portion of the corridor is
located approximately 15 miles northeast of the Elsinore fault zone. This issue will be
considered in the EIR and will include a discussion of the design and engineering
requirements of the PVL corridor.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The PVL corridor is located within the seismically active Southern California region.
Project elements including track, bridges, and stations would be designed in accordance
with appropriate industry standards. This issue will be considered in the EIR and will
include a discussion of the design and engineering requirements of the PVL corridor.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? [Less Than Significant
Impact]
According to the Safety Elements of the Moreno Valley General Plan and the Riverside
County General Plan, portions of the rail corridor are in areas subject to high potential for
liquefaction. Those areas particularly susceptible include the vicinity of the March Air
Reserve Base. Project elements including track, bridges, and stations would be
designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards. This issue will be
considered in the EIR and will include a discussion of the design and engineering
requirements of the PVL corridor.
iv) Landslides? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan indicates that the northern
portion of the PVL corridor adjacent to the Box Springs Mountain Reserve is highly
susceptible to seismically induced landslides. This issue will be considered in the EIR
and will include a discussion of the design and engineering requirements of the PVL
corridor.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [Less Than Significant Impact]
Major earth moving activities associated with the PVL project would include the construction
of the proposed stations, the Citrus Connection, the maintenance-of-way facility, and the
layover facility. Site preparation and excavation activities associated with construction of the
new facilities may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The proposed project will be
required to comply with the requirements of the Regional W ater Quality Control Board
(RW QCB), which includes the preparation and implementation of a Storm W ater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SW PPP) to reduce or eliminate soil loss. The SW PPP would identify Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and sediment loss. This issue will be
addressed in the EIR.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [Less Than Significant Impact]
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 18 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
The Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan provides geologic conditions in
Riverside County and identifies areas susceptible to subsidence. A portion of the PVL
corridor south of the I-215 / SR-60 interchange to the proposed South Perris Station is
located in an area documented by the County as susceptible to subsidence. This issue will
be considered in the EIR and will include a discussion of the design and engineering
requirements of the PVL corridor.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? [Less Than Significant Impact]
In general, expansive soils contain a substantial number of clay particles, which are subject
to swelling and shrinking in wet and dry conditions (Riverside County General Plan Safety
Element). According to the USDA’s NRCS W eb Soil Survey (2008), soils within the project
corridor and the proposed station locations are well-drained sandy loams, which do not tend
to be expansive. Project elements including track, bridges, and stations would be designed
in accordance with appropriate industry standards. This issue will be considered in the EIR
and will include a discussion of the design and engineering requirements of the PVL
corridor.
e) Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [No
Impact]
Implementation of the PVL commuter rail project would not require the use of septic tanks or
other onsite wastewater disposal systems.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 19 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 20 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [No Impact]
Operation of the PVL commuter rail service would not involve the routine transport or
disposal of hazardous materials. Construction and daily operational activities associated
with the proposed project would involve the use of small volumes of commercially available
hazardous materials, such as petroleum products, brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The
use of these substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations and would
not pose a significant impact to either on-site construction workers or the public. Freight train
operations on the PVL are not part of this project; therefore, RCTC has no control over the
type of freight being transported along the corridor.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? [No Impact]
As discussed above, construction and operational activities associated with the proposed
project would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials will be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing
hazardous materials regulations.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
The air quality study will analyze the potential for the proposed project to emit hazardous
emissions, particularly MSATs, which could affect schools within one-quarter mile of the PVL
corridor. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? [Potentially Significant Impact]
The PVL corridor has a history of agricultural and industrial use, which could indicate the
presence of materials that pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The
potential for hazardous materials will be analyzed in the Hazardous Materials Corridor Study
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 21 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
being prepared for the project. Impacts related to hazardous materials are considered
potentially significant. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [Less Than Significant
Impact]
The PVL corridor and the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station are located west of I-
215 and within the boundaries of the airport land use plan of March Air Reserve Base. In
addition, the Perris Valley Airport is located immediately south of Ellis Avenue and
southwest of Case Road, approximately 500 feet from the existing rail corridor. The land use
plans will be reviewed to identify any potential hazards pertaining to the PVL project. This
issue will be explored further in the EIR.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area? [No Impact]
The proposed project is not within the vicinity of any private airstrips.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? [Potentially Significant Impact]
Construction of the proposed project may temporarily interfere with emergency response or
evacuation plans if streets or railroad crossings are closed or re-routed. This is a potentially
significant impact and will be addressed in the EIR.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? [No Impact]
For the most part, the PVL corridor and adjacent properties are located in developed areas.
Implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of
loss, injury, or death due to wildland fires.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 22 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion of siltation on or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 23 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirement? [Less Than
Significant Impact]
Construction of the proposed stations and other new facilities associated with the PVL would
involve ground-disturbing activities which could degrade water quality if loose sediments
reach water sources. A SW PPP would be developed prior to construction, which outlines
specific BMPs to be implemented during construction to prevent water quality degradation.
Operation of PVL will include oil and water separators at the South Perris station and
layover facility to prevent water quality degradation prior to discharge into the nearby sewer
system. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge. W hile the proposed project would increase the extent of paved
surfaces through the construction of parking lots, the increase is not expected to interfere
with net groundwater recharge. This issue will be considered in the EIR.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site? [Less Than Significant Impact]
Features of the proposed project required to address drainage issues include the
construction of drainage ditches, modification or replacement of culverts, as well as
replacement of the two San Jacinto River bridges. In some cases these changes may result
in alteration of drainage patterns. Some of these actions will require permits from the
USACE, CDFG, and approval by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFCW CD). This issue will be analyzed in the EIR and will include a discussion of
design and engineering requirements.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 24 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? [Less Than
Significant Impact]
The proposed project involves the construction of new commuter rail stations, which would
include the construction of new or replacement paved area and parking lots. Paved areas
increase the rate and amount of surface runoff because it is conveyed more quickly across
an impervious surface. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR and will include a discussion of
design and storm water management requirements.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
[Less Than Significant Impact]
Although components of the proposed project, such as the paved parking lots, would
contribute runoff, the amount of runoff water would be designed not to exceed the capacity
of existing storm water drainage systems. This issue will be explored in the EIR and will
include a discussion of design and storm water management requirements.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [Less Than Significant Impact]
As previously described, water quality in the vicinity of the PVL corridor would not
substantially be degraded due to storm water runoff from construction activities. A SW PPP
would be implemented during construction, which would include appropriate BMPs to
reduce the transport of sediment and other pollutants into water sources. This issue will be
addressed in the EIR.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [No Impact]
The proposed project is limited to rail service and would not include the construction of
housing.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? [Potentially Significant Impact]
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) for Riverside County, portions of the PVL project would be located within the
100-year flood hazard area, specifically the South Perris Station and layover facility. Impacts
related to the 100-year flood hazard area are potentially significant and will be analyzed in
the EIR.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
As described above, portions of the PVL project would be located within the 100-year flood
hazard area, specifically the South Perris Station and layover facility. Although the project is
located within the flood hazard area, no housing related to the project is anticipated, only
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 25 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
train passengers and SCRAA workers may be present. Impacts related to 100-year flood
hazard area are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [No Impact]
Because the PVL corridor is not located in close proximity to a coast, ocean, or confined
lake, implementation of the proposed project would not create or be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 26 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IX. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community? [No Impact]
The BNSF and SJBL railroads were constructed in the 1880s (Myra Frank and Associates
2003), and many of the communities now located within the vicinity of the railroads were
established as a result of the railway facilities. The Citrus Connection and stations would be
constructed in areas that are largely bordered by industrial, commercial, and transportation
facilities. Implementation of the PVL is not expected to restrict the movement of people or
physically divide an established community. This issue will be considered in the EIR.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The proposed PVL corridor extends through or adjacent to several municipalities and/or land
managing agencies with jurisdiction over the project, including the City of Riverside, City of
Moreno Valley, March Air Reserve Base, City of Perris, and Riverside County.
Implementation of the project could include some variances which conflict with the adopted
planning documents of these entities. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community
conservation plan (NCCP)? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The project corridor is located within the boundaries of the W estern Riverside County
MSHCP and near the SKR HCP, and therefore could contain species or habitat protected by
the MSHCP and SKR HCP. The MSHCP however, does take into account the proposed
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 27 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
project and therefore is considered a covered activity. The requirements for complying with
the MSHCP and SKR HCP will be discussed in greater detail in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 28 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State? [No Impact]
According to the City of Perris General Plan (2005), the City of Riverside General Plan
(2007), the General Plan of the March Joint Powers Authority (2004), and the Riverside
County General Plan (2003), there are no known mineral resources within or adjacent to the
PVL corridor. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource of regional value. Further analysis of this issue is
not required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [No Impact]
According to the Riverside County General Plan (2003), the project corridor extends through
an area classified by the California State Mining and Geology Board (2007) (SMGB) as
Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3. The MRZ-3 classification indicates that there is available
geologic information indicating that mineral deposits are likely to exist; however, the
significance of the deposit is undetermined. The PVL corridor is not delineated in any land
use plan as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Further analysis of this issue
is not required.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 29 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XI. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
[Potentially Significant Impact]
Noise generated during construction is temporary and short-term. Operation of the PVL
could expose the surrounding communities to noise levels in excess of established
standards. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels? [Potentially Significant Impact]
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 30 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Construction of the PVL could expose the surrounding communities to ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels through the use of pile drivers. This issue will be
addressed in the EIR.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? [Potentially Significant Impact]
Implementation of the PVL commuter rail service could result in a permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. This is a potentially significant impact and will be
analyzed in the EIR.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? [Potentially Significant Impact]
Construction associated with the proposed project would result in temporary, short-term
increases in noise levels. Impacts related to temporary or periodic increases in ambient
noise levels are potentially significant. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [No Impact]
The proposed project is located adjacent to Perris Valley Airport and within the land use
plan of March Air Reserve Base. The proposed PVL commuter rail project does not include
residential or commercial components which would subject persons residing or working in
the project area to airport related noise.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [No Impact]
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 31 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XII. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other
infrastructure)? [No Impact]
The proposed project would extend commuter rail service on an existing line. The proposed
project is responding to an existing condition and is not expected to induce substantial
population growth, but this issue will be analyzed in greater detail in the EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [No Impact]
The proposed project is not expected to displace any housing. This issue will not be
considered in the EIR.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? [No Impact]
The proposed project is not expected to displace any people. This issue will not be
considered in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 32 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIII. Public Services
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks, other public facilities? [No Impact]
The proposed project involves the implementation of commuter rail service along existing
rail lines, and does not include residential or commercial components that would
permanently increase human presence in the area. Accordingly, additional public facilities,
such as schools and parks, would not be required to accommodate the PVL. As part of the
proposed project, several grade crossings would be closed or enhanced to facilitate train
movements and safe traffic flow. Impacts associated with temporary or permanent closures
could affect police, fire, or other emergency response times. This issue will be addressed in
the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 33 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIV. Recreation
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated? [No Impact]
The existing rail facilities extend through Islander Park near the Box Springs Mountain
Reserve. Drainage improvements anticipated for the PVL project could affect this park. This
issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [No
Impact]
The PVL project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 34 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XV. Transportation / Traffic
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at the intersections)?
[Potentially Significant Impact]
The proposed project would increase traffic in the vicinity of the proposed stations. This
increase in traffic could increase volume to capacity ratios and congestion at intersections.
This issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 35 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? [Potentially
Significant Impact]
The proposed project would increase traffic in the vicinity of the proposed stations. This
increase in traffic could exceed established level of service standards. This issue will be
analyzed in the EIR.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [No Impact]
Implementation of commuter rail service along the PVL would not result in a change in air
traffic patterns or an increase in traffic levels that would result in substantial safety risks.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? [No Impact]
The proposed project would involve track upgrades to an existing rail line to allow for
commuter rail service, but would not introduce design features that would increase hazards.
The track improvements are required to bring the existing freight facility up to commuter rail
standards, thereby resulting in safer operations. The potential for train derailments has been
a topic of public concern, and therefore this issue will be addressed in the EIR.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [Potentially Significant Impact]
The proposed project would include the closure and enhancement of several grade
crossings, which could result in inadequate emergency access. This issue will be addressed
in the EIR.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [No Impact]
The proposed project is expected to establish adequate parking spaces in accordance with
projected demands. This issue will be explored in the EIR.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [No Impact]
The proposed project would serve as an alternative transportation option, and would help
alleviate existing and future congestion in the I-215 corridor. As such, implementation of the
PVL is not expected to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation. Additionally, many of the proposed stations would be located in
areas which would provide convenient connections to several RTA bus routes.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 36 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable RWQCB?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional W ater Quality
Control Board? [No Impact]
The layover facility includes restroom facilities that can accommodate seventy employees.
Toilets on the train sets would be evacuated into the wastewater sewer system to be treated
at the wastewater treatment plant located across the street from the layover facility. The
volume of waste generated by the layover facility would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the SARWQCB. This issue will be considered in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 37 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [No Impact]
The proposed project is not expected to require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. This issue will be
considered in the EIR.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
[No Impact]
New or rehabilitated drainage ditches or other storm water facilities would be constructed
within the existing railroad right-of-way to prevent erosion of the rail embankment and
deposition of silt on the track bed. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR and will include a
discussion of design and storm water management requirements.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The use of water trucks would be required during construction to comply with Fugitive Dust
Rule 403. W hen fully operational, the proposed stations would require limited water supplies
for landscape irrigation and maintenance requirements. Construction and operation of the
PVL components is not expected to require new or expanded water entitlements. This issue
will be considered in the EIR.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The layover facility includes restroom facilities that can accommodate seventy employees.
Toilets on the train sets would be evacuated into the wastewater sewer system to be treated
at the wastewater treatment plant located adjacent to the layover facility. The volume of
waste generated by the layover facility is not expected to exceed the capacity of the
wastewater treatment provider. This issue will be considered in the EIR.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs? [Less Than Significant Impact]
The upgrades to the existing rail corridor to allow for passenger service would generate
limited amounts of solid waste during construction and normal operations. These materials,
however, would not be of sufficient quantity to require landfill capacity beyond routine waste
disposal needs. This issue will be considered in the EIR.
g) Comply with Federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [No
Impact]
The proposed project would comply with all Federal, State and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. This issue will be considered in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 38 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects what
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
The proposed PVL project may result in potentially significant impacts to biological, cultural
resources, air, noise, transportation, and hazards and hazardous materials; these topics will
be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)? [Potentially Significant
Impact]
The proposed project could contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts when
considered in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions. As identified throughout this Initial Study, potentially significant impacts related to
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 39 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, and
transportation and traffic will be further analyzed in the EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? [Potentially Significant Impact]
The proposed project may result in potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics,
agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, and transportation and
traffic, and therefore could have an adverse effect on human beings. This issue will be
analyzed in the EIR.
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 40 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
2.0 REFERENCES
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA), 1997. California
Department of Conservation.
California Air Resources Board, 2008. California Ambient Air Quality Standards.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm
California Department of Conservation, 2007. Interim Revision. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps. California Geological Survey. Prepared by William A. Bryant and Earl W . Hart.
California Department of Transportation, 2007. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm
City of Moreno Valley, 2006. City of Moreno Valley General Plan, Adopted July 11, 2006.
City of Perris, 1993. Perris Downtown Specific Plan, Adopted March 5, 1993.
City of Perris, 2001. General Plan Housing Element, Adopted April 4, 2001.
City of Perris, 2005. General Plan Circulation Element, Adopted June 14, 2005.
City of Perris, 2005. General Plan Conservation Element, Adopted July 12, 2005.
City of Perris, 2005. General Plan Land Use Element, Adopted April 26, 2005.
City of Perris, 2005. General Plan Noise Element, Adopted August 30, 2005.
City of Perris, 2005. General Plan Safety Element, Adopted October 25, 2005.
City of Perris, 2006. General Plan Open Space Element, Adopted March 14, 2006.
City of Riverside, 2007. General Plan 2025, Adopted November 2007.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2006. State of California Department of
Conservation. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. Riverside County Maps and DFIRM data.
http://www.fema.gov/
General Plan of the March Joint Powers Authority, 2004. March Air Reserve Base.
J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc., 2008. Perris Valley Line Existing Conditions Report.
Meridian Specific Plan (formerly known as March Business Center Specific Plan), 2003.
Prepared for March Joint Powers Authority.
Mining and Geology Board, 2007. State of California Department of Conservation.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Pages/Index.aspx
INITIAL STUDY
92666-3C EIR 41 July 10, 2009
Copyright 2009 Kleinfelder
Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., 2003. San Jacinto Branch Line, Riverside County, California,
Determination of Eligibility and Effects Report. Prepared for STV, Inc., Riverside County
Transportation Commission, and the Federal Transit Administration.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2008. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 2008. Web Soil Survey 2.0 –.
www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2008. http://www.rcaluc.org/
Riverside County General Plan, 2003. Riverside County Integrated Project.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2007. California Environmental Protection
Agency. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8/
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds, 2008.
http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/signthres.pdf
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, 1996. Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency
United States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, 2008.
National Scenic Byway Program http://www.byways.org/
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Emission Facts: Metrics for Expressing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Equivalents and Carbon Dioxide Equivalents. EPA420-
F-05-002. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05002.htm
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, 2003. Riverside County
Habitat Conservation Agency, Adopted June 17, 2003.
Williamson Act Program, 1965. State of California Department of Conservation.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/Pages/Index.aspx
Table 1.0 Grade Crossing Enhancements PVL – San Jacinto Branch Line C-1 No. LOCATION MILEPOST CPUC No. DOT No. EXISTING DEVICE TYPE Crossing Design ADDITIONAL NOTES and ACTION 1 Citrus Avenue, Riverside County MP 0.57 002X-0.6 027301Y 2-1R 1. Install two standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. A second track will be added to the crossing by the project. Install approximately 72 track feet (T.F) of concrete grade crossing for the new track. 3. Extend crossing panels on existing track as required. 4. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection. 5. Install Access Control Gates. 6. Install raised medians with R8-8 (Do not stop on track), length to be coordinated with existing adjacent driveways. 7. New sidewalk on south west side therefore add SW across tracks only. 1. No sidewalk on N side. Panels are long enough if sidewalk is added later. Add SW on with side to join existing SW on west. Add active pedestrian gates due to limited visibility of trains around Citrus curve. 2. Determine R/W at NW corner and design to keep private property vehicles at NW corner from circumventing the proposed CPUC gate/flashers by use of K-rail. Propose relocated dwy to be outside rail ROW. 3. Design a 6” high AC dike/berm at NW corner and position the CPUC #9 6’ back of dike face. Place K-rail to prevent pvt. property vehicles. 4. Locate ends of raised medians based on turning radius for the Caltrans STAA design vehicle- applicable to all grade crossings . 5. CPUC gates and flashers located per existing conditions. 6. FEMA has no flood map info. 2 Palmyrita Ave., City of RiversideMP 1.00 002X-1.0 027302F 2- No. 9 1. A second track will be added to the crossing by the project. Install approximately 72 T.F. concrete grade crossing for the new track. 2. Extend crossing panels on existing track as required. 3. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection 4. Install Access Control Gates. 5. Install two standard No. 9-A gates with cantilever flashing signals devices. 6. Install raised medians. 1. Put in raise median east of crossing for about 80’ so as not to block driveway. (LJM 2/2/09) Raised median design should be verified with the City of Riverside. 2. Add sidewalk on south side due to Palymrita Station. SCRRA decision tree indicates active pedestrian gates due to adjacency to Palymrita Station. 3. Need plans from Riverside for construction in NW quadrant. 3 Columbia Avenue, City of RiversideMP 1.24 002X-1.3 027303M 2-No. 1R 1. Crossing is to be improved outside of the project with 2 (two) standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. EB gates to be relocated by project for Palmyrita Station track 3. A second track will be added to the crossing by the project. Install approximately 72 T.F. concrete grade crossing for the new track. 4. Street construction at on Columbia will result in improvements to these crossings by others separate from this project. The plans show the City’s project as “existing” being built prior to the PVL project. 5. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection. 6. Access Control Gates conflict with Ped treatments therefore not provided. 7. Install raised medians at least 100 feet in length. 1. BNSF is moving gates out to match city widening to 4 lanes for a one track crossing. 2. Review profile and see coordinate with City/AECOM on profile and gate locations. 3. SCRRA decision tree indicates active pedestrian gates on north side due to adjacency to Palymrita Station. 4. SCRRA decision tree indicates swing gates on south side due limited pedestrian activity. 4 Marlborough Ave., City of RiversideMP 1.50 002X-1.5 027304U 2-No. 1R 1. Crossing is to be improved outside of the project with 2 (two) standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection. 1. Sidewalk modifications to meet current SCRRA standards. 2. SCRRA decisions tree indicates no pedestrian gates. 3. Bike lane on Marlborough could indicated pedestrian gates but is not addressed in decision tree. 5 Spruce St., City of RiversideMP 2.02 002X-2.02 027305B 2-No. 8 1. Install 2 (two) standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. Install 72 T.F. concrete grade crossing panel. 3. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection. 4. Install Access Control Gates. 5. Install pedestrian gates and channelization. 1. Revising street to allow for raised medians as feasible. Cannot have 100’ median on west. 2. Per Diagnostic Mtg, we are to replace the existing triangular open top drainage inlets-outlets adjacent to the curb on both sides of this grade crossing. To keep the crossing dry, a hydrology study is needed to determine the “Q” coming from the north to design adequate drain inlets. There are existing CBs on Spruce. Need to evaluate capacity. 3. Full ped treatments with ped gates on south side since this is a school route. Prohibit peds on north side of street as no continuous sidewalk.
Table 1.0 Grade Crossing Enhancements (continued) PVL – San Jacinto Branch Line C-2 No. LOCATION MILEPOST CPUC No. DOT No. EXISTING DEVICE TYPE Crossing Design ADDITIONAL NOTES and ACTION 6 West Blaine/ Watkins Dr, City of Riverside. MP 2.66 002X-2.7 027307P 5-No. 9A 1. Install approximately 128 T.F. concrete grade crossing panels. 2. Modify existing medians to SCRRA standard length, width, and height, which will include relocation of existing gate arms in medians. 3. Install signs/paint on curb ‘No Parking’ on east side of crossing. 4. Maintain existing signal. 5. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection. 6. Install Access Control Gates. 7. Extend west median further east.. 8. Install pedestrian channelization and pedestrian gates according to SCRRA standards. Full pedestrian treatments on both sidewalks with ped gates due to school route. 7 Mt. Vernon Ave., City of RiversideMP 3.41 002X-3.4 027308W 2-No. 9 1. Install 64 T.F. concrete grade crossing panels. 2. Existing No. 9 gates to remain. 3. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection 4. Install Access Control Gates. 5. Install raised medians at least 100 feet in length (residential driveway permitting). 6. Install pedestrian gates (pathway, railings, ped gates) on north side due to school route. 7. No sidewalk on south side. 8 - C Poarch Rd, Riverside County MP 5.02 002X-5.0 027311E 1-R 1. Recommend closure to regular vehicular traffic. 2. Provide locked entry gates for emergency vehicles only. 3. Fencing along RR ROW for 400’+ both sides of current crossing. 8 – O Poarch Rd, Riverside County “ 1. Opening Poarch Road to vehicular access would require significant lowering of the finished surface of Watkins Road and the Freeway on ramp and significant construction of Poarch Road. Since alternate access is available, this is included in this project. Refer to project memorandum for further discussion. 9 Box Springs-River Crest Dr., City of RiversideMP 7.00 002X-7.0 909090S 4-No. 9 1. Install 72 T.F. concrete crossing panels. 2. Bring medians to standard height and width. Extend medians to the intersections of River Crest Drive with Box Springs Boulevard and Fischer Road. 3. Existing No. 9 gates to remain. 4. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection. 5. Install Access Control Gates. 1. Coordinate with MOW proposed along Fischer Road.
Table 1.0 Grade Crossing Enhancements (continued) PVL – San Jacinto Branch Line C-3 No. LOCATION MILEPOST CPUC No. DOT No. EXISTING DEVICE TYPE Crossing Design ADDITIONAL NOTES and ACTION 10 San Jacinto Ave., City of Perris MP 18.05 002X-18.0 027338N 1-R 1. Install two standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. Install 80 T.F. concrete grade crossing panels on new track and remove existing track and panels. 3. Install raised medians 4. Modify sidewalk to accommodate warning devices and pedestrian channelization with full pedestrian treatment since adjacent to station and senior center. 5. Interconnect with traffic signal at D Street intersection for railroad preemption of traffic signal (planned project). 6. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection 7. Install Access Control Gates 8. Revised profile as necessary to smooth “hump” crossing. AECOM lowered profile and is coordinating with JLP 2/2/09 1. City long range plan shows San Jacinto as E/W through route and significantly widen. City’s plans for D and San Jacinto are not clear. West of crossing, San Jacinto ends at C Street. 2. Widening is not proposed by this project. 3. Meet and Coordinate with City of Perris regarding other private engineer traffic signal at D St. and railroad active warning devices. 11 W. 2nd. St.., City of Perris MP 18.20 002X-18.2 027339V 1-R 1. Crossing closed by City of Perris prior to project. NOTE: Road closure is required; street bisects the proposed station platform. 12 W. 4th St. (SR 74) City of Perris MP 18.34 002X-18.3 027340P 2-No. 9A 1. Extend medians and reconstruct to SCRRA standard height and width. 2. Traffic Study needed to confirm signalization and interconnect design at South C and 4th Streets. 3. Relocate crossing gates 4. Install approximately 80 T.F. concrete grade crossing for new track and remove existing track and crossing panels. 5. Modify sidewalk to accommodate pedestrians and devices. 6. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection on south side of crossing. 7. Install Access Control Gates on south side of crossing 8. Pedestrian crossing signals, gates and swing gates since near Station. 1. No additional lanes required. Some shift of lanes to create space for medians. 2. Future OERM track is to be located west of new mainline. Moving median gates west of PVL tracks will reduce the length of the left turn pocket from westbound 4th, south to C Street to an in effective and essentially unusable length. When the OERM track is installed, this movement should be prohibited as a pocket cannot be provided. Because the terrain is generally level, the street profile would not be changed. 13 W. 5th St., City of Perris MP 18.42 002X-18.4 027341W 1-R This crossing was closed by the City. The abandoned 5th St. will be incorporated into the future station parking lot/facility. 1. Fencing along RR ROW both sides of current crossing. 1. Street closed - no crossing. Official street closure process is necessary. 14 W. 6th St., City of Perris MP19.03 002X-19.0 027342D 1-R Revised per Meeting with City 6/25/08: 6Th St. is to be closed according the City’s Downtown General Plan. The abandoned street would be incorporated into the Downtown Perris Station facilities. 1. Fencing along RR ROW both sides of current crossing. 2. Construct cul-de-sac on east side since access to back of adjacent buildings is still required. 3. On west side, block off the road near C Street but must allow access to one driveway.
Table 1.0 Grade Crossing Enhancements (continued) PVL – San Jacinto Branch Line C-4 No. LOCATION MILEPOST CPUC No. DOT No. EXISTING DEVICE TYPE Crossing Design ADDITIONAL NOTES and ACTION 15 W. 7th St., City of Perris MP 19.10 002X-19.1 027343K 1-R The crossing at 7th St. to be upgraded in conjunction with the closures of 5th and 6th streets. If 7th Street remains one lane in each direction, crossing improvements will be: 1. Install 2 (two) standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. Install raised medians at least 100 feet in length. 3. Install 56 T.F. concrete grade crossing panels for new track and extend existing panels as needed. 4. Reprofile 7th Street to match track profile including super elevation at crossing. 1. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to all the way from 7th Street to 4th Street on both sides of track. 5. Install Access Control Gates. 1. No street widening. 2. Provide sidewalk on north side 3. Pedestrian swing gates per SCRRA decision tree. There is not a point in the decision tree which requires pedestrian gates. It would be consist with other crossing in downtown Perris, which all have pedestrian gates in addition to swing gates. To be conservative, PRE has included pedestrian gates in their costs. 4. Future OERM track is to be located west of new mainline. Moving median gates west of PVL can be accomplished at the time the track is installed. Because the terrain is generally level, the street profile would not be changed. 16 South D St., City of Perris MP 19.17 002X-19.2 027347M 1-R 1. Install two standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. Install raised medians at least 100 feet in length. 3. Install 64 T.F. concrete grade crossing panels for new track. 4. Reprofile South D Street to match track profile including superelevation at crossing (7 degree curve). 2. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing all the way from D Street to 7th Street on both sides of track. 5. Install Access Control Gates. 1. Install sidewalk on south side with pedestrian crossing. 2. Pedestrian gates per SCRRA decision tree since a medical facility is located at Commercial Street and D street and a wheel chair was observed in the site visit. 17 S. Perris St, City of Perris MP 19.37 002X-19.4 027348U 1-R 3. Install two standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 4. Install 80 T.F. concrete grade crossing panel 5. Raise power line (RR East). 6. State Street - Original recommendation was to close State Street and construct cul-de–sac. In lieu of this, it is proposed to construct directional raised median in conjunction with center raised median such that southbound traffic would be limited to right turns in and out. This would eliminate conflicts and queuing at the approach to the crossing without terminating State Street in a cul-de-sac. 7. Fencing along RR ROW from crossing to 100’ from intersection south and all the way from S. Perris to D Street on both sides of track. 8. Install Access Control Gates. 9. Install raised medians at least 100 feet in length. 1. Maintain existing street widths except where required for crossing design and turning movements. 2. Construct additional sidewalk for pedestrian crossing on north side. Pedestrian gates per SCRRA decision tree as this is on an indentified school route. 3. Widen right turn area from Case Road to NB South Perris Street. Raised median restricts turn radius so must compensate with widening.
Table 1.0 Grade Crossing Enhancements (continued) PVL – San Jacinto Branch Line C-5 No. LOCATION MILEPOST CPUC No. DOT No. EXISTING DEVICE TYPE Crossing Design ADDITIONAL NOTES and ACTION 18 G St., City of Perris MP 19.68 002X-19.7 027349B 1-R 1. PROHIBIT left turns from southbound Case Road to G Street as this cannot be properly gated to prevent vehicles from entering track way and provide required turning clearances for large vehicles such as tractor trailers. Signage and raised median islands will physically prevent this movement. 2. Block off west side of Case where unpaved road enters intersection. 3. Install two standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 4. Install approximately 80 T.F. concrete grade crossing panels. 5. Modify grade crossing profile to eliminate hump and provide track drainage. 6. Widen roadway at crossing (for median and to meet existing pavement on north side LJM 2/2/09). 7. Install traffic signal at the adjacent intersection with Case Road and interconnect with railroad signal system. 8. A right turn pocket is needed on Case Road so that when the gates are down, traffic on Case Road may flow freely and not be blocked by a right turn vehicles. FEMA OK, but south half of G St. is in the 100 year flood plain 1. Lower track 4 inches to meet AASHTO guidelines to remove “hump” crossing. Revised lowering to 4”. ( LJM 2/2/09) a. Exist track at centerline G St, is 1425.3 i. 1425.3 – 30 inches = 1422.8 ii. 100 yr flood surface = 1422 which is below bottom of ballast = OK Update 11/16/09 RECOMMEND PERPENDICULAR CROSSING. Realignment of G Street to create perpendicular crossing is feasible since City owns additional ROW adjacent to RCTC ROW. A corner of a vacant parcel may also be required for new T roadway. This design would allow all turn movement to and from G Street. 19 East Ellis Ave, City of Perris MP 19.87 002X-19.9 027350V 1-R 1. PROHIBIT left turns from East Ellis to southbound Case Road as this cannot be properly gated to prevent vehicles from entering track way and provide required turning clearances for large vehicles such as tractor trailers. Signage and raised median islands will physically prevent this movement. 2. Block off west side of Case where unpaved road enters intersection. 3. Install two standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 4. Widen Case Road and East Ellis Avenue to accommodate raised median and truck turning radii. This results in significant widening of the Ellis across the RR to allow for trucks to make a right turn from Case Road to Ellis Avenue. 5. Construct 100’ raised median on east side of crossing. 6. Construct raised channelization islands on west side of crossing. 7. Close off access from future Ellis Avenue on west side of Case Road as it is currently an unpaved street and access is available from Goetz Road. 8. Install traffic signal with pre-emption at Case Road and East Ellis Avenue as required for operation of rail gates. FEMA Top of existing rail = 1418 100 year flood surface = 1422 50 “ “ = 1419 10 “ “ = 1417 Coordinate with JLP on track elevation at crossing Realignment of Ellis Avenue to create perpendicular crossing is not feasible without ROW acquisition therefore maintain existing angle. Future plans for widening should address skew angle and incorporate changes to alignment of Ellis Avenue at Case Road to create a perpendicular crossing. Update 11/16/09 RECOMMEND CLOSURE. City’s General Plan calls for Ellis to be a truck route to I-215 with 6 lanes. At that time, the crossing design must address increasing number of through lanes on both Ellis and Case, turning movements of large trucks and angle of crossing. Current use of Ellis is limited to a 3 industrial businesses which can be accessed via Redlands. 20 - A Relocated Mapes Rd., City of Perris New Crossing Location N/A 1. Design new crossing for Mapes adjacent to South Perris Station 2. Provide 4-#9 crossing gates for vehicular traffic 3. Provide pedestrian gates on station side only, no sidewalks on other side therefore no pedestrian treatments. Update 11/16/09 RECOMMEND NO IMPROVEMENTS. Layover facility was redesign so that no trains in service or accessing layover cross Mapes Road.
Table 1.0 Grade Crossing Enhancements (continued) PVL – San Jacinto Branch Line C-6 No. LOCATION MILEPOST CPUC No. DOT No. EXISTING DEVICE TYPE Crossing Design ADDITIONAL NOTES and ACTION 20 - B Mapes Rd. City of Perris Original Location MP 21.59 002X-21.6 027352J 2-No. 8 1. Install two standard No. 9 gates and flashing signal devices. 2. Install 96 T.F. concrete grade crossing panel 3. Install raised medians at least 100 feet long. 4. Widen roadway to the south and improve curb return at the Case Road intersection. City of Perris proposes Mapes Rd improvements in conjunction with anticipated private development. 5. Install traffic signal at the intersection of Mapes and Case Road and interconnect with railroad signaling.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Supporting Documentation for the LESA Model Calculations
For the purposes of the calculations contained in this document, agricultural resources identified
within the PVL project area are based on the designations provided by the Riverside County
Land Information System (RCLIS) (2009) and the California Department of Conservation’s
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (2006). Table 1 summarizes these
designations for all 2012 Opening Year project components.
Table 1
Farmland Designations of the PVL Project Components
Project Location Farmland Designation Acres
BNSF ROW
(between Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station
and the western extent of the Citrus Connection)
Urban and built up 48.48
SJBL ROW
(between the eastern extent of the Citrus
Connection and the Layover Facility)
Urban and built up 350.10
Citrus Connection Farmland of Local Importance 17.23
Hunter Park Station – Palmyrita Avenue Option Prime Farmland 24.80
Hunter Park Station – Columbia Avenue Option Prime Farmland 9.26
Hunter Park Station – Marlborough Avenue
Option
Prime Farmland and
Farmland of Local Importance 9.38
Moreno Valley / March Field Station Farmland of Local Importance 14.50
Downtown Perris Station Urban and built up 12.44
South Perris Station and Layover Facility Farmland of Local Importance 64.37
Implementation of the proposed PVL project would include four proposed stations for the 2012
Opening Year. Three of the proposed Opening Year stations have been finalized, and include
Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris, and South Perris. The fourth proposed Hunter
Park Station would be located at one of three locations: Palmyrita Avenue, Columbia Avenue,
or Marlborough Avenue. Each of the Hunter Park Station options forms the basis of three
corridor “alternatives” evaluated herein. Each alternative includes the same general
components: the existing BNSF ROW, the existing SJBL ROW, the proposed Citrus
Connection, the three proposed Opening Year stations, and the Layover Facility, and is varied
solely by the selected Hunter Park option. The Corridor A alternative includes Palmyrita Avenue,
Corridor B comprises Columbia Avenue, and Corridor C contains the Marlborough Avenue
option.
To evaluate the conversion of farmland resulting from the project, the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was used to analyze the significance of
the impacts. The LESA Model is based on land evaluation and site assessment factors, as
described below.
D-1
Land Evaluation
The land evaluation component of the LESA Model includes two factors to assess soil
suitability: the Land Capability Classification (LCC) and the Storie Index. The LCC rates the
suitability of soils for most kinds of crops, while the Storie Index rates the relative degree of
suitability for intensive agriculture (LESA, 1997). Typically, Certified Professional Soil Scientists
are used to derive Storie Index information. Due to resource limitations, however, the
calculations contained herein rely solely upon the LCC rating system, which is allowed under
the LESA Model (LESA, 1997). To rate soil suitability without the Storie Index, the LCC rating is
weighted more heavily and accounts for 50 percent of the total LESA calculation.
To derive the LCC for the PVL project, the soil mapping units of each parcel containing Prime
Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance were identified using the USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Tables 2A – 2C present the acreages of each
soil unit, each unit’s land capability classification, and the proportion of each unit that comprises
each of the three corridor alternatives.
Table 2A
Soil Mapping Units – Corridor A Alternative
Location Unit LCC
Class
LESA
Points Acreage Project
Proportion*
LCC
Score
Citrus
Connection
HcC - Hanford coarse
sandy loam 2e 90 17.23 0.032 2.88
HcC – Hanford coarse
sandy loam 2e 90 5.28 0.009 0.81 Palmyrita
Avenue
Option GyC2 – Greenfield
sandy loam 2e 90 19.52 0.036 3.24
MmB – Monserate
sandy loam, 0-5% slope 3e 70 10.59 0.019 1.33
MmC2 – Monserate
sandy loam, 5-8% slope 3e 70 2.79 0.005 0.35 Moreno Valley
/ March Field
Station MmD2 – Monserate
sandy loam, 8-15%
slope
4e 50 1.12 0.002 0.10
MaA – Madera fine
sandy loam 3s 60 10.79 0.02 1.20
Wn – Willows silty clay,
strongly saline-alkali 4w 40 20.69 0.038 1.52
Wg – Willows silty clay,
saline-alkali 3w 60 23.56 0.044 2.64
South Perris
Station /
Layover
Facility
Dw – Domino silt loam 4w 40 9.33 0.017 0.68
Total LCC score = 14.75
* Acreage of soil mapping unit divided by the acreage of Corridor A (approximately 531.92 acres, which
encompasses the BNSF ROW, the SJBL ROW, the Citrus Connection, the Palmyrita Station, Moreno Valley/March
Field Station, Downtown Perris Station, and the South Perris Station and Layover Facility).
D-2
Table 2B
Soil Mapping Units – Corridor B Alternative
Location Unit LCC
Class
LESA
Points Acreage Project
Proportion*
LCC
Score
Citrus
Connection
HcC - Hanford coarse
sandy loam 2e 90 17.23 0.033 2.97
GyC2 – Greenfield
sandy loam 2e 90 4.16 0.008 0.72
AoC – Arlington fine
sandy loam 2e 90 4.96 0.009 0.81
Columbia
Avenue
Option
BuC2 – Buren fine
sandy loam 3e 70 0.14 0.0002 0.01
MmB – Monserate
sandy loam, 0-5%
slope
3e 70 10.59 0.02 1.40
MmC2 – Monserate
sandy loam, 5-8% slope 3e 70 2.79 0.005 0.35
Moreno
Valley /
March Field
Station MmD2 – Monserate
sandy loam, 8-15%
slope
4e 50 1.12 0.002 0.10
MaA – Madera fine
sandy loam 3s 60 10.79 0.02 1.20
Wn – Willows silty clay,
strongly saline-alkali 4w 40 20.69 0.04 1.60
Wg – Willows silty clay,
saline-alkali 3w 60 23.56 0.04 2.40
South Perris
Station /
Layover
Facility
Dw – Domino silt loam 4w 40 9.33 0.01 0.40
Total LCC score = 11.96
* Acreage of soil mapping unit divided by the acreage of Corridor B (approximately 516.38 acres, which
encompasses the BNSF ROW, the SJBL ROW, the Citrus Connection, the Columbia Station, Moreno Valley/March
Field Station, Downtown Perris Station, and the South Perris Station and Layover Facility).
D-3
Table 2C
Soil Mapping Units – Corridor C Alternative
Location Unit LCC
Class
LESA
Points Acreage Project
Proportion*
LCC
Score
Citrus
Connection
HcC - Hanford coarse
sandy loam 2e 90 17.23 0.033 2.97
AoC – Arlington fine
sandy loam 2e 90 9.25 0.017 1.53 Marlborough
Avenue
Option CkF2 – Cieneba rocky
sandy loam 7e 10 0.13 0.0002 0.002
MmB – Monserate
sandy loam, 0-5%
slope
3e 70 10.59 0.02 1.40
MmC2 – Monserate
sandy loam, 5-8%
slope
3e 70 2.79 0.005 0.35
Moreno Valley /
March Field
Station
MmD2 – Monserate
sandy loam, 8-15%
slope
4e 50 1.12 0.002 0.10
MaA – Madera fine
sandy loam 3s 60 10.79 0.02 1.20
Wn – Willows silty
clay, strongly saline-
alkali
4w 40 20.69 0.04 1.60
Wg – Willows silty
clay, saline-alkali 3w 60 23.56 0.04 2.40
South Perris
Station /
Layover
Facility
Dw – Domino silt loam 4w 40 9.33 0.01 0.40
Total LCC score = 11.95
* Acreage of soil mapping unit divided by the acreage of Corridor C (approximately 516.50 acres, which
encompasses the BNSF ROW, the SJBL ROW, the Citrus Connection, the Marlborough Station, Moreno
Valley/March Field Station, Downtown Perris Station, and the South Perris Station and Layover Facility).
Each LCC is assigned a LESA point rating, which is multiplied by the proportion of each soil
mapping unit to obtain the LCC score for each unit. The total LCC score for each corridor
alternative is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Summary of LCC Scores
Corridor Alternative LCC Score
Corridor A (Palmyrita Avenue Option) 14.75
Corridor B (Columbia Avenue Option) 11.96
Corridor C (Marlborough Avenue Option)11.95
D-4
Site Assessment
The second part of the LESA Model involves site assessment, which is evaluated using four
separate factors. These include: (1) Project Size; (2) Water Resources Availability; (3)
Surrounding Agricultural Land; and (4) Surrounding Protected Resource Land. Each factor is
described briefly and analyzed below.
Project Size
According to the LESA Model, the size of a project is included to account for the role of high
quality soils in crop flexibility and economic return per unit acre. The project size rating is
derived from the soil information presented in Tables 2A – 2C. The acreage of each soil
mapping unit and the corresponding LCC rating are divided by class and summed to derive an
overall acreage for each class. These acreages are then assigned a project size score
established by the LESA Model. The highest score derived for the LCC classes becomes the
project size score. Tables 4A – 4C summarize the calculations.
Table 4A
Project Size Rating – Corridor A
LCC Class 1 – 2 LCC Class 3 LCC Class 4 – 8
17.23 10.59 1.12
5.28 2.79 20.69
19.52 10.79 9.33
--- 23.56 ---
42.03 (Total Acres) 47.73 (Total Acres) 31.14 (Total Acres)
Project Size Scores 80 60 0
Table 4B
Project Size Rating – Corridor B
LCC Class 1 – 2 LCC Class 3 LCC Class 4 – 8
17.23 0.14 1.12
4.16 10.59 20.69
4.96 2.79 9.33
--- 10.79 ---
--- 23.56 ---
26.35 (Total Acres) 47.87 (Total Acres) 31.14 (Total Acres)
Project Size Scores 50 60 0
D-5
Table 4C
Project Size Rating – Corridor C
LCC Class 1 – 2 LCC Class 3 LCC Class 4 – 8
17.23 10.59 0.13
9.25 2.79 1.12
--- 10.79 20.69
--- 23.56 9.33
26.48 (Total Acres) 47.73 (Total Acres) 31.27 (Total Acres)
Project Size Scores 50 60 0
Table 5
Summary of Project Size Scores
Corridor Alternative Project Size Score
Corridor A (Palmyrita Avenue Option) 80
Corridor B (Columbia Avenue Option) 60
Corridor C (Marlborough Avenue Option) 60
Water Resources Availability
The Water Resources Availability rating considers a number of factors, including water
reliability, physical and economic restrictions related to cost, and the drought cycle in California.
Without readily available water resources information, a conservative approach was taken for
evaluating the various sources of water that may supply each of the parcels. It was assumed
that some water would be available through irrigation facilities while other sources of water
could include riparian areas such as Springbrook Wash or the San Jacinto River. Both sources
were assumed to be feasible and without economic or physical restrictions. These assumptions
yield a factor rating of 50 (out of a possible 100 points) for each corridor alternative.
Surrounding Agricultural Land
The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is based on a “Zone of Influence” (ZOI) developed for
each project component containing farmland. The LESA Model defines the ZOI as “land near a
given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to
influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site.” Depending
on the shape of a given parcel, the ZOI represents approximately a one-quarter-mile to one-
half- mile buffer around each parcel. GoogleEarth (2009) aerials were used to estimate whether
surrounding areas appear to be in use as agricultural lands. Table 6 presents the results of the
calculations.
D-6
Table 6
Surrounding Agricultural Land
Location Acres of Agricultural
Land in ZOI
Acres in
ZOI % in ZOI LESA
Score
Citrus Connection 72.39 424.06 17.07 0
Palmyrita Avenue Option 18.60 347.01 5.36 0
Columbia Avenue Option 34.14 329.97 10.34 0
Marlborough Avenue Option 34.06 375.25 9.07 0
Moreno Valley / March Field Station 0 505.72 0 0
South Perris Station / Layover Facility 622.02 1101.03 56.49 40
Because all of the corridor alternatives include the South Perris Station and Layover Facility,
and this is the only project component that adjoins enough agricultural land to generate an
individual LESA score, each corridor alternative is assigned a score of 40 for the Surrounding
Agricultural Land site assessment factor.
Surrounding Protected Resource Land
Surrounding Protected Resource Land includes land with long-term use restrictions that are
compatible with agricultural uses. These include: (1) Williamson Act; (2) publicly owned lands
maintained as park, forest, or watershed; or (3) lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open
space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or
industrial uses. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land rating is derived using the same
ZOI strategy as the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating and is scored in the same way.
Table 7 presents the results.
Table 7
Surrounding Protected Resource Land
Location Acres of Protected
Resource Land in ZOI
Acres
in ZOI % in ZOI LESA
Score
Citrus Connection 22.96 424.06 5.41 0
Palmyrita Avenue Option 0 347.01 0 0
Columbia Avenue Option 33.98 329.97 10.29 0
Marlborough Avenue Option 99.14 375.25 26.41 0
Moreno Valley / March Field Station 128.97 505.72 25.50 0
South Perris Station / Layover Facility 135.39 1101.03 12.29 0
Because all of the project components are assigned an individual LESA score of “0,” each
corridor alternative is also given a score of “0” for the Surrounding Protected Resource Land site
assessment factor.
D-7
Table 8 presents the land evaluation and site assessment factors, individual factor weights, and
the final LESA scoring for each of the corridor alternatives.
Table 8
Final LESA Scoresheet
Factor Name Factor Rating
(0 – 100 Points) X
Factor
Weighting
(Total = 1.00
per corridor)
= Weighted
Factor Rating
LAND EVALUATION
Corridor A (Palmyrita) 14.75 X 0.50 = 7.37
Corridor B (Columbia) 11.96 X 0.50 = 5.98
Corridor C (Marlborough) 11.95 X 0.50 = 5.97
SITE ASSESSMENT
Project Size
Corridor A (Palmyrita) 80 X 0.15 = 12
Corridor B (Columbia) 60 X 0.15 = 9
Corridor C (Marlborough) 60 X 0.15 = 9
Water Resource Availability
Corridor A (Palmyrita) 50 X 0.15 = 7.5
Corridor B (Columbia) 50 X 0.15 = 7.5
Corridor C (Marlborough) 50 X 0.15 = 7.5
Surrounding Agricultural Land
Corridor A (Palmyrita) 40 X 0.15 = 6
Corridor B (Columbia) 40 X 0.15 = 6
Corridor C (Marlborough) 40 X 0.15 = 6
Protected Resource Land
Corridor A (Palmyrita) 0 X 0.05 = 0
Corridor B (Columbia) 0 X 0.05 = 0
Corridor C (Marlborough) 0 X 0.05 = 0
Total LESA Score (sum of weighted factor ratings) = 32.87 Corridor A (Palmyrita)
28.48 Corridor B (Columbia)
28.47 Corridor C (Marlborough)
D-8
D-9
Determinations of significance under CEQA are based on scoring thresholds, which consider
the total LESA score and the compiled land evaluation and site assessment subscores. Table 9
presents the overall LESA Model Scoring Thresholds (LESA 1997:31).
Table 9
LESA Model Scoring Thresholds
Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant
40 to 59 Points
Considered Significant only if land evaluation and
site assessment subscores are each greater than
or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either land evaluation or
site assessment subscore is less than 20 points
80 to 100 Points Considered Significant
As shown in Table 8, the total LESA score for all three corridor alternatives is less than 39
points. In addition, the land evaluation and site assessment subscores for each corridor
alternative are less than 20 points, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed PVL project,
regardless of which Hunter Park Station option is selected, will not have a significant effect on
agricultural resources.
References
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model, 1997. California
Department of Conservation, Sacramento.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2006. State of California Department of
Conservation. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx
Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS), 2009. County of Riverside Transportation
and Land Management Agency Geographic Information Services.
http://www3.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html
Agency Communication Log
For the preparation of this EIR an analysis of indirect and cumulative effects were evaluated.
Inclusion in this evaluation were interviews with County and City planning agencies for the
purpose of identifying potential impacts that may be foreseen related to the PVL and the
County/City planning context. All agencies indicated that the PVL was anticipated and
accommodated within their planning efforts, including Specific Area Plans.
Projects were identified, which would also be constructed or in place for the PVL’s opening year
of 2012. Planned developments and roadway projects that would be completed by 2012 within
the study area were evaluated for their potential, along with the PVL, to contribute to indirect
and cumulative effects to the environment.
Following is the planning Agency Communication Log, listing individuals who were contacted for
interviews in the preparation of this EIR:
Diane Jenkins, Principal Planner
City or Riverside Planning Division
6-23-2009
John Terrell, Planning Official
City of Moreno Valley
6-23-2009
Mitra Mehta-Cooper, Principal Planner – Strategic Programs
Riverside County Planning Department
6-23-2009
Brad Eckhart, Planning Manager
March Joint Powers Authority
6-25-2009
Rick Bishop, Executive Director
Western Riverside Council of Governments
6-29-2009
E-1
SAN JACINTO BRANCHLINE/I-215 CORRIDOR STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FINAL REPORT – MAY, 2004
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ES-1 STV Incorporated
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ES-1 STV Incorporated
INTRODUCTION
The San Jacinto Branchline (SJBL) / I-215 Corridor Study is being sponsored by the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC is Riverside County’s
primary transportation agency charged by state law with the responsibility of planning
and funding transportation improvements. The SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study was
undertaken to examine possible solutions to the reduced mobility of residents in western
Riverside County resulting from increasing levels of highway congestion. This study
represents the Alternatives Analysis (AA) component of an overall project development
process. AA is the process for reaching a broad consensus on exactly what type of
improvement(s) best meet locally defined goals and objectives for a specified study
area. Contained in another document, but also an important component of this study, is
an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the transportation alternatives reviewed. An EA
examines and documents the expected environmental impacts (e.g. natural resources,
wetlands, land use) of the proposed transportation alternatives for the defined study
area and details any necessary mitigations. The procedures followed by the SJBL / I-
215 Corridor Study ensures that this report ultimately advocates a transportation
solution that is accepted by the general public, will be adopted into plans and budgets
by the RCTC and the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and is
compliant with local, state, and federal guidelines and procedures.
The study area for this project is a transportation corridor located in western Riverside
County, part of the Inland Empire region of Southern California. The corridor extends
approximately 19 miles southeast from the city of Riverside toward the cities of Perris
and Romoland. The central transportation facilities in this corridor include a lightly used
rail freight line, the SJBL, and I-215, a limited access freeway. Both the SJBL and I-215
run approximately parallel to one another for the length of the corridor. This study
corridor is depicted in Exhibit 1.
BACKGROUND
Riverside County has a current population of over 1.7 million residents, with the vast
majority living in the western portion of the county. Following decades of explosive
population growth, by 2025 the population of Riverside County is projected to grow to 3
million. The region’s existing freeway facilities have not been able to accommodate the
growing trip volumes without experiencing extensive congestion, thus new
transportation alternatives will be needed to accommodate the future growth.
Currently, the major transportation facilities in the corridor, I-215 and SR60, are
experiencing unsatisfactory levels of service, a measure based on factors such as travel
times and speed, and evidenced by increasingly poor volume/capacity (V/C) ratios.
These facilities are forecasted to continue with unsatisfactory levels of service even with
programmed roadway improvements over the coming years, including additional lanes
and the implementation of HOV lanes. With most major highways in the corridor having
limited expansion potential, this study proposes public transit investments to
accommodate current and future mobility needs.
Exhibit 1: Study Area Map
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ES-3 STV Incorporated
Transit operators in the corridor include the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). RTA provides bus service to
western Riverside County, while SCRRA operates Metrolink commuter rail services
throughout the Southern California Region. Three Metrolink routes serve the city of
Riverside, operating on track owned by the region’s two predominate railroad
companies, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Union Pacific. The entire
length of the SJBL, however, was purchased by RCTC from the predecessors of the
BNSF in 1993. This presents a valuable opportunity to utilize the SJBL for an extension
of the existing commuter rail service into the study corridor, and the build alternatives
documented in this report investigate variations of this concept.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The SJBL / I-215 corridor is in need of an improved transportation system independent
of the ever growing and increasingly congested roadway system. The needs of the SJBL
/ I-215 corridor were developed through outreach to the public, affected communities,
stakeholders and concerned individuals. The needs identified are listed below:
The Need to Reduce Roadway Congestion
The Need to Provide Transit Travel Options to Growing Population and
Employment
The Need to Coordinate Transportation Planning and Community Development
The Need to Explore Under-Utilized Transportation Resources
A set of goals and objectives has also been developed based upon these needs.
Defining the project’s goals and objectives is a key step in determining what is
specifically desired from the project investment. The goals and objectives succinctly
define the purpose for the project and how the transportation needs will be satisfied.
The goals of the SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study are to:
Improve the Transportation System with Alternative Travel Choices
Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development
Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts
Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently
TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
Five alternatives were proposed, including a ‘No Build’, Transportation System
Management (TSM), and three build scenarios. The No Build Alternative is used to
illustrate conditions throughout the length of this study (present-2025) if no
transportation improvements relating to this study are made. Programmed
improvements for the corridor include the addition of HOV lanes along I-215 and SR 60.
The TSM Alternative consists of low-capital improvements to existing transit facilities and
services. The TSM alternative prepared for this study consists of an express bus service,
primarily on I-215, between Perris and Downtown Riverside. This alternative,
Alternative B, is proposed to have seven new passenger stations within the SJBL / I-
215 corridor and would provide access to two existing stations including the Downtown
Riverside Metrolink Station and the RTA Downtown Bus Terminal. Express bus service
would reach the Downtown Metrolink station during peak periods such that connections
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ES-4 STV Incorporated
to departing (AM), and arriving (PM) trains can be provided. Vehicles for express bus
service would be regular fixed route 40-foot buses or over-the-road coaches. As FTA
guidelines require a TSM to provide the basis of comparison to the higher cost, high
capital investment build alternatives, the express bus service represents the minimum
investment that could be made to address the study needs.
The study proposes three build alternatives, all of which consist of implementing
commuter rail service between south of Perris and downtown Riverside via the San
Jacinto Branchline right-of-way:
Alternative C – Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback
Alternative D – Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street
Alternative E – Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue
Each alternative represents an extension of the Metrolink 91 Line, currently providing
service from Riverside to Downtown Los Angeles via Fullerton. All alternatives propose
five intermediate stations between Riverside and Perris - South. The differences among
the three commuter rail alternatives include the various options to connect the SJBL to
the BNSF mainline for service to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. The initial
service, to be implemented in 2008, would operate three trains from Perris to Riverside
with continuing service to Los Angeles during the morning peak. In addition, two mid-
day, off-peak trains would operate daily, one in each direction. In the afternoon peak,
three trains would operate from Los Angeles to the city of Perris. The headways on the
new service would be approximately 50 to 60 minutes during the peak periods. For all
the alternatives, the new service will utilize additional bi-level commuter coaches and
acquired for the Metrolink fleet.
Alternative C proposes an alignment that follows existing track and uses the
connection to the BNSF at Highgrove. The existing connection would require trains to
reverse direction at Highgrove and would also require additional train movements on the
BNSF mainline into Riverside. The time needed to reverse the train, including a required
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) brake check, results in a significant delay. Also, it
is important to note that the agreement for train movements between RCTC and BNSF
does not allow for expansion, creating a constraint to adding more trains in future years
as demand for the service grows.
Alternative D proposes a new, curved connection track at Citrus Street between the
SJBL and the BNSF mainline, thus negating the need for a turnback operation at
Highgrove as required in Alternative C. This alternative would also utilize the BNSF
mainline to access the Downtown Riverside Station, but the option of building a new
track in the BNSF right-of-way could help to address the operating flexibility issues of
running trains on track not owned by RCTC.
Alternative E proposes a new connection track to the Union Pacific (UP) Riverside
Industrial Lead (RIL) for an approach to Riverside along Massachusetts Avenue. The
SJBL crosses this track approximately one mile south of Highgrove and the purchase of
the UP RIL alignment would provide direct access into the Downtown Riverside Station.
Detailed maps of Alternative E can be reviewed in Exhibit 2 - Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 2: Locally Preferred Alternative
Exhibit 3: Locally Preferred Alternative Approach to Riverside
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ES-7 STV Incorporated
RIDERSHIP AND COST FOR ALTERNATIVES
The patronage forecasting for this study was performed by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) utilizing the existing and approved SCAG regional
travel demand model. The forecast year coincides with the latest SCAG long-range plan,
which has a forecast year of 2025. The amount of riders each alternative is able to
attract is determined by a comparison between the travel time for the alternative and
the highway travel time between the same locations. The TSM / Express Bus alternative
operates on I-215 and is therefore subjected to increasing highway congestion
throughout the forecast years. Travel time for the commuter rail alternatives is
independent of increasing highway congestion and remains constant from
implementation until 2025. See Exhibit 4 for a comparison of travel time and ridership
for each alternative.
Exhibit 4: Alternative Travel Time and Ridership
2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025
Travel Time (Perris South-Riverside) 58 min. 98 min. 49 min. 49 min. 42 min. 42 min. 40 min. 40 min.
Daily Passenger Boardings 3,316 3,705 3,817 6,542 4,151 7,472 4,151 7,472
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
The operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the proposed alternatives and TSM
improvements were determined, along with the capital costs for construction and
upgrade of necessary facilities. The O&M costs for the TSM alternative (Alt. B), are
substantially less than the cost of the rail services in both 2010 and 2025. A large
reason for the lower costs is that there is no right of way to maintain since the express
bus operates on highways. It also carries significantly fewer riders as shown above,
which lowers its cost. Also, ridership growth for the TSM in 2025 in minimal, largely due
to longer travel times on the increasingly congested highways. The costs for the three
build alternatives are nearly identical because the alternatives differ only slightly in
terms of operation. These costs, as well as the capital costs are presented in Exhibit 5.
The total capital expenditure associated with Alternative B is estimated to be $19.3
million. Alternative C is the least costly rail option at $128.0 million due to its turn-back
operation at Highgrove and the assumption that no additional trackage would be
constructed along the BNSF right-of-way between Highgrove and Riverside. Alternative
D proposes a new connection to the BNSF and an additional track in the BNSF right-of-
way. The total capital cost for this alternative, including these improvements is $143.6
million. Alternative E has a capital cost of $145.3 million and includes the purchase of
the UP RIL and some property acquisitions needed for the connecting tracks. Since
RCTC owns the SJBL, no right-of-way costs for the alignment portions on the SJBL are
included in the capital cost estimate. Instead, the majority of capital costs for the
commuter rail improvements involve the upgrade and rehabilitation of the existing SJBL
track for higher speeds, smoother rides, and safer passenger operation.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ES-8 STV Incorporated
Exhibit 5: Alternative Costs
Costs in Thousands of Dollars 2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025 2010 2025
O&M Cost $4,252 $4,826 $6,548 $9,128 $6,381 $8,940 $6,059 $8,378
Capital Cost
Notes: O&M Costs increase from 2010 to 2025 with service increases to meet increased ridership.
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
$19,320 $128,010 $143,560 $145,280
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives were evaluated based upon criteria that measured the ability of each
transit solution to satisfy the goals of the study. A matrix was developed to score each
alternative and compare alternatives with one another, based upon the following
evaluation criteria:
Operational Issues
Railroad Access
Travel Time
Property Needs
Capital Costs
Operating Costs
Ridership
Environmental
Maximize Under-utilized Resources
Improve Travel Choices in the Corridor
For Alternative B, while the capital cost was considerably lower, the performance of the
alternative was deemed insufficient to meet the needs of commuters in the corridor.
This is especially true in light of an estimated increase of travel time from 58 minutes in
2010 to 98 minutes in 2025 due to increasing congestion levels on the major highways
and arterials used by the express bus service.
The evaluation of Alternative C revealed operational issues resulting from a significant
delay caused by the turnback movement in Highgrove. Also, the reliance on the BNSF
mainline tracks to approach Riverside is governed by an agreement that currently does
not permit sufficient commuter train movements to meet the passenger demand in the
outer years.
Operational issues for Alternative D were improved compared to Alternative C with the
elimination of the turnback movement. However, the potential for impacts with BNSF
freight operations still exist.
The evaluation of Alternative E revealed that despite being the most costly alternative,
the use of the RIL to provide direct access to the Downtown Riverside Station was an
important asset. Travel time for Alternative E was also the shortest, at 40 minutes
between Perris South and Riverside. The evaluation results indicate that Alternative E
provides the best opportunity to implement a quality transit alternative within the
corridor that serves the needs and goals of the study, and one that is not impeded by
either highway/roadway congestion or railroad access and operational issues.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ES-9 STV Incorporated
THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative E is recommended as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and will be
carried forward in the project development process, including the adoption of Alternative
E into the most current SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (MPO Long Range Plan). In
preparation to further refine Alternative E, a financial plan has been prepared to detail
the projected costs of implementation into the Rail Department budget at RCTC. The
estimates indicate that Alternative E can be supported by new and existing mix of
federal, state and local funding sources available to the Rail Department. New funds are
primarily anticipated to be available from the FTA, made specifically through grants for
eligible fixed guideway projects such as proposed by Alternative E. The stability of the
Measure A sales tax revenue for RCTC, with taxing authority for transportation projects
authorized through 2039, provides a consistent source of funds for capital projects.
Current debt associated with the initial Measure A authorization will be paid off in 2009,
and RCTC enjoys a very favorable bond rating. The financial analysis indicates that
RCTC has demonstrated the financial ability to construct and support the operational
costs of Alternative E without adverse impact on other agency programs or
commitments.
Public comment affirmed Alternative E as the LPA, and most comments were generally
positive, with residents eager for rail service to be introduced in the corridor. One
concern raised was that Alternative E did not provide direct service to Highgrove. It is
recommended that rail service to Highgrove be provided as a new station on the existing
Metrolink Inland Empire-Orange County Line, which currently travels through Highgrove.
Comments also indicated some concern over the use of the UP RIL, where a portion of
the alignment runs within a city street in Riverside. At this conceptual stage, however,
the discussions with the city indicate that they do not perceive this as infeasible. Safety
and access issues will be further analyzed in the next stage of Preliminary Engineering
(PE).
CONCLUSION
The Alternatives Analysis process documented in this report resulted in the selection of
Alternative E as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). This represents completion of
the first step towards the full implementation of the project. The next step is adoption
of Alternative E by the RCTC board and entering the project into the Regional Long
Range Transportation Plan. RCTC will also prepare and submit a request to the Federal
Transit Administration for Alternative E to enter into PE. By following the FTA process,
implementation of Alternative E will be eligible for federal dollars to construct the project
– with 50% of the capital investment cost of $145 million being requested. Upon
completion of PE, an updated New Starts Application will be resubmitted to the FTA with
a request to enter into Final Design and a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). It is at
this stage that the FTA will decide to support the project with their financial
commitment, while also giving approval for the final construction drawings to be
prepared. Implementation of Alternative E with Federal funds is dependent on the
rating received at this second submission of the application. With a FFGA, the final
design and construction phase is expected to take approximately four years and
commuter rail service on the SJBL would begin in early 2008
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study i STV Incorporated
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
2 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................... 3
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................3
2.2 STUDY BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3
2.3 STUDY PROCESS .......................................................................................................................4
2.4 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE .........................................................................................................8
2.5 STUDY AREA NEEDS ................................................................................................................ 13
2.6 STUDY GOALS ........................................................................................................................ 15
3 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 17
3.1 ALTERNATIVE A-NO BUILD ...................................................................................................... 17
3.2 ALTERNATIVE B–TSM/EXPRESS BUS ......................................................................................... 18
3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................... 21
4 RIDERSHIP....................................................................................................................... 38
4.1 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 38
4.2 SERVICE PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................... 38
4.3 PATRONAGE FORECASTING RESULTS ............................................................................................ 39
5 COSTS............................................................................................................................... 41
5.1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ......................................................................................... 41
5.2 CAPITAL COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 43
6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 47
6.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................... 47
6.2 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS....................................................................................................... 49
6.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 53
6.4 FINANCIAL PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 56
7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................... 58
7.1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE .............................................................................................. 58
7.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS................................................................................................................... 58
7.3 COORDINATION WITH INDIVIDUAL GROUPS .................................................................................... 60
8 NEXT STEPS...................................................................................................................... 62
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study ii STV Incorporated
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 :Study Area Map .................................................................................................... 6
Exhibit 2 : Study Process ......................................................................................................7
Exhibit 3 : Existing Highway and Railroad System................................................................... 9
Exhibit 4 : RTA Routes with service within the SJBL/I-215 Corridor ....................................... 10
Exhibit 5 : Metrolink System Map ........................................................................................ 12
Exhibit 6 : Redevelopment Zones in Riverside, CA................................................................ 15
Exhibit 7 : Alternative B – TSM/Express Bus Station Characteristics....................................... 19
Exhibit 8 : Alternative B – TSM / Express Bus - Overview Map............................................... 20
Exhibit 9 : Alternative C Station Characteristics .................................................................... 23
Exhibit 10 : Alternative C - Overview Map............................................................................ 24
Exhibit 11 : Alternative C - Approach to Riverside Station .................................................... 26
Exhibit 12 : Alternative D Station Characteristics .................................................................. 27
Exhibit 13 : Alternative D - Overview Map............................................................................ 28
Exhibit 14 : Alternative D – Citrus Street Connection ............................................................ 30
Exhibit 15 : Alternative D – Approach to Riverside Station..................................................... 31
Exhibit 16 : Alternative E Station Characteristics................................................................... 32
Exhibit 17 : Alternative E - Overview Map............................................................................ 33
Exhibit 18 : Alternative E – Rustin Avenue Connection.......................................................... 35
Exhibit 19 : Alternative E – Approach to Riverside Station..................................................... 36
Exhibit 20 : Service Diagrams ............................................................................................. 37
Exhibit 21 : TSM / Express Bus Travel Times (min)............................................................... 38
Exhibit 22 : Commuter Rail Alternatives Travel Time (minutes) ............................................. 39
Exhibit 23 : 2025 Regional Transit System Linked Trips and New Transit Trips....................... 40
Exhibit 24 : Weekday Boardings on New Investment............................................................ 40
Exhibit 25 : Boardings by Stations on New Investment......................................................... 40
Exhibit 26 : O&M Costs for 2010 Service.............................................................................. 42
Exhibit 27 : O&M Costs for 2025 Service.............................................................................. 43
Exhibit 28 : Annualization Categories and Factors................................................................. 44
Exhibit 29 : Capital Cost Estimation Results (2004 millions)................................................. 45
Exhibit 30 : Evaluation Matrix for Alternatives ..................................................................... 50
Exhibit 31 : Locally Preferred Alternative Overview Map....................................................... 54
Exhibit 32 : Locally Preferred Alternative Approach to Riverside ........................................... 55
Exhibit 33 : Summary of Public Meetings ............................................................................ 60
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study iii STV Incorporated
Appendices
APPENDIX A : GROWTH TRENDS
EXHIBIT A-1 : POPULATION GROWTH IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1960-2000
EXHIBIT A-2 : POPULATION GROWTH WITHIN THE CITIES OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
EXHIBIT A-3 : EMPLOYMENT GROWTH WITHIN THE CITIES OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
EXHIBIT A-4 : POPULATION GROWTH INDEX (1997-2025)
EXHIBIT A-5 : EMPLOYMENT GROWTH INDEX (1997-2025)
APPENDIX B : EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT B-1 : AM FREEWAY CONGESTION
EXHIBIT B-2 : PM FREEWAY CONGESTION
APPENDIX C : OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST BACK-UP
EXHIBIT C-1 : O&M COST CATEGORIES
EXHIBIT C-2 : OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 2008
EXHIBIT C-3 : OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 2025
APPENDIX D : CAPITAL COST BACK-UP
EXHIBIT D-1 : TSM CAPITAL COST RESULTS – 2003 DOLLARS
EXHIBIT D-2 : TSM ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS – 2003 DOLLARS
EXHIBIT D-3 : ALTERNATIVE C–CAPITAL COST RESULTS DETAIL – 2003 DOLLARS
EXHIBIT D-4 : ALTERNATIVE D–CAPITAL COST RESULTS DETAIL – 2003 DOLLARS
EXHIBIT D-5 : ALTERNATIVE E–CAPITAL COST RESULTS DETAIL – 2003 DOLLARS
EXHIBIT D-6 : ALTERNATIVE C–ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST RESULTS – 2003 DOLLARS
EXHIBIT D-7 : ALTERNATIVE D–ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST RESULTS – 2003 DOLLARS
EXHIBIT D-8 : ALTERNATIVE E–ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST RESULTS – 2003 DOLLARS
APPENDIX E : RIDERSHIP FORECASTS
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 1 STV Incorporated
1INTRODUCTION
The San Jacinto Branchline (SJBL) / I-215 Corridor Study is being sponsored by the Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC is Riverside County’s primary transportation
agency charged by state law with the responsibility of planning and funding transportation
improvements. RCTC holds the leadership role for improving mobility in Riverside County and
has a mission to maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation services. The governing
body consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected Mayor or
member of the City Council in each of the County’s 24 cities, and one non-voting member
appointed by the Governor. RCTC is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and
coordinating activities among the County’s various transportation operators and agencies.
RCTC also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state and local funds for highway,
transit, rail, non-motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian) and other transportation activities.
RCTC relies primarily upon revenues from a voter approved “Measure A” sales tax to fund a
variety of transportation programs. This revenue helps to fund large capital projects in the
county, such as freeway interchange reconstruction, addition of carpool lanes, and highway
widening. The agency also has programs that demonstrate a commitment to other
transportation modes. RCTC is a partner agency in the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRRA), which operates Metrolink commuter rail in Southern California, including
three lines that provide weekday service to Riverside County. Through the Commuter Rail
Program, RCTC has constructed a new station in Downtown Corona and is expanding parking
lots at the two stations within the city of Riverside in response to increasing ridership on the
commuter rail trains. RCTC provides paratransit and specialized transit services for senior
citizens and persons with disabilities. RCTC serves as the Congestion Management Agency
(CMA) for Riverside County. As the CMA, RCTC has developed a Congestion Management
Program that more effectively utilizes transportation funds by linking land use, transportation
and air quality efforts. RCTC administers the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE)
and Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) programs for Riverside County. These programs provide call
boxes along major transportation routes and provide commuter assistance and towing in case
of emergencies.
This study represents the concerted efforts of RCTC to fulfill its responsibilities, with a focus on
the SJBL / I-215 Corridor in western Riverside County, California. This report documents the
first steps of the study, with the outcome of identifying a new transportation investment for the
corridor. The report begins by demonstrating an understanding of the concerns of the public
regarding current transportation issues, while also documenting the condition of existing
transportation infrastructure, general demographics and regional trends. The report then
outlines the development and evaluation of possible transportation alternatives, proposed
solutions to the needs expressed by the local communities. This report formalizes the
collaborative process that will advance the most favorable alternative into engineering, final
design, and implementation. This effort represents completion of the initial phase of the
SJBL/I-215 Corridor Study.
The SJBL / I-215 corridor has been the focus of several studies over the past decade that has
examined transportation needs and solutions for the growing population and that address the
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 2 STV Incorporated
associated traffic congestion problems. The SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study was undertaken to
examine these issues through a comprehensive Alternatives Analysis (AA) process, as required
under state and federal planning rules and regulations. The goal of the AA is to identify
transportation and community related needs within the study area and develop transit solutions
to meet those needs. What differentiates this AA from previous studies in the corridor is that it
documents and follows a prescribed federal process. As a result, the proposed transportation
solution may then become eligible for a share of federal funding. At this stage of the study, the
candidate transportation solution will be defined as a Locally Preferred Alternative that can be
moved forward into the next phases of the project development process.
Another component of the SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study is the Environmental Assessment (EA).
This separate documentation effort occurs in tandem with the AA and describes the potential
impacts of implementing this project on the social, economic, physical, and natural
environments. The EA fulfills the environmental documentation requirements of the National
Environmental Protection Act, and in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation
guidelines, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures the, Federal Transit Administration
capital project development process, and state and local procedures.
All of the procedures followed by the SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study ensure that the outcome of
this project development process will be a transportation solution that is accepted by the
general public; adopted into plans and budgets by the RCTC and the regional Metropolitan
Planning Organization; and is compliant with local, state, and federal guidelines and procedures.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 3 STV Incorporated
2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The development of a purpose and need statement at the outset of the SJBL / I-215 Corridor
Study establishes the fundamental framework for project development. It identifies
transportation-related issues and problems in the corridor and thereby establishes the basic
mission to guide all subsequent analyses and investigations of potential improvements.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The focus of this study is on a transportation corridor located in the Inland Empire region of
Southern California. Situated approximately 70 miles east of Los Angeles, in western Riverside
County, the study corridor extends approximately 19 miles from the city of Riverside, north to
Highgrove and then southeasterly toward the cities of Perris and Romoland (See Exhibit 1).
The major transportation facility serving this corridor is I-215 , which runs from Perris to
Riverside in a north to northwesterly direction. The study corridor also includes the City of
Moreno Valley, with a population principally served by SR 60, which interchanges with I-215 in
this corridor. Two large institutions located in this corridor are the University of California,
Riverside (UCR), and the March Air Reserve Base, located halfway between Riverside and Perris.
Central to this corridor is a lightly used rail freight line, the San Jacinto Branchline, which runs
approximately parallel to I-215 for the length of this corridor.
Riverside County has a current population of over 1.7 million residents1, the vast majority living
in the western portion of the county. These three incorporated cities in the SJBL / I-215
Corridor include Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris. The three cities have a combined
population of just fewer than 500,000. The city of Riverside represents over half of this
population and is the 11th largest city in the state. Following decades of explosive population
growth (See Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2 in the Appendix Section of this report), by 2025 the
population of Riverside County is expected to grow to 3 million.
2.2 STUDY BACKGROUND
The region’s existing transportation facilities have not been able to accommodate the growing
trip volumes without experiencing extensive congestion. Several previous and ongoing studies
have addressed the need for improving transportation capacity and services in the study
corridor and overall region. These regional planning efforts were reviewed prior to the outset of
this study. As most major highways used by commuters to reach an abundance of jobs to the
west of this corridor, in Orange and Los Angeles Counties, have limited expansion potential,
many previous plans have investigated the potential for commuter rail transportation operating
along the SJBL track. The study team reviewed the following previous studies:
San Jacinto Branchline Commuter Rail Study, 1995
Perris Commuter Rail Extension Patronage Estimate, 2000
Southwest Riverside Short-Haul Rail-Transit Ridership Estimate, Preliminary Report, 2000
Union Pacific Riverside Branchline Improvement Study, 2000
1 California Department of Finance, 2003 E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 4 STV Incorporated
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): I-215 Improvements, California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans), 2001
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), 2001 to present
SCAG* 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
SCAG* 2001 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
*SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments
2.3 STUDY PROCESS
This study represents the Alternatives Analysis (AA) component of an overall project
development process. Adherence to this overall process is essential for major transportation
projects that are reviewed by the Federal government and rated for eligibility of Federal
funding. Oversight of the process is provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
Statewide & Metropolitan Planning guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The steps of this AA are pictured in Exhibit 2. An important component of this study includes
the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA is documented in a separate
report, to be reviewed in conjunction with the AA. More detailed descriptions of the AA and EA
components of the study process are provided below:
Alternatives Analysis – This component of the process is prescribed by federal and state
planning guidelines for identifying major transportation investments within a defined study area.
Consideration is given to the needs, costs, benefits, public input and available local and federal
financial resources for the project. Alternatives analysis can be viewed as a bridge between
systems planning at a metropolitan scale and Preliminary Engineering (PE). AA is the process
for reaching a broad consensus on exactly what type of improvement(s) best meet locally
defined goals and objectives for a specified corridor. A consensus is reached when a Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA) is selected through the public involvement process and adopted into
the financially constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the region. The MPO for this corridor is the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG).
Environmental Assessment – A component of the analysis process prescribed for
transportation projects by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the potential
effects of the proposed project on the environment. An EA examines and documents the
expected environmental impacts (e.g. natural resources, wetlands, land use) of the proposed
transportation alternatives for the defined study area and details any necessary mitigation. An
EA must be made available to the general public and following the public availability period and
receipt of comments on the EA, the next step is a determination of significance for any of the
identified impacts:
If, after completing the process, it is evident that there are no significant impacts associated
with the project, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) may be prepared.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 5 STV Incorporated
If, at any point in the process of preparing or processing an EA, it is discovered that the
project would result in any significant impacts to the environment, then an environmental
impact statement (EIS) must be prepared.
Exhibit 1: Study Area Map
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 7 STV Incorporated
Exhibit 2: Study Process
Public Involvement
Develop Purpose and Need
Explore Potential Alternatives
Define Alternatives
Estimate Capital & Operating Costs
Estimate Ridership
Evaluate Alternatives
Identify Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA)
Perform NEPA/CEQA Analysis
Identify Impacts & Mitigations
Public Involvement
Present LPA to Public
Adopt LPA in Long Range Plan
Enter New Start Process if
LPA is Major Transit Investment
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 8 STV Incorporated
In the state of California an additional statute titled the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) must be followed by local agencies proposing projects which have the potential to affect
existing environmental resources. CEQA was created in response to and in support of the 1969
NEPA statute and compliance with its guidelines is mandatory for all state and locally sponsored
projects. All relevant guidelines associated with this process: FTA New Starts regarding the AA
and NEPA/CEQA regarding environmental impacts, have been adhered to for the SJBL / I-215
Corridor Study in an integrated effort to ensure that all requirements are met for a successful
project outcome.
2.4 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Following the review of background studies and procedural requirements, an inventory of
existing transportation assets was made within the SJBL / I-215 corridor.
2.4.1 HIGHWAY
I-215 and SR 60 are two major limited access highways located within the study corridor, as
illustrated in Exhibit 3. These highways make important connections with other roads leading
out of the study corridor, namely SR 91 in the north and SR 74 in the south. Brief descriptions
of these highway facilities follow:
I-215 Expressway – The principal north-south roadway facility extending through the SJBL /
I-215 corridor. I-215 begins as a branch of I-15 (outside of the study area) in southern
Riverside County in the City of Murrieta. As I-215 proceeds north, through the cities of
Romoland, Perris, Moreno Valley, and Riverside, it eventually rejoins I-15 beyond San
Bernardino to the north of the study area. I-215 consists of three mixed-flow lanes in each
direction and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from Main Street to University Avenue in
Riverside. Between the East (interchange of SR 60 and I-215) and West Junctions (interchange
of SR 60/I-215 and SR 91), I-215 and SR 60 are a combined highway facility providing access
to travelers from the eastern and southern parts of Riverside County. This combined facility
also interchanges with SR 91 just north of Downtown Riverside.
State Route 60 – One of the two east-west highways connecting the city of Riverside to the
Los Angeles metropolitan area. This roadway facility begins near downtown Los Angeles,
crosses through central Los Angeles County and southwestern San Bernardino County, and
enters Riverside County just west of the I-15/SR-60 interchange in Mira Loma. From here, it
then travels through Rubidoux and into Riverside to the I-215/SR-60/SR-91 interchange (West
Junction) and proceeds to the I-215/SR-60 interchange (East Junction) where the route
diverges and continues east through Moreno Valley and to an interchange with I-10 east of the
city.
State Route 91 – This east-west roadway facility takes a more southern route than SR 60 and
connects Riverside to Orange County. In the west, SR 91 begins south of LA near Torrance,
passes through a major interchange with I-5 in Fullerton and then enters Riverside County at
Corona and continues until its terminus at the West Junction, north of downtown Riverside. SR
91 features HOV lanes and variable price toll lanes outside of the study limits in addition to
general travel lanes.
San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study
Existing Highway and Railroad System
Exhibit 3: Existing Highway and Railroad System
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 10 STV Incorporated
State Route 74 – Connects the city of Perris to Orange County to the west and connects
Perris to Hemet and San Jacinto to the east. Other than SR 91 in the north, SR 74 provides the
only other route west through the Santa Ana Mountains and connects to an interchange with I-
5 at San Juan Capistrano. SR 74 is not a limited access, high-speed facility.
2.4.2 TRANSIT
The study corridor includes two major transit providers, the Riverside Transit Authority and the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Brief descriptions of these services follow:
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) – RTA provides bus service to approximately 2,500 square
miles of Western Riverside County with a fleet of 96 buses and trolleys operating on 38 fixed
bus routes. Along with the city of Riverside, RTA provides service to Temecula, Murrieta, Lake
Elsinore, Sun City, Perris, San Jacinto, Mead Valley, Corona, Norco, Woodcrest, Moreno Valley,
Beaumont, Banning, Yucaipa, Pedley, Rubidoux, Loma Linda and Grand Terrace. RTA was
formed through a joint-powers agreement between the County of Riverside and the cities within
RTA’s service area, and is governed by an 18-member Board of Directors. The Board consists of
one representative from each city served by RTA, as well as one county supervisor from each
district RTA serves. RTA transports about 25,000 passengers each day, totaling more than 7.1
million passengers each year.
The following routes have been identified as providing service along the SJBL/I-215 corridor and
would provide connections to the transportation alternatives considered in this study:
Exhibit 4: RTA Routes with service within the SJBL/I-215 Corridor
RTA Route Service area:
Route 1 Downtown Riverside to Corona—Magnolia Ave/University/UCR
Route 10 Downtown Riverside to Galleria at Tyler (includes La Sierra)
Route 13 UCR to Galleria at Tyler
Route 16 Downtown Terminal to Moreno Valley City Hall—Riverside/Moreno Valley
Route 17 Moreno Valley City Hall to RCC-Campus-Moreno Valley—Moreno Valley
Route 19 Moreno Valley Mall to Perris to Sun City—Moreno Valley/Perris/Sun City
Route 20 Magnolia Center, RCR Med. Center, Moreno Valley Community Hospital
Route 22 Downtown Terminal to Graham & Langstaff-Lake Elsinore—Lake
Elsinore/Perris/Downtown Riverside
Route 25 Downtown Terminal to VA Hospital, Loma Linda—High Grove/Loma Linda
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 11 STV Incorporated
RTA Route Service area:
Route 27 Galleria at Tyler to Florida & Lincoln, Hemet —Riverside/Perris/Sun
City/Hemet
Route 30 Perris
Route 41 Mead Valley Community Center, Perris – Ramona Expressway (alt. route)
Route 49 Riverside to Country Village
Route 74 San Jacinto, Hemet, Sun City, Perris
Route 149 Riverside to Mall of Orange (Orange County)
Route 204 Riverside to Montclair Transcenter
Route 208 Temecula, Menifee, Sun City, Perris, Moreno Valley, Riverside
Source RTA: Effective Schedules January 18, 2004
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) / Metrolink – SCRRA is a joint
powers authority established in 1991 to plan, design, build and operate commuter rail service in
the Southern California Region. Metrolink is one of the fastest growing commuter rail systems
in the nation. The system has grown from three routes, 112 miles of track and daily ridership of
3,000 passengers to seven routes, 507 miles of track, and 34,000 weekday riders. Three routes
serve Riverside County and account for over 25 percent of the system patronage (See Exhibit 5
for a map of all Metrolink routes). While primarily used for peak period weekday travel,
Metrolink does provide some mid-day trains and limited weekend service. At all times, parking
is free at Metrolink stations in Riverside County. The Metrolink routes that provide service to
Riverside County include:
91 Line – This line officially began on May 6, 2002 with 9 trains per day and extends 61.6
miles connecting Riverside and Los Angeles Union Station. The alignment roughly follows
the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) through Riverside County on the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) San Bernardino Subdivision to Fullerton in Orange County, where it then
continues northwest to Los Angeles. Station stops include Riverside, La Sierra, North Main
Corona, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk, Commerce and LA Union Station.
Riverside Line – This line provides service between Riverside in Riverside County and Los
Angeles Union Station on the Union Pacific (UPRR) Riverside alignment with 12 trains per
day serving 7 stations over 58.7 route miles. This route roughly follows the Pomona
Freeway corridor (SR 60) and station stops include Riverside, Pedley, East Ontario,
Downtown Pomona, Industry, Montebello/Commerce and Los Angeles Union Station.
Inland Empire / Orange County Line – This line provides service between San
Bernardino in San Bernardino County and San Juan Capistrano in Orange County with 12
trains per day serving 14 stations over 70.9 route miles on the BNSF San Bernardino
Subdivision. Station stops include San Bernardino, Riverside, La Sierra, North Main Corona,
West Corona, Anaheim Canyon, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, Irvine, Mission Viejo, San Juan
Capistrano, San Clemente and Oceanside.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 12 STV Incorporated
San Bernardino Line – This line extends service to Riverside on weekends only. Nine
Saturday and six Sunday trains connect Riverside to Los Angeles via San Bernardino and
Upland on track owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the San
Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). The 56.2 mile line from San Bernardino
includes these 13 station stops: San Bernardino, Rialto, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga,
Upland, Montclair, Claremont, Pomona (North), Covina, Baldwin Park, El Monte, Cal. State
LA, and Los Angeles Union Station.
Exhibit 5: Metrolink System Map
Source: Metrolink
2.4.3 RAILROADS
The SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study area contains several active railroad facilities that currently
provide freight movements and services to local and regional customers. These facilities
include:
San Jacinto Branchline (SJBL) – The SJBL is a single-track railroad that extends
approximately 38 miles from Highgrove south to the city of Perris and then east to the San
Jacinto / Hemet area. This facility was formerly owned by the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 13 STV Incorporated
Railway Company (AT & SF) (now the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad-BNSF) until it was
purchased by RCTC in 1993. The SJBL connects with the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision in
Highgrove and is approximately parallel to the I-215 Expressway as it travels down to the city of
Perris. Two freight trains are scheduled and operated by BNSF on this alignment each day to
provide service to various industries along the route.
Union Pacific (UP), Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL) – The UP currently owns and
operates a railroad alignment that extends approximately 7 miles from Colton in San Bernardino
County to the city of Riverside. This facility is known as the Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL) and
runs parallel to the SJBL from Highgrove until it turns to the southwest and crosses the SJBL at-
grade near Rustin Avenue, 2 miles northeast of downtown Riverside. From the crossing, the
RIL continues southwest and into downtown Riverside where it terminates at University Avenue
just north of the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station. UP serves several customers along the
RIL with a switcher train and crew that operate Monday through Friday for approximately three
hours per day.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)/ San Bernardino Subdivision (SB Sub) – The
BNSF currently owns and operates the San Bernardino Subdivision which extends from San
Bernardino to Los Angeles. The alignment relevant to this corridor, between Highgrove and
Riverside, is a three-track mainline that provides the existing connection from the SJBL to the
Metrolink system at the Downtown Riverside station. Metrolink operates 8 commuter trains per
day over the alignment from Riverside to San Bernardino as part of the Inland Empire – Orange
County service described previously. Also, Amtrak operates two long distance passenger trains
per day over the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision. The majority of traffic on this segment of
track consists of both BNSF and UP freight trains, which combine to account for approximately
60 to 80 movements per day over this mainline.
2.5 STUDY AREA NEEDS
With the existing transportation facilities in the corridor inventoried, the next phase of the study
outlines the mobility needs of western Riverside County. As described in this report, previous
and on-going study efforts have documented a significant increase in population and
development in the corridor. The accompanying land-use patterns that have shaped this
growth have additional transportation impacts. The suburban low-density residential
developments that are in abundance in this area require an automobile for almost all trips.
Even more pronounced is the reduced availability of employment in Riverside County relative to
its population, and as a result many residents must commute long distances to jobs outside the
county. These factors have resulted in significant burdens on transportation system users, the
roadway network, and residents in general.
Currently, the major transportation facilities in the corridor, I-215 and SR60, are experiencing
unsatisfactory levels of service, a measure based on factors such as travel times and speed, and
as evidenced by increasingly poor volume/capacity (V/C) ratios. These facilities are forecasted
to continue with unsatisfactory levels of service even with programmed roadway improvements
over the coming years, which include additional lanes and the implementation of HOV lanes.
The study completed a technical review of these and various transportation and demographic
trends in the study area, including public outreach that listened to the concerns of affected
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 14 STV Incorporated
communities and residents. The results have made clear that the SJBL/I-215 corridor is in need
of an improved transportation system independent of the ever growing and increasingly
congested roadway system. With this guiding principle in place, the needs of the SJBL / I-215
Corridor Study were identified as follows:
The Need to Reduce Roadway Congestion – Congestion on the roadways, especially the
main highways in the study area are forecasted to increase over the next 25 years with little
relief expected from planned investments. Between 1997 and 2025 traffic volumes are
forecasted to increase:
Up to a 68.8% increase on the combined segments of I-215;
A 91.4% increase on SR60 (East Junction to Gillman Springs Road); and
An 85.1% increase on I-215 (East Junction to Perris/Romoland).
Similarly, the V/C ratios are expected to range from 1.02 to 1.3 on I-215/SR60, from 1.2 to 1.44
on I-215 and are predicted to increase by up to .59 on some segments of SR60. Volume-to-
capacity ratio is a measure of traffic demand on a facility (expressed as volume) compared to
its traffic-carrying capacity. A V/C ratio of 0.7, for example, indicates that a traffic facility is
operating at 70 percent of its capacity (see Appendix B for more details).
The Need to Provide Transit Travel Options to Growing Population and Employment
– Population and employment levels are forecasted to increase significantly over the next 20 to
25 years, further degrading the existing roadway transportation system level of service and
supporting the need for alternate travel choices. The population of the three incorporated cities
in this corridor is expected to grow almost 55% from the year 2000 to 2025. During the same
time, jobs in these cities are expected to increase by 97%. See Appendix A for complete details
on growth trends in western Riverside County.
The Need to Coordinate Transportation Planning and Community Development –
Several communities within the study area could benefit from an investment in public
transportation as a catalyst for redevelopment or as a means to control sprawling development
through transit-oriented planning and design. Older urbanized areas, underutilized
commercial/institutional sites and growing suburban subdivision present significant
opportunities to coordinate public transportation planning and community development
initiatives that enhance the overall quality of life. Review of background material and plans
reveal that the city of Perris presents an opportunity for revitalization of an older urban area,
while the March Air Reserve Base provides an opportunity to redevelop an underutilized airfield
into mixed-use development. The city of Riverside is an established urban area with numerous
redevelopment zones that can be enhanced through improvements in transportation. (See
Exhibit 6)
The Need to Explore Under-Utilized Transportation Resources - The SJBL / I-215 study
corridor contains existing non-highway transportation rights-of-way that are significantly under-
utilized from a public passenger transportation perspective. In particular these include the
railroad facilities previously identified, the San Jacinto Branchline, UP Riverside Industrial Lead
and the BNSF/San Bernardino Subdivision. Each of these rail facilities provide an opportunity to
develop transit solutions that conveniently link residents to key activity centers and existing
transit services within this corridor and throughout the region.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 15 STV Incorporated
Exhibit 6: Redevelopment Zones in Riverside, CA
2.6 STUDY GOALS
Before alternatives can be developed, it is important to establish the outcomes of conducting
this SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study. A set of goals and objectives has been developed from the
needs observed, documented, and expressed through public outreach to affected communities,
stakeholders, and concerned individuals. Defining the project’s goals and objectives is a key
step in determining what is specifically desired from the project investment. The goals and
objectives succinctly define how the purpose and need for the project will be fulfilled (goals),
and where possible, incorporate quantifiable measures (objectives) that will help in the
development of evaluation criteria.
Four goals and objectives for the SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study are:
Goal 1 – Improve the Transportation System with Alternate Travel Choices:
Objectives
To establish and expand the regional transit network within and beyond the study
corridor.
To improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commutation alternative to the
automobile, by making it available, reliable and convenient to use.
To reduce highway congestion in the corridor.
To promote a seamless regional transit system.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 16 STV Incorporated
Goal 2 – Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development:
Objectives
To strengthen the older urban communities as centers of economic opportunity.
To broaden the range and availability of public transportation alternatives between the
various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes.
To encourage transit-friendly communities, at higher densities.
To foster transit-oriented development (TOD) around transit stations.
To provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent.
Goal 3 – Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts:
Objectives
To help reduce residential, commercial and industrial “sprawl” development.
To conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) as required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).
To minimize impacts to the natural and human-made environment.
To reduce the need for new right-of-way resources thereby reducing land use impacts to
the study corridor.
Goal 4 – Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently:
Objectives
To invest resources efficiently.
To improve the productivity and cost effectiveness of transit services in the corridor.
To enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system within the corridor.
To select investments that build upon underused and abandoned transportation
resources.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 17 STV Incorporated
3 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1 ALTERNATIVE A - NO BUILD
The No Build Alternative is used to illustrate conditions in the project’s design year if no
transportation improvements relating to this study are made. This study will consider from
present-2025 as the timeframe for transportation improvements. In this alternative, the
existing transportation system is maintained with the only new transportation investments being
those already programmed in the 25-year long range transportation plan developed and
adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This plan is the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the financially constrained version is utilized, which
includes only those transportation projects that the region can afford to build and operate
during the 25-year period. The current RTP was adopted in 2001 and an update is performed
every three years.
In this particular case, the current RTP already includes the implementation of commuter rail
service from Perris to downtown Riverside. For the purpose of providing a comparative
analysis, it is assumed that the SJBL project would not be included in the existing RTP. Thus, a
commuter rail project will not be pre-assumed and will be incorporated as the build alternatives
to investigate.
The RTP does include several major highway improvements within the SJBL / I-215 Corridor
which are listed below:
I-215/SR-60 HOV and Truck Climbing Lane – Planned implementation of an HOV lane in
each direction on the combined I-215/SR-60 facility, for a distance of 5.5 miles. The plan also
includes the addition of a truck climbing lane in each direction along this segment of highway.
At present, the truck climbing lanes have already been built and are in operation along this
highway facility.
SR-60 HOV Lane - Planned implementation of an HOV lane in each direction beginning at the
East Junction (I-215/SR-60 Interchange) east to Redlands Boulevard, for a distance of 7.7
miles.
I-215 (East Junction to Ramona Expressway) – Planned implementation of an HOV lane
in each direction of I-215 between the East Junction near Box Springs to the Ramona
Expressway, a distance of 7.3 miles.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 18 STV Incorporated
3.2 ALTERNATIVE B – TSM / EXPRESS BUS
General Concept of the Alternative: The Transportation System Management (TSM) /
Express Bus Alternative consists of low-capital improvements to existing transit facilities and
services. This alternative emphasizes low cost, operational improvements that are structured to
bring the greatest benefit from existing transportation infrastructure. Alternative B was
developed applying recommendations of Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Guidelines and
the Federal Transit Administration Major Investment guidelines. These guidelines require a
TSM to provide the basis of comparison to the higher cost, high capital investment build
alternatives. With these guidelines in mind, an express bus service was proposed to operate
between the city of Perris and Downtown Riverside with service levels and accessibility similar
to those of the proposed build alternatives, see Exhibit 20. Transit improvements in Alternative
B consist of faster, safer, more direct and higher profile bus service. Alternative B directs
resources to establish an express bus service primarily on I-215 between Perris and Downtown
Riverside.
Physical Characteristics: As illustrated in Exhibit 8, express bus service originates in the city
of Perris with the first station proposed for the Perris – South park and ride at I-215 and SR 74.
From here, the route would directly serve Perris with a stop at the Cottonwood Plaza Shopping
Center. Departing Perris, the route would proceed north on I-215 with stops at Nuevo Road (at
the Perris Plaza Shopping Center), Ramona Expressway, and Alessandro Boulevard. All stops
along I-215 are proposed to include park and ride facilities. Leaving the Alessandro Boulevard
stop, service will travel via Box Springs Blvd. and Sycamore Canyon Blvd. to the Box Springs
Interchange with I-215/SR60, with a stop provided at this location. Continuing north on I-
215/SR60 the route will stop at University Avenue and provide access to the University of
California, Riverside campus. The route continues along University Avenue to downtown
Riverside, with stops at the Metrolink Station and the Downtown Bus Terminal.
To support this service, local feeder bus connections to the express bus route are proposed.
Metrolink commuter rail service in Riverside would also benefit from any additional transfers
from the feeder buses.
Operations and Service Levels: Express bus service would reach the Downtown Metrolink
station during peak periods such that connections to departing (AM), and arriving (PM) trains
can be provided. Lower frequency midday service would be provided accordingly. While the
actual service was designed to provide convenient connections, the ridership model used
simplified input such as regular headways. As a result, an average constant headway of
approximately 30 minutes is estimated for peak period service and 60 minutes for off-peak
service. The service would operate from 5:00 am to 8:00 pm in the evening.
In addition to the Express Service, linkages to local bus route service will compliment the
proposed service. Several local routes will incorporate an additional “Express Bus Stop” in order
to provide greater connectivity and faster transportation service between the municipalities in
the corridor. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed stops for the express service, including any existing
and proposed local transit connections.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 19 STV Incorporated
Stations: Alternative B is proposed to have seven new passenger stations along the SJBL / I-
215 Corridor as illustrated in Exhibit 7 and would provide access to two existing stations
including the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station and the RTA Downtown Bus Terminal.
Exhibit 7: Alternative B – TSM/Express Bus Station Characteristics
Station Name Type
Park
and
Ride
Potential Station
Location
Parking
(spaces) Feeder Bus
Perris – South
(Matthews Rd.)
Bus
Shelter Yes I-215 and Matthews Rd. (SR
74)50 RTA 27, 208
Perris
(Cottonwood Plaza)
Bus
Shelter Yes 4th and Wilkerson 50 RTA 19, 22, 27, 30,
74, 208
Nuevo Road Bus
Shelter Yes Perris Plaza Shopping Center 150 RTA 30
Ramona
Expressway
Bus
Shelter Yes Northwest quadrant of
Intersection w/ I-215 275 RTA 27, 41, 208
Alessandro
Boulevard
Bus
Shelter Yes
Northwest quadrant of SJBL
and Alessandro Boulevard
Intersection
100 RTA 16, 17, 20
Box Springs Bus
Shelter Yes Box Springs Rd / I-215 75 RTA 16
University of
California Riverside
Bus
Shelter No University Ave / I-215 N/A RTA 13, 208
Riverside
Metrolink Station
Existing
Rail
Station
Yes Vine Street and University
Avenue
870 -
Existing RTA 1, 13, 16, 25, 208
RTA Downtown
Bus Terminal
Existing
Bus
Station No
Mission Inn Avenue and
Market Street N/A
RTA 1, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 22, 25, 29, 49,
149, 204, 208
Note: It is assumed that shopping centers will allow parking on existing facilities through future agreements
Vehicles and Maintenance Facilities: Vehicles for express bus service would be regular
fixed route 40-foot standard buses or over-the-road coaches. It is likely that the vehicles would
be procured and provided by RTA, the local transit agency, as part of their general fixed-route
bus fleet. Additional vehicles are likely to be needed, and RTA would maintain the express bus
fleet at its existing maintenance facility. The cost of new vehicles has been incorporated into
the capital costs for this alternative as outlined in Section 5.2 of this report.
Exhibit 8: Alternative B - TSM / Express Bus - Overview Map
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 21 STV Incorporated
3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES
The study proposes three build alternatives, all of which consist of implementing commuter rail
service between Perris and downtown Riverside via the San Jacinto Branchline right-of-way:
Alternative C – Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback
Alternative D – Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street
Alternative E – Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue
Each alternative extends the Metrolink 91 Line, currently providing service from Riverside to
Downtown Los Angeles via Fullerton to the city of Perris (see Exhibit 20).
Physical Characteristics: The differences among the three commuter rail alternatives
include the various options to connect the SJBL to the BNSF mainline for service to the
Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. The options all share the common SJBL alignment from
the city of Perris to a proposed station at the University of California, Riverside (UCR).
Between Perris and UCR, commuter service would originate south of Downtown Perris, at I-215
and SR 74 (Matthews Road). From this Perris-South origin, the next station would be located in
Downtown Perris, in the vicinity of the old Santa Fe Railway Depot near C and 4th Streets.
Continuing northwest along the SJBL, the next station is proposed for the Ramona Expressway.
The SJBL continues paralleling I-215 on its western side, and traverses the March Air Reserve
Base. Where the SJBL intersects Alessandro Boulevard, a third passenger station is proposed.
From this point the alignment continues northwest and crosses under the I-215/SR60 East
Junction and then passes through the Box Springs area where it would turn west just east of
UCR. A station is proposed for the university campus along its eastern border with Watkins
Drive.
Service and Operations: The commuter rail service would operate primarily during the peak
period and in the peak direction. The operating schedule will be such that arrival and departure
at Union Station in Los Angeles will coincide with typical work schedules, in an effort to make
the new service as attractive as possible to commuters. Approximate hours of operation are
proposed from 5:00 am to 8:00 pm on weekdays only. Different route lengths and operational
considerations for each alternative, detailed in the next sections, result in different
approximations of the travel time from Perris to Riverside. See Exhibit 22 for a detailed
comparison of the alternative running times.
The initial service, to be implemented in 2008, would operate three trains from Perris to
Riverside with continuing service to Los Angeles during the morning peak. In addition, two
mid-day, off-peak trains would operate daily, one in each direction. In the afternoon peak,
three trains would operate from Los Angeles to the city of Perris. The headways on the new
service would be approximately 50 to 60 minutes during the peak periods.
New trains are expected to be added as ridership grows. By 2025, the service is envisioned to
consist of six trains in both the morning and evening peak periods with four trains providing
mid-day service. With this increased service, headways would be reduced to 25-30 minutes in
the peak.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 22 STV Incorporated
Vehicles and Facilities: For all the alternatives, the new service will utilize diesel locomotives
and bi-level commuter coaches and cab cars from the existing Metrolink fleet. Currently,
Metrolink operates 9 trains on the 91 Line between Riverside and LA Union Station and it is
expected that these consists of locomotives and cars will be extended to the city of Perris with
the implementation of SJBL service. Three additional locomotives and two cab cars are
currently programmed in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, for availability in
2006. Funding will be provided from the state of California and the vehicles for any proposed
service increases to the 91 Line could include extensions to the city of Perris as part of the SJBL
service proposed in the three alternatives.
The existing Metrolink maintenance facility located in Los Angeles would be used to maintain
any new locomotives and cab/coach cars for the operation of service proposed by the three
alternatives. Currently, Metrolink utilizes this one centralized facility to maintain the entire fleet
and has additional capacity at this facility for fleet expansion. However, new service along the
SJBL would require the construction of storage tracks in the Romoland area, beyond Perris.
These tracks would provide an overnight layover location for the earliest departure trains the
next morning. This location would require two storage tracks approximately 1000 feet in
length, a compressor facility for performing FRA required brake tests and an electrical ground
power source for hotel power to allow shut-down of the locomotives and the ability to light the
cars so they can be cleaned. An external power supply also allows air conditioners and heaters
to be turned on prior to revenue service without idling the diesel locomotives. The facility
would also have water and sewer connections for a crew restroom facility and train restroom
cleaning services.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 23 STV Incorporated
3.3.1 ALTERNATIVE C – COMMUTER RAIL WITH HIGHGROVE TURNBACK
Physical Characteristics: From the proposed UCR Station, heading toward the Riverside
Downtown Metrolink station, each of the three alternatives consider the possibility for different
route and track connections to the BNSF mainline. In Alternative C, as illustrated in Exhibit 10,
from the UCR station the alignment would curve north toward Riverside crossing the Union
Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL) near Marlborough Street and then continue into
Highgrove where a passenger station is proposed between Center and Main Streets. At this
location, the alignment is parallel to the BNSF mainline. After stopping at Highgrove, the train
operations would reverse direction to join the BNSF track 3 to continue into the Riverside
Downtown Metrolink Station for passenger boardings and alightings. This would be the physical
terminus of operations associated with Alternative C, however, the proposed service would
continue to Los Angeles, via Fullerton, as part of the Metrolink 91 Line. As with all of the
commuter rail alternatives, for passengers continuing from Riverside to Orange County, or
intermediate stops along the Metrolink Riverside Line, a transfer can be made at the Riverside
station.
Stations: Alternative C proposes six new passenger stations along the SJBL alignment as
illustrated in Exhibit 9 and would use the existing Riverside Downtown Metrolink station as its
final stop as part of the extension to the city of Perris.
Exhibit 9: Alternative C Station Characteristics
Station Name Type Platform Length Potential Station
Location
Parking
(spaces)
Feeder Bus
Lines
Perris - South At-Grade Side 1000 feet I-215 and SR 74 842 RTA 27, 208
Perris At-Grade Side 1000 feet C, 4th Streets 310
RTA 19, 22,
27, 30, 74,
208
Ramona
Expressway At-Grade Side 1000 feet Northwest quadrant of
Intersection w/ I-215 723 RTA 27, 41,
208
Alessandro
Boulevard At-Grade Side 1000 feet
Northwest quadrant of
SJBL and Alessandro
Boulevard Intersection
720 RTA 16, 17,
20
UC Riverside At-Grade Side 1000 feet Watkins Drive and
Valencia Hill Drive 75 RTA 13, 208
Center Street
(Highgrove) At-Grade Side 1000 feet East of BNSF between
Center and Main Streets 300 RTA 25, 208
Riverside
Metrolink Station At-Grade Side 1000 feet
Existing Riverside
Metrolink Station (East
Side Platform)
870 -
Existing
RTA 1, 13,
16, 25, 208
Note: Trains leaving Riverside Station would then operate identical to the current 91 Lines, serving existing Metrolink passenger
stations at Riverside-La Sierra, North Main Corona, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, Commerce and LA Union
Station.
Exhibit 10: Alternative C - Overview Map
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 25 STV Incorporated
Access to Riverside Station: Specific details about the approach to Riverside highlight the
differences between the three build alternatives. For Alternative C, access to Riverside Station
from the SJBL in Highgrove will be accomplished by way of an existing turnout that connects
the SJBL track with the BNSF mainline track 3 (see Exhibit 11). Passenger trains traveling in
either direction to Perris or Riverside would be required to make a reverse movement at
Highgrove to continue to the next station. As a result, the train engineer would have to walk to
the opposite end of the train to resume the trip after stopping in Highgrove. The need to
reverse the train, including a required FRA brake check, results in a significantly longer run
time. The connection to the BNSF mainline track with this existing turnout allows Alternative C
to reach the Riverside station on existing track, with no new construction needed. Trains
operated under Alternative C would stop at the south-side platform of the existing Riverside
Metrolink Station.
It is important to note that Metrolink operation of commuter trains on the BNSF mainline is
governed by an agreement dated February 14, 1996. This agreement allows up to 4 revenue
roundtrip trains in both the morning and evening (16 one-way) and 4 non-revenue roundtrip
trains in both the morning and evening (16 one-way) between Highgrove and Riverside
dependent upon the completion of a detailed and agreed upon capital program. The Metrolink
Inland Empire service currently operates 8 one-way revenue trains between San Bernardino and
Riverside downtown station under this agreement, leaving additional capacity for 8 one-way
revenue trains for the proposed SJBL commuter service. The proposed SJBL commuter rail
service would have sufficient capacity for its initial start-up service of 8 one-way revenue trips
between Perris and Riverside. However, this agreement allows for no expansion to the existing
movements, creating a constraint for additional service in future years which is not sufficient for
the anticipated service levels in later years.
Exhibit 11: Alternative C - Turnback Connection
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 27 STV Incorporated
3.3.2 ALTERNATIVE D – COMMUTER RAIL WITH NEW CONNECTION TO BNSF AT
CITRUS STREET
Physical Characteristics: From the proposed Spruce Street station, heading toward the
Downtown Riverside Metrolink station, the Alternative D alignment would continue north to
Citrus Street where it would curve west on new track for a connection with the BNSF mainline
(see Exhibit 13), negating the need for a turnback operation at Highgrove as required in
Alternative C. Where the SJBL connects with the BNSF right-of-way, two options are proposed
for continuing to the Downtown Riverside station. BNSF Option 1 proposes shared use of
existing BNSF track all the way into the station. BNSF Option 2 proposes construction of a new
track along BNSF right-of-way leading into the station. Both of these options are discussed in
more detail in the Access to Riverside section to follow. The Riverside station would be the
physical terminus of operations associated with Alternative D, however, the proposed service
would continue to Los Angeles, via Fullerton, as part of the Metrolink 91 Line.
Stations: Alternative D proposes five new passenger stations along the SJBL alignment as
illustrated in Exhibit 12 and would use the existing Downtown Riverside Metrolink station as its
final stop as part of the extension to the city of Perris.
Exhibit 12: Alternative D Station Characteristics
Station Name Type Platform Length Potential Station
Location
Parking
(spaces)
Feeder Bus
Lines
Perris - South At-Grade Side 1000 feet I-215 and SR 74 842 RTA 27, 208
Perris At-Grade Side 1000 feet C, 4th Streets 310 RTA 19, 22, 27,
30, 74, 208
Ramona
Expressway At-Grade Side 1000 feet Northwest quadrant of
Intersection w/ I-215 723 RTA 27, 41, 208
Alessandro
Boulevard At-Grade Side 1000 feet
Northwest quadrant of
SJBL and Alessandro
Boulevard Intersection
720 RTA 16, 17, 20
UC Riverside At-Grade Side 1000 feet Watkins Drive and
Valencia Hill Drive 75 RTA 13, 208
Spruce Street At-Grade Side 1000 feet Northwest of Spruce &
SJBL 300 RTA 25, 208
Riverside
Metrolink Station At-Grade Side 1000 feet
Existing Riverside
Metrolink Station (East
Side Platform)
870 -
Existing
RTA 1, 13, 16, 25,
208
Note: Trains leaving Riverside Station would then operate identical to the current 91 Lines, serving existing Metrolink passenger
stations at Riverside-La Sierra, North Main Corona, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, Commerce and LA Union
Station.
Exhibit 13: Alternative D - Overview Map
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 29 STV Incorporated
Access to Riverside Station: For Alternative D, access to Riverside station from the SJBL will
be accomplished by way of a new connection track between the SJBL and the BNSF mainline
(see Exhibit 14). The new connection track will allow for continuous movement between the
SJBL and Riverside Station with continuing service to Los Angeles. The new connection avoids
the need for the train to reverse direction as in Alternative C. However, Alternative D has two
options once the new connection reaches the BNSF right-of-way. The options are illustrated in
Exhibit 15 and described as follows:
x BNSF Option 1: Commuter trains would share the BNSF mainline track (Track No. 3) with
freight and Metrolink (IEOC) services south to the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station.
No improvements, except for a new connection switch, would be necessary on the BNSF
mainline and no property displacements would be required to implement this option. One
property purchase (open land) has been identified as required for construction of the
connection track between the SJBL and the BNSF.
x BNSF Option 2: Similar to Option 1, however, upon reaching the BNSF right-of-way, the
track would continue on a new track paralleling the BNSF mainline just east of track 3,
where it would continue south into the Riverside station. This option requires partial
removal of a loading dock on an existing property north of Third Street and the use of an
existing railroad access road for placement of the new track, limiting BNSF’s future
maintenance abilities. This option would also make better use of existing RCTC property to
access a Metrolink storage track, providing access to the existing south-side platform at
Riverside Station.
BNSF Option 2 has been selected as the preferred option for Alternative D. This option is the
higher cost scenario and offers more operational flexibility than Option 1. Option 2 avoids some
conflicts with BNSF freight movements but the track would still be under BNSF control and
require their permission for construction.
Rive
r
si
d
e I
n
d
u
st
ri
al
L
e
a
d
Exhibit 14: Alternative D - Citrus Street Connection
Exhibit 15: Alternative D - Approach to Riverside Station
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 32 STV Incorporated
3.3.3 ALTERNATIVE E – COMMUTER RAIL WITH NEW CONNECTION TO UP RIL AT
RUSTIN AVENUE
Physical Characteristics: From the proposed Spruce Street station, heading toward the
Riverside downtown Metrolink station, the Alternative E alignment would curve west onto a new
connection track that would then join the Union Pacific (UP) Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL) for
an approach to Riverside Station along Massachusetts Avenue (see Exhibit 17). As the
alignment continues east toward the BNSF right-of-way, three options, RIL Option 1, 2 and 3
are proposed for the turn to the south and into the Riverside station. The Riverside station
would be the physical terminus of operations associated with Alternative E, however, the
proposed service would continue to Los Angeles, via Fullerton, as part of the Metrolink 91 Line.
Stations: Alternative E proposes five new passenger stations along the SJBL alignment as
illustrated in Exhibit 16 and would use the existing Downtown Riverside Metrolink station as its
final stop as part of the extension to the city of Perris.
Exhibit 16: Alternative E Station Characteristics
Station
Name Type Platform Length Potential Station
Location Parking
(spaces)
Feeder Bus
Lines
Perris - South At-Grade Side 1000 feet I-215 and SR 74 842 RTA 27, 208
Perris At-Grade Side 1000 feet C, 4th Streets 310 RTA 19, 22, 27,
30, 74, 208
Ramona
Expressway At-Grade Side 1000 feet Northwest quadrant of
Intersection w/ I-215 723 RTA 27, 41, 208
Alessandro
Boulevard At-Grade Side 1000 feet
Northwest quadrant of
SJBL and Alessandro
Boulevard Intersection
720 RTA 16, 17, 20
UC Riverside At-Grade Side 1000 feet Watkins Drive and
Valencia Hill Drive 75 RTA 13, 208
Spruce Street At-Grade Side 1000 feet Northwest of Spruce &
SJBL. 300 RTA 25, 208
Riverside
Metrolink
Station
At-Grade Side 1000 feet
Existing Riverside
Metrolink Station (East
Side Platform)
870 -
Existing
RTA 1, 13, 16,
25, 208
Note: Trains leaving Riverside Station would then operate identical to the current 91 Lines, serving existing Metrolink passenger
stations at Riverside-La Sierra, North Main Corona, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, Commerce and LA Union
Station.
Exhibit 17: Alternative E - Overview Map
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 34 STV Incorporated
Access to Riverside Station: Access to Riverside Station for Alternative E from the SJBL will
be accomplished by way of a new connection track between the SJBL and the UP RIL (see
Exhibit 18). These two lines cross at-grade approximately one mile south of the existing
connection between the SJBL and BNSF in Highgrove. The new connection track will allow for
continuous movement between the SJBL and the Riverside Station with continuing service to
Los Angeles. Alternative E has three options (See Exhibit 19) for accessing the Riverside station
after it turns onto the BNSF right-of-way from the new connection track as follows:
x RIL Option 1: This proposed option would continue toward Downtown Riverside on the
existing RIL until the area just past Kansas Avenue. New track would then extend onto the
BNSF Mainline right-of-way and run parallel with the BNSF mainline tracks towards the
Downtown Riverside Metrolink station. The new track would require the partial removal of
an existing loading dock adjacent to the right-of-way. The new track would travel on RCTC
property from Third Street to Mission Inn Avenue where it would connect to an existing
Metrolink storage track and continue to the south-side platform at the Riverside station.
x RIL Option 2: This proposed option is identical to RIL Option 1 until after passing Kansas
Avenue. At this point new track would connect with the existing “freight house” track that
is located approximately 400 feet east of the BNSF mainline. Operations would continue on
this track until it reached Third Street where new track would be required to access existing
RCTC property to the west. An existing commercial building would require displacement to
allow construction of the new track south of Third Street. Access to Riverside station would
be similar to RIL Option 1, from the existing RCTC property to the existing south-side
platform at the station.
x RIL Option 3: This proposed option is identical to RIL Option 1 except for its use of new
tracks in a new right-of-way east of the BNSF mainline. RIL Option 3 would continue on
new tracks until Third Street, where it would then access the Riverside station similar to RIL
Option 1. A property displacement would be required for placement of a new track east of
the BNSF right-of-way.
After additional review, RIL Option 3 has been selected as the preferred option for Alternative
E. This option represents the higher cost scenario but offers greater operational flexibility than
either Option 1 or 2. Further coordination with the BNSF and the UP will be necessary.
Uni
o
n
P
a
cifi
c
Ri
v
er
si
d
e I
n
d
u
stri
al
L
e
a
d
Exhibit 18: Alternative E - Rustin Avenue Connection
Exhibit 19: Alternative E - Approach to Riverside Station
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 38 STV Incorporated
4 RIDERSHIP
4.1 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
The patronage forecasting for this study was performed by the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) utilizing the existing and approved SCAG regional travel demand model.
The model was run for different scenarios at different time intervals: base year, start-up year,
and forecast year. The base year relies on Year 2000 population and employment data
combined with the existing transportation network. While the start-up year is proposed to be
2008, the nearest SCAG forecast data was for 2010 and was used for the start-up year model
runs. The forecast year for this study coincides with the latest SCAG long-range plan, which
has a forecast year of 2025. Also, due to the similarities in alignment, station locations, and run
times of Alternatives D and E, only one model run was conducted for both alternatives.
4.2 SERVICE PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
The TSM / Express Bus and Commuter Rail Alternatives all propose service from 5:00 am to
8:00 pm. The morning peak commuting period is from 5:00 am – 8:00 am and the evening
peak period is from 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm. All other times are considered as off-peak service.
The express bus has a headway of 30 minutes during the peak and 60 minutes in the off-peak.
The speed of the bus service, influenced by increasing congestion and delays experienced on
roadways in the corridor, is calculated from the SCAG model. Exhibit 21 shows the station to
station travel times for the Express Bus service in 2010 and 2025. It is evident that the
increasing congestion on I-215 has a significant negative impact on this operation.
Exhibit 21: TSM / Express Bus Travel Times (min)
Station to Station Links 2010 2025
Perris South to Perris 10 16
Perris to Nuevo Rd. 4 5
Nuevo Rd. to Ramona Expw. 6 10
Ramona Expw. to Alessandro Blvd. 10 20
Alessandro Blvd. to Box Springs 6 13
Box Springs to UCR 9 19
UCR to Riverside Station (ML) 13 15
Total Travel Time 58 98
The commuter rail alternatives propose the same hours of operation as the TSM. At opening in
2008, 3 trains are scheduled to depart South Perris in the AM Peak. One train in each direction
would operate during the mid-day, and three trains would return to South Perris in the PM
Peak. For 2025, extensively more service is planned with six departures in each peak period,
and two trains per direction in the off-peak. See Exhibit 22 for the forecast travel times for the
three commuter rail alternatives. Travel time for commuter rail is independent of increasing
highway congestion and remains constant from implementation until 2025. Exhibit 22 also
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 39 STV Incorporated
includes travel times for passengers who wish to continue aboard the same train, to Los
Angeles and intermediate stops along the 91 Line. Passengers to other destinations (Orange
County, Riverside Line intermediate stops), as with the express bus alternative, are anticipated
to make transfers at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station. The time needed to transfer to
other destinations is accounted for in the ridership model based on the planned operation of the
connecting service.
Exhibit 22: Commuter Rail Alternatives Travel Time (minutes)
Station to Station Links Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Perris South to Perris 5 5 5
Perris to Ramona Expw. 7 7 7
Ramona Expw. to Alessandro Blvd. 8 8 8
Alessandro Blvd. to UCR 11 11 11
UCR to Center Street (Alt. C only) 9 - -
UCR to Spruce Street (Alt. D & E only) - 3 3
Center St./Spruce Street to Riverside 9 8 6
Total Travel Time South Perris to Riverside 49 42 40
Riverside to La Sierra 10 10 10
La Sierra to West Corona 11 11 11
West Corona To Fullerton 21 21 21
Fullerton to Norwalk 10 10 10
Norwalk to Union Station 38 38 38
Total Travel Time Perris South to Union Station 139 132 130
4.3 PATRONAGE FORECASTING RESULTS
4.3.1 LINKED TRIPS/NEW TRANSIT TRIPS
Average weekday systemwide transit trips in 2025 are shown in Exhibit 23. The difference in
transit trips between the build alternatives and the no-build and TSM alternatives represent new
transit trips. The transit trips presented here are linked trips. A linked transit trip represents a
transit trip from the origin zone to the destination zone, regardless of the number of modes
used.
4.3.2 BOARDINGS BY ALTERNATIVE AND STATIONS
A boarding summary has been generated for each alternative for 2010 and 2025. These are
unlinked boardings occurring at new stations on the extended portion of the line for the
commuter rail alternatives, and at all stations served by the TSM/Express Bus service. These
boardings are shown in Exhibit 24. The boardings listed here include those being attracted to
the extension from stations on the existing line (essentially reverse commuters), though this
makes up only a small fraction of the boardings.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 40 STV Incorporated
Exhibit 23: 2025 Regional Transit System Linked Trips and New Transit Trips
Alternative
No-Build TSM Alt C Alts D & E
Linked Trips (Weekday)
Riverside 50,766 53,033 55,267 56,382
SCAG Region 1,444,004 1,445,922 1,448,362 1,449,400
New Transit Trips
Change from NB 945 1,559 1,815
Change from TSM 614 870
Exhibit 24: Weekday Boardings on New Investment
Alternative
TSM Alt C Alts D & E
Year 2010 3,316 3,817 4,151
Year 2025 3,705 6,542 7,472
The boardings for each project have been developed for each station as shown in Exhibit 25.
These include boardings for reverse commuters destined for stations on the extension.
Additional detail for station to station boardings is provided in Appendix E. The station to
station boardings are in Production-Attraction format, indicating that both the outbound and
return trip are attributed to the origin station.
Exhibit 25: Boardings by Stations on New Investment
Year 2010 Year 2025 Station / Stop TSM Alt C Alts D & E TSM Alt C Alts D & E
Perris South 46 507 599 45 1,745 2,106
Perris 147 442 537 131 579 709
Nuevo Road 365 - - 521 - -
Ramona Expressway 673 687 797 594 1,616 1,929
Alessandro 238 1,168 1,468 168 1,181 1,725
Box Springs 192 - - 241 - -
UCR 1,464 63 144 1,795 111 167
Center Street (Highgrove) -950 - - 1,310 -
Spruce Street -- 606 - - 836
Riverside Station 112 - - 97 - -
Downtown Bus Terminal 79 - - 113 - -
Total 3,316 3,817 4,151 3,705 6,542 7,472
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 41 STV Incorporated
5 COSTS
5.1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS
5.1.1 O & M COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
The operating and maintenance costs for the proposed alternatives were estimated using two
methods, both of which scaled current costs to levels appropriate for the size of the systems
envisioned. All bus costs, whether for an express bus service or alterations to the feeder bus
network were calculated using a three-variable model. Unit costs were determined for vehicle
miles, vehicle hours and peak vehicles, based on existing RTA data, and multiplied by the net
change in those quantities. Rail costs used a similar method based on Metrolink data, but with
four variables: train miles, annual boardings, track miles and stations. Total system wide costs
were not determined; only incremental costs for new, additional service are included in the cost
estimate. Costs are presented in 2004 dollars.
Alternative B – TSM/Express Bus
The O&M costs for additional service proposed in Alternative B were estimated by multiplying
estimated vehicle hours, miles and peak vehicles required for the additional service by unit
costs developed from RTA’s data in the National Transit Database. Service levels were
estimated as follows:
Annual Vehicle Hours
= {[(Hours of Service) u (Frequency) u (Cycle Time)]+(Daily Deadhead Time)}u(Days/Year)
Annual Vehicle Miles
= {[(Hours of Service) u (Frequency) u (Cycle Length)]+(Daily Deadhead Miles)}u(Days/Year)
Peak Vehicles = Cycle Time / Headway
Alternatives C, D and E – Commuter Rail
Rail O&M costs were estimated based on the extension of 91 Line trains from Riverside to Perris
– South. The O&M costs for Alternatives C, D and E were based on Metrolink’s FY 03/04 O&M
budget, which breaks down costs into the categories shown in Exhibit C-1. Each of those costs
is driven by one of four variables related to the system’s size and/or service level: Train Miles,
Annual Boardings, Track Miles and Stations. By dividing each category’s cost for FY 03/04 by
the level of its appropriate driving variable from the same year, unit costs were produced for
application to Alternatives C, D and E.
Train miles were calculated based on the service levels described above and ridership numbers
were provided by SCAG’s travel demand model. Track miles included the length of the route
from Perris-South to Riverside plus two 3000’ passing sidings as well as new track in the BNSF
right-of-way for Alternative D and the upgraded UP track for Alternative E. Six new stations
were assumed for each alternative.
Feeder Bus
The estimation of incremental change in feeder bus O&M costs was performed by scaling the
existing costs to reflect the change in operating hours and miles that would result from RTA
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 42 STV Incorporated
service alterations proposed for each alternative. A scaling factor was determined for each bus
route based on the proposed increase in vehicle miles in order to scale the vehicle hours
appropriately. The calculation used is presented below:
Scaling Factor = proposed vehicle miles
existing vehicle miles
Each route’s vehicle hours were multiplied by its scaling factor to determine the new hours
required. The new vehicle hours and miles for the additional service proposed were each
multiplied by their unit costs, calculated from existing service data, to determine the
incremental O&M costs for new vehicle miles and hours. These costs were then added to the
incremental cost per additional peak vehicle.
To determine the number of new vehicles required, the total number needed for each route
serving the alternative was calculated using the formula:
Peak Vehicles Required = (Round Trip Travel Time)/ (Average Peak Headway)
Then, the number of vehicles currently used on those routes was subtracted from this
calculated amount, resulting in only the new vehicles necessary for each alternative's feeder
bus service.
5.1.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATION RESULTS
The estimated incremental O&M costs for the alternatives in 2010 are shown below in Exhibit
26 and for 2025 in Exhibit 27. Both can be seen in greater detail in Appendix C. The costs for
the three build alternatives (Alt. C, D and E) are similar, ranging in 2010 from $6.5 million for
Alternative C to $6.0 million for Alternative E. The O&M costs for the TSM alternative (Alt. B),
are substantially less than the cost of the rail services in both 2010 and 2025, given the
absence of right of way to maintenance since the express bus operates on highways. It also
carries significantly fewer riders compared to the rail alternatives. This is particularly evident as
ridership increases in the outer years for the rail services. Rail O&M costs range between $8.4
million and $9.1 million in 2025. In constrast, the TSM costs increase modestly to $4.8 million,
which is due primarily to congestion slowing the buses during peak periods. While rail O&M
costs are estimated to increase approximately 38% between 2010 and 2025, ridership increases
disproportionately by between 71% and 80% over the same period. In contrast, the TSM O&M
costs increase by 13% from 2010 to 2025, while ridership stays relatively stagnant with an
increase of only 11 percent.
Exhibit 26: O&M Costs for 2010 Service
AlternativeAll costs in thousands of 2004 $s Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E
Net Change in Rail Costs - $6,015.3 $5,857.4 $5,535.7
Net Change in Express Bus Costs $3,830.3 - - -
Net Change in Bus Costs $421.8 $532.6 $523.6 $523.6
Net Change in Operating Costs $4,252.1 $6,547.9 $6381.1 $6,059.3
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 43 STV Incorporated
Exhibit 27: O&M Costs for 2025 Service
AlternativeAll costs in thousands of 2004 $s Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E
Net Change in Rail Costs - $8,594.9 $8,415.9 $7854.4
Net Change in Express Bus Costs $4,404.1 - - -
Net Change in Bus Costs $421.8 $532.6 $523.6 $523.6
Net Change in Operating Costs $4,825.9 $9,127.5 $8,939.6 $8,378.1
The O&M costs for the three rail alternatives are similar because the alternatives themselves are
similar in their operation. They vary only in their connections between the San Jacinto Branch
Line and downtown Riverside. Alternatives C, D and E operate the same number of trains per
day, and serve the same number of stations. The primary difference in cost is due to the run
times of each alternative, in particular, the reversing movement of Alternative C increases its
operating cost substantially. Of the three commuter rail alternatives, Alternative E is the least
expensive with Alternative C the most expensive.
The O&M cost results show that as travel demand increases, the rail alternatives are
increasingly more efficient per passenger than the TSM operation. Furthermore, among the rail
options, Alternative E is the most efficient with its direct connection to Riverside, having the
lowest rail O&M costs while carrying the highest ridership.
5.2 CAPITAL COSTS
5.2.1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Unit costs
The capital cost estimation relied on the application of typical unit costs for track construction,
grade crossings, stations, vehicles, etc. Unit costs were based on recent Metrolink construction
and procurement experience. The unit quantities were then estimated from the conceptual
engineering plans and applied to the unit costs. Estimates for acquiring property for stations
and right-of-way were prepared using market values for each area along the alignment.
Soft Cost and Annualization Assumptions
In addition to construction costs and vehicles, soft costs for design and construction
management as well as contingency were included in the estimate. These are based on
reasonable industry percentages of project cost as they increase with the size of the project.
Design and construction management was estimated as 25% of the physical construction cost
of each alternative. To account for any unforeseeable complications, unknown conditions, and
significant price fluctuations, 25% was added onto the calculated total cost for each alternative
as a contingency.
The total cost, including soft costs, was converted into annualized costs to demonstrate the
actual cost required annually to keep the system in a state of good repair indefinitely.
Annualization took into consideration the useful life of item categories and developed
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 44 STV Incorporated
annualization factors, which when multiplied by total costs resulted in the cost per year. The
factors were developed in accordance with FTA practice, utilizing a 7% discount rate. Exhibit
28 below presents the annualization categories and factors used in the estimation along with
each category’s useful life.
Exhibit 28: Annualization Categories and Factors
Category Lifetime (years) Annualization Factor
i(1+i)n
(1+I)n -1
Roadway 20 0.0944
Guideway 30 0.0806
Trackwork 30 0.0806
Stations 30 0.0806
Traction Power 30 0.0806
Train Control 30 0.0806
Communications 25 0.0858
Fare Collection 25 0.0858
ROW Acquisition 100 0.0701
Utility Modification 100 0.0701
Special Conditions 50 0.0725
Rail Vehicles 25 0.0858
Bus Vehicles 12 0.1259
5.2.2 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION RESULTS
Alternative B (TSM) capital costs consist of express bus vehicles (coach buses) to provide the
primary service, additional transit buses needed to extend existing routes to the express bus
stations, and parking and shelter facilities at express bus stations. The total capital expenditure
associated with Alternative B is estimated to be $19.3 million. Express bus stations were
assumed to be off-line, which means that the express bus must leave I-215 to reach the
stations. Station and parking costs are for new stations only, and are based on the projected
ridership demand. Station property estimates are based on the relative size of each station.
Additional improvements were not estimated for the existing Downtown Riverside Metrolink
station or the Downtown Bus terminal. The capital cost results are shown in Exhibit 29.
The equivalent annualized capital cost for Alternative B is $2.04 million. This is what would be
required annually on average to maintain the infrastructure and vehicles of this alternative.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 45 STV Incorporated
Exhibit 29: Capital Cost Estimation Results (2004 millions)
Category TSM Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Trackwork -$ 23.25$ 27.72$ 25.67$
Structures -$ 7.45$ 8.02$ 7.98$
Signals/Communication -$ 6.98$ 7.97$ 7.15$
Grade Crossings/Protection -$ 6.73$ 10.07$ 8.27$
Stations / Parking 4.20$ 18.36$ 18.36$ 18.36$
Station Property 2.13$ 10.48$ 10.95$ 10.95$
Alignment Right-of-Way* -$ -$ 0.25$ 7.53$
Vehicles 8.07$ 13.47$ 13.47$ 13.47$
Planning/Design/Const. Mgt. 1.05$ 15.69$ 18.04$ 16.86$
Contingency 3.86$ 25.60$ 28.71$ 29.06$
Total 19.32$ 128.01$ 143.56$ 145.28$
Annualized 2.04$ 10.39$ 11.62$ 11.68$
* Excludes 1993 purchase of SJBL ROW by RCTC
Capital costs for the commuter rail alternatives include costs for track and track structure
improvements, signal and communication systems, grade crossings and their protection,
stations and parking, station property, alignment right-of-way, rail vehicles and feeder bus
vehicles. The cost estimate results are shown in Exhibit 29. Differences in cost among these
alternatives result primarily from their respective means of access to Riverside, as well as from
differences in noise mitigation.
It should be noted that RCTC is the sole owner of the San Jacinto Branchline (SJBL), having
purchased it in 1993 from what was then the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (now
BNSF). The cost of this purchase is not included in the capital cost estimates shown above.
The majority of capital costs for the commuter rail improvements involve the upgrade and
rehabilitation of existing SJBL track for higher speeds, smoother rides and safer passenger
operation.
Alternative C is the least costly rail option at $128.0 million due to its turn-back operation at
Highgrove and the assumption that no additional trackage would be constructed along the
BNSF right-of-way between Highgrove and Riverside. As a result, there are no property
acquisition costs associated with the alignment nor any track costs beyond Highgrove. The
equivalent average annual cost to build and maintain the infrastructure of this alternative
indefinitely is estimated to be $10.4 million per year.
Alternative D is significantly more costly than Alternative C at $143.6 million. Similarly, the
average annual cost to build and maintain the infrastructure of this alternative indefinitely is
also higher at $11.6 million per year. The difference in cost is due to a new track connection
from the SJBL to the BNSF right-of-way, and the construction of an additional track along the
BNSF to the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station. It should be noted that no property
acquisition cost has been included for the construction of the additional track along BNSF, as
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 46 STV Incorporated
the track would fall within the BNSF right-of-way and ownership would be conveyed to the
BNSF upon completion. However, an agreement with BNSF would have to be reached
regarding use of this track, which may involve additional costs for improvements elsewhere, or
in a negotiated access fee. At this time it is not possible to reasonably estimate these costs.
The uncertainty associated with this alternative is further discussed in Section 6, the Alternative
Evaluation Section of this report.
Alternative E is very similar in cost to Alternative D at $145.3 million and has an equivalent
average annual capital cost of $11.7 million. However, the make-up of the cost differs from
Alternative D. Alternative E also includes a new connection to provide direct access from the
SJBL to the Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL). Once on the UP RIL, however, the
costs are comprised of track upgrades, not the construction of a completely new track as in
Alternative D. Further, this alignment is slightly shorter, so that the costs associated with track
rehabilitation is lower than for Alternative D. This lower cost is offset by the inclusion of
property acquisition costs. Property acquisition costs for the alignment are required to purchase
the UP RIL and to relocate businesses that would be displaced by the SJBL-RIL connection and
by the RIL connection to the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station. Alternative E also has
slightly higher costs associated with noise impact mitigation compared to Alternative D. These
result from greater impacts at grade crossings on the RIL.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 47 STV Incorporated
6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
6.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of the four alternatives was based on consideration of the following evaluation
criteria:
Operational Issues – The consideration of operational impacts related to bus and train
movements when providing revenue service as part of the defined alternative. The alternative
should provide service through the most reasonable and efficient service plan.
Railroad Access – The consideration of railroad access issues related to any constraints on
access to the existing Downtown Riverside Metrolink station. The alternative should seek to
provide the most reasonable and time-effective approach to access the station.
Travel Time – The time needed to travel from Perris to Riverside within a transit vehicle. The
alternative should provide an optimum travel time between Perris and Riverside when compared
against other alternatives.
Property Needs – The existing and new property needed to implement the alternative
including existing railroad right-of-way. The alternative should minimize to the greatest extent
possible the impacts to property along the alignment and station areas.
Capital Costs – The cost to engineer, design and construct the alternative to the point where
it can enter into revenue operations. The alternative should have a reasonable capital cost that
provides a level of quality and service that is comparable with the existing bus (RTA) and rail
systems (Metrolink) in the region.
Operating Costs – The cost to operate and maintain the alternative on an annual basis to
assure an efficient and reliable service. The alternative should have a reasonable operating and
maintenance cost that provides a level of quality and service that is comparable with the
existing bus (RTA) and rail systems (Metrolink) in the region.
Ridership – The patronage on each of the alternatives expressed in daily boardings. The
alternative should maximize the ability to attract riders to the new service.
Environmental – The environmental issues associated with each alternative that impact the
surrounding communities and environment. The alternative should minimize to the greatest
extent possible the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of its operations
and facilities.
Maximize Under-utilized Resources – The ability to utilize existing transportation and
community resources to improve the connections between Perris and Riverside and also into
areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The alternative should seek to maximize the use of
existing railroad rights-of-way, roadways, transit facilities and community resources within the
corridor.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 48 STV Incorporated
Improve Travel Choices in the Corridor – The ability to increase the options for travel
within the corridor by modes other than the automobile. The alternative should seek to provide
options for travelers other than the automobile, such as bus and rail transit services.
Each alternative was evaluated based on the criteria discussed above to establish its relative
performance in comparison to the other alternatives. The evaluation criteria were developed to
assist the study team, stakeholders and general public in identifying the best performing
alternative given the needs and goals of the study as developed in the purpose and need
statement:
Study Needs
Need 1 - Reduce Roadway Congestion
Need 2 - Provide Transit Travel Options to Constantly Growing Population and Employment
Need 3 - Coordinate Transportation Planning and Community Development
Need 4 - Maximize Under-Utilized Transportation Resources
Study Goals
Goal 1 – Improve the Transportation System with Alternate Travel Choices – Expand
and improve upon the regional transit network within and beyond the study corridor to provide
an option to the automobile to reduce congestion and promote a seamless transit system within
the region.
Goal 2 – Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development - Strengthen older urban
areas as centers of economic opportunity through transit-oriented development (TOD) to
provide improved mobility opportunities for commuters and the transit dependent.
Goal 3 – Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts - Control residential, commercial and
industrial “sprawl” development through the use of existing community and transportation
resources.
Goal 4 – Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently - Invest resources
efficiently to improve the productivity and cost effectiveness of transit services in the corridor
enhancing upon the existing public transportation system underused and inactive transportation
resources.
The evaluation process was established to be objective and not bias any particular
transportation mode or alternative. The best performing alternative, in comparison to the
others, will be recommended as the Locally Preferred Alternative, following a round of public
outreach that presents the evaluation results.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 49 STV Incorporated
6.2 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS
Exhibit 30 provides a summary of the alternative evaluations based upon the evaluation criteria
described in the evaluation methodology. The alternatives were rated as good, fair or poor for
each evaluation criterion in relation to the other three alternatives. The alternative that
performed the highest in relation to the others received a good rating (full circle), the lowest a
poor rating (empty circle) and those that were average received a fair rating (half circle).
Alternative B: TSM/Express Bus – Alternative B received a good rating in several criteria
including railroad access issues, property needs, capital and operating costs and environmental
impacts. This is primarily a result of physical and operational characteristics of the express bus
system, which requires minimal infrastructure to accommodate its implementation. However,
Alternative B performed poorly in several criteria including operational issues related to highway
congestion, travel time, ridership, travel choices and maximizing under-utilized resources due to
its use of at or near capacity highway, roadway and HOV systems. Key criteria highlights are as
follows:
Railroad access issues do not apply to this alternative due to its non-dependency of railroad
rights-of-way, however, its operations are negatively affected by highway and roadway
congestion levels.
Travel time is estimated to increase from 58 minutes in 2010 to 98 minutes in 2025
between Perris and Riverside due to increasing congestion levels on the major highways and
arterials used by the express bus service.
Environmental impacts are low with no property displacements or noise impacts.
Capital and operating costs are lowest among all alternatives at $19.3M and $4.3M (opening
year) respectively.
Ridership growth for this alternative is minimal as a result of poor travel times. As highway
congestion in the corridor worsens over the years, and causes delays with the express bus
service, ridership increased from 3,316 boardings in 2010 to 3,705 boardings in 2025.
Travel choices are not markedly enhanced due to the impacts of roadway congestion on
express bus operations, especially in the outer and horizon years.
Under-utilized transportation resources are not maximized as the alternative operates on the
I-215 and University Avenue, both of which are heavily traveled roadways with forecasted
declines in levels of service over the next two decades.
AlternativeOperational Issues Railroad Access IssuesTravel Time Property Needs CapitalCosts(2004 $)OperatingCosts(2004 $)RidershipEnvironmental(Preliminary)Improve Travel ChoicesMaximize Under-Utilized Resources Alternative B TSM / Express Bus xOperation on existing highways and roadways such as I-215 and University Avenue. xSubject to existing and future automobile congestion which will negatively affect travel times.xDoes not travel on railroad rights-of-way resulting in no railroad access issues. x58 minutes in 2010 from Perris South to Riverside x98 minutes in 2025 from Perris South to Riverside xUses existing highway and roadways xProperty would be needed for park and ride lots with no displacements. $19.3 M $4.3 MAnnually in opening year $4.8 MAnnually in 20253,3162010-Boardings 3,7052025-Boardings xNo land acquisitions for bus alignments; acquisition of vacant lands for park & ride lots xLow air quality benefits due to small mode shift xNo noise impacts xMinimal mitigation needed xImproves travel choices xCongestion has significant effect on future quality of service xDoes not use abundant railroad rights-of-way such as San Jacinto Branchline and UP RIL. RatingAlternative C Commuter Rail with Turnback at Highgrove xRequires turnback movement at Highgrove causing approx. 10-minute delay in overall travel time between Perris and Riverside. xFRA required brake tests and other safety procedures required when reversing train direction. xPotential for delays to access Mainline due to BNSF dispatching control.xCurrent BNSF / RCTC operating agreement allows 16 one-way train movements with capacity for initial SJBL service only. xService increases in outer and horizon years cannot be accommodated without new agreement. x49 minutes in 2010 from Perris South to Riverside. x49 minutes in 2025 from Perris South to Riverside. xUnimpeded by current and future automobile congestion due to use of exclusive right-of-wayx0 full displacements x0 partial displacement / reconfiguration xProperty would be needed for park and ride lots with no displacements $128.0 M $6.5 MAnnually in opening year $9.1 M Annually in 20253,817 2010-Boardings 6,542 2025-BoardingsxNo land acquisitions for rail alignment; acquisition of vacant lands for stations xModerate air quality benefits due to mode shift xNoise impacts in Perris and Highgrove xModerate mitigation needed xImproves travel choices xCongestion does not affect future quality of service xTurnback movement reduces quality of service xUse of abundant railroad rights-of-way such as San Jacinto Branchline.xUses heavily traveled BNSF Mainline from Highgrove to Riverside Station. RatingAlternative D Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street xReduces impacts with BNSF Mainline operations xReduces impacts with Metrolink Inland Empire operations xEliminates turnback movement and brake safety test at Highgrove. xCurrent BNSF / RCTC operating agreement allows 16 one-way train movements with capacity for initial SJBL service only. xNo guarantee on exclusive use of 4th track with potential delays due to BNSF dispatching control. x42 minutes in 2010 from Perris South to Riverside. x42 minutes in 2025 from Perris South to Riverside. xUnimpeded by current and future automobile congestion due to use of exclusive right-of-way x0 full displacements x1 partial displacement / reconfiguration xProperty would be needed for park and ride lots with no displacements $143.6 M $6.4 M Annually in opening year $8.9 MAnnually in 20254,151 2010-Boardings 7,472 2025-BoardingsxAcquisition of vacant land for rail connection; acquisitions of vacant lands for stations xModerate air quality benefits due to mode shift xNoise impacts in Perris xModerate mitigation needed xImproves travel choices xCongestion does not affect future quality of service xQuality of service remains stable xUse of abundant railroad rights-of-way such as San Jacinto Branchline.xUses heavily traveled BNSF Mainline from Highgrove to Riverside Station. RatingAlternative E Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP at Rustin Avenue xEliminates impacts with BNSF Mainline operations xReduces impacts with Metrolink Inland Empire operations xEliminates turnback movement and brake safety test at Highgrove. xEliminates capacity constraints related to service increases in outer years. xRequires operating agreement with UP. xFreight operations on UP RIL are minimal with one daily switcher. xUP has significant interest in selling RIL to RCTC. x40 minutes in 2010 from Perris South to Riverside. x40 minutes in 2025 from Perris South to Riverside. xUnimpeded by current and future automobile congestion due to use of exclusive right-of-way x2 full displacements x1 partial displacement / reconfiguration of open parcels xProperty would be needed for park and ride lots with no displacements $145.3 M $6.1 MAnnually in opening year $8.4 M Annually in 20254,151 2010-Boardings 7,4722025-BoardingsxAcquisition of occupied business for rail connection; acquisitions of vacant lands for stations xModerate air quality benefits due to mode shift xNoise impacts in Perris and Riverside xModerate mitigation needed xImproves travel choices xCongestion does not affect future quality of service xQuality of service remains stable xUse of abundant railroad rights-of-way such as San Jacinto Branchline and UP RIL. xDoes not use heavily traveled BNSF Mainline. xUnimpeded access to Riverside Station RatingGOOD = FAIR =POOR =Exhibit 30: Evaluation Matrix for Alternatives
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 51 STV Incorporated
Alternative C: Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback – Alternative C performed good
in one criterion – property needs, poorly under operational and railroad access issues and fair
for several criteria including travel time, capital and operating costs, ridership, environmental,
travel choices and maximizing under-utilized resources. Key criteria highlights are as follows:
Operational and railroad access issues received low ratings due to a significant delay caused
by the turnback movement in Highgrove and reliance on the BNSF mainline tracks for the
approach to Downtown Riverside Metrolink station. Other contributing factors to the lower
rating include the loss of dispatching control over trains on this section of track, and the
unavailability of extra train movement capacity in later years.
Travel time of 49 minutes in both 2010 and 2025, is lower than the Alternative B because it
operates on an exclusive guideway but higher than Alternatives D and E due to the delay
caused by the turnback movement.
New property would not be required for implementation of this alternative except for
available land at park and ride stations.
Capital costs of $128.0M are significantly higher than Alternative B since this is a full build
commuter rail alternative, but are not much less than Alternatives D or E, at $143.6M and
$145.3M respectively. This is due to the fact that a majority of the cost for all three
commuter rail alternatives includes the rehabilitation of the SJBL track for higher speed
commuter rail operations.
Annual operating costs at $6.5M (opening year) are also significantly higher than Alternative
B ($4.3M) and slightly higher than Alternatives D ($6.4M) and E ($6.1M).
Ridership for Alternative C is significantly higher that Alternative B with 6,542 boardings in
2025, since commuter rail travel time is not affected by highway congestion.
Environmental impacts would be higher than Alternative B, but similar to Alternatives D and
E. It will be necessary at certain locations to mitigate noise impacts resulting from train
horns.
Travel choices and utilization of existing transportation resources would be improved
compared to Alternative B, due to the use of existing and available railroad rights-of-way,
but not to the extent of Alternatives D and E which provide better accessibility and travel
times to the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station.
Alternative D: Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street –
Alternative D received a good rating for travel time, ridership and improved travel choices, a fair
rating for operational issues, railroad access issues, property needs, operating costs,
environmental impacts and maximization of underutilized resources, and a poor rating for
capital costs. Key criteria highlights are as follows:
Operational issues are improved over Alternative C with the elimination of the turnback
movement in Highgrove, however, the potential for impacts with BNSF freight operations
still exists.
Railroad access issues include the need for a new agreement allowing for future year train
movements, there is no guarantee for exclusive use of the 4th track to be built as part of this
alternative and control of dispatching is retained by BNSF.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 52 STV Incorporated
Travel time of 42 minutes in both 2010 and 2025, is lower than for Alternatives B or C and
only slightly higher than Alternative E because it travels a longer distance to reach the
Downtown Riverside Metrolink station.
A property acquisition, with no displacements, would be required for the new connection
track near Citrus Street. Park and ride stations would utilize existing available land at
station areas.
Capital costs of $143.6 are significantly higher than Alternative B ($19.3M), somewhat
higher than Alternative C ($128.0M) and slightly lower than Alternative E ($145.3M).
Annual operating costs at $6.4M (opening year) are also higher than Alternative B ($4.3M)
but similar to Alternatives C ($6.4M) and E ($6.1M).
Ridership is more than double that of Alternative B with 7,472 boardings in 2025 and higher
than Alternative C due to improved travel time.
Environmental impacts would be higher than Alternative B but similar to Alternatives C and
E. It will be necessary at certain locations to mitigate noise impacts resulting from train
horns.
Travel choices and utilization of existing transportation resources would be improved as
compared to Alternative B, due to the use of existing and available railroad rights-of-way.
Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue –
Alternative E received a good rating in six criteria including operational issues, railroad access
issues, travel time, ridership, travel choices and maximization of under-utilized resources, a
poor rating for property needs and capital costs and a fair rating for operating costs and
environmental impacts. Key criteria highlights are as follows:
Operational issues are improved over the other alternatives with the elimination of the
turnback movement in Highgrove and elimination of dependency on the BNSF mainline.
The use of the RIL provides direct and unimpeded access to the Downtown Riverside
Metrolink station.
Railroad access issues are also improved through the use of the RIL eliminating the train
movement capacity constraint in future years and RCTC would retain dispatching control.
In addition the Union Pacific Railroad has expressed significant interest in selling the RIL to
RCTC.
Travel time is 40 minutes in both 2010 and 2025, lower than Alternatives B, C or D due to
the direct and unimpeded access to the Downtown Riverside Metrolink station.
New property acquisitions, requiring two displacements, are needed for the new connection
track near Rustin Avenue and the area above Third Street. Park and ride stations would
utilize existing vacant land at station areas.
Capital costs at $145.3M are significantly higher than Alternative B ($19.3M), somewhat
higher than Alternative C ($128.0M) and only slightly higher than Alternative D at $143.6M.
The cost of this alternative reflects the purchase of the RIL from the Union Pacific.
Annual operating costs at $6.1M (opening year) are also higher than Alternative B ($4.3M)
but somewhat lower than Alternatives C ($6.5M) and D ($6.4M).
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 53 STV Incorporated
Ridership is more than double that of Alternative B with 7,472 boardings in 2025 and higher
than Alternative C due to improved travel time.
Environmental impacts would be higher than Alternative B but similar to Alternatives C and
D. It will be necessary at certain locations to mitigate noise impacts resulting from train
horns.
Travel choices and utilization of existing transportation resources would be improved as
compared to Alternative B, due to the use of existing and available railroad rights-of-way.
6.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
The alternatives evaluated in the SJBL/I-215 Corridor Study have advantages and
disadvantages associated with each improvement to the existing conditions within the corridor.
Based on the evaluation of alternatives, which indicates the Alternative E performs the best in
comparison to the others, it is recommended that this alternative move forward in the project
development process as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA can be viewed in
Exhibit 31 and Exhibit 32, illustrating the selected route and option for access to the Downtown
Riverside Metrolink station.
In summary, Alternative E provides the best opportunity to implement a quality transit
alternative within the corridor that serves the needs and goals of the study, and one that is not
impeded by either highway/roadway congestion or railroad access and operational issues.
Alternative E, as the LPA will move forward in the project development process including the
adoption into the most current SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (MPO Long Range Plan). It
is important to note that although Alternative E has been selected as the LPA, during the next
phases of project development and as refinements are made, minor changes can be anticipated
in alignment and proposed station locations. In the event that any aspect of the connecting
track configuration for Alternative E cannot be implemented as planned, the study recommends
that a direct connection to BNSF, such as proposed in Alternative D, be retained as an option
for contingency purposes.
Exhibit 31: Locally Preferred Alternative Overview Map
Exhibit 32: Locally Preferred Alternative Approach to Riverside
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 56 STV Incorporated
6.4 FINANCIAL PLAN
Upon completion of the alternative evaluation phase of the study, a financial plan was prepared
for RCTC that incorporated the costs to implement Alternative E as the LPA. The financial plan
also documents the recent financial history of the agency, describes its current financial health,
documents projected costs and revenues, and demonstrates the reasonableness of key
assumptions underlying these projections. The Financial Plan is contained in a separate
document produced for this study, and it demonstrates that RCTC can support the costs
associated with Alternative E without adverse impact on the funding of other agency programs
or commitments.
Many programs share the funding raised through the Measure A sales tax , a ½ cent sales tax
in Riverside County. A 30-year extension of the Measure A sales tax was approved by voters in
November 2002, thus extending this funding source, which had an initial expiration set for
2009, to 2039. RCTC also receives and programs funding from state and federal sources. This
includes the state’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
programs that are allocated to the county’s major public transit providers.
In addition to implementation of Alternative E, the Rail Department also is engaged in upgrades
and parking expansion among five agency owned and operated rail stations. The Rail
Department also provides the capital and operating subsidy to SCRRA for commuter rail services
in Riverside County and for certain system-wide costs.
RCTC has a goal to obtain a Full Funding Grant Agreement from the FTA under the Section
5309 New Starts Program. This would provide for up to 50% of the overall project capital cost.
The other new and currently available funding anticipated to contribute to the remaining capital
cost as well as the O&M costs of Alternative E are summarized below:
Rail Department Sources of Revenue - Federal
Section 5307 (Riverside/San Bernardino UZA) – The urbanized area formula program
from the FTA provides transit capital and operating assistance to urbanized areas. These funds
apply towards the Riverside/San Bernardino area and represent the annual apportion to
commuter rail agencies based upon various performance criteria, the most significant of which
is the amount of route miles within a county.
Section 5307 (Hemet UZA) – This represent the additional funds that would become
available from the FTA 5307 funds when Alternative E is implemented. RCTC is eligible to
receive these funds one year after operations begin on the SJBL.
Section 5309 (Fixed Guideway) – These FTA funds represent rail modernization funding to
rehabilitate and upgrade existing rail systems and to ensure that these capital-intensive systems
remain in state of good repair. Additional funding for Alternative E will be made available after
service on the SJBL has been running for seven years.
Discretionary Funding – Additional discretionary funds are made available to RCTC through a
variety of federal programs. These funds include Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
and Surface Transportation Program (STP) sources.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 57 STV Incorporated
Rail Department Sources of Revenue – State
Local Transportation Funds – The largest source of funding for the RCTC Rail Program are
revenues received through the Local Transportation Funds (LTF), a ¼ cent gas tax,
administered by the state and provided to each county in California. The enabling legislation
for collection of these funds is the Transportation Development Act
State Transit Assistance Funds – These funds are also allocated under the Transportation
Development Act. The funds represent additional state funding in support of transit in urban
counties.
Discretionary Funding – State level discretionary funds available to RCTC include the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Interregional Transportation Improvement
Program (ITIP) funds.
Rail Department Sources of Revenue – Local
Measure A – These funds represent the allocation to the Rail Program of the ½ cent
countywide sales tax that funds many of the RCTC activities. Prior to reauthorization, the
allocation for the Rail Department represents 11.6 percent of all Measure A revenues.
Farebox Revenues – This amount represents the anticipated farebox revenues from
Alternative E ridership.
BNSF Dispatch/Access Fees – This new source includes the funds collected from BNSF for
the dispatching services and the maintenance attributed to their freight operations on the SJBL.
The results of financial analysis indicate that while extensive delivery of other capital programs
is anticipated prior to 2009, RCTC has sufficient cash reserves to fund construction of
Alternative E and still complete its other capital commitments. It is also important to note that
the projections indicate that RCTC can accommodate its current commitments, including
Alternative E, without issuing new debt. Full details, including a 20-year Rail Department and
RCTC cash flow by line item can be found in the separate Financial Plan document prepared for
this study.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 58 STV Incorporated
7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public participation throughout this phase of the SJBL / I-215 Corridor Study has been a
valuable resource. Members of the public have helped to define the purpose and need, develop
the alternatives and comment on all aspects of the process. This section describes the various
forms of public input that went into this study effort.
7.1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A Project Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) was convened early in the study to review and
comment on the technical work performed by STV, the project consultant. The PTAC met with
the consultant and representatives from RCTC on two occasions during the course of the study.
The PTAC consisted of representatives from the following agencies:
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, District 8)
City of Moreno Valley
City of Perris
City of Riverside
March Joint Powers Authority
Riverside Transit Agency
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)
University of California, Riverside
The purpose of the PTAC was to determine the guide the development of alternatives, and to
assure that the various stakeholders were informed of the project development process.
Participants represented areas that would be served by proposed commuter rail stations and
individuals familiar with railroad operations. Discussions with the PTAC helped to keep the
conceptual alignments feasible, with participants lending expertise regarding technical details
such as equipment requirements and operating agreements. Also, some PTAC participants
were able to share future development plans for their lands, enabling the study team to
determine the best location for future commuter rail stations. The contributions of the PTAC
members and the relationships established in this phase of the study will be built upon as the
LPA is refined further.
7.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS
A total of six public meetings were held for the SJBL / I-215 Study at various locations in the
corridor. The first series of three meetings, held once in Moreno Valley, Perris and Riverside,
took place in February 2002, and presented the project in general and detailed the planning
process. An identical format was used at each of these public meetings. The agenda called for
presentations and displays of information regarding the corridor and conceptual alternatives for
the study. An informal question an answer session and group discussions followed the
presentation. Participants were also encouraged to provide written comments on surveys that
were distributed at the meetings. RCTC representatives were available at these various
meetings, including other members of the study team such as consultants and PTAC member
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 59 STV Incorporated
agencies. These meetings represented an outreach to the public for input on refining the
purpose and need, while also offering a chance to receive initial feedback on alternative
transportation concepts.
Comments from the first series of meetings indicated that commuter rail was a more favorable
alternative than bus, although some participants were interested in seeing transit improvements
made for all modes. One recurring environmental concern was the need to improve air quality.
Some participants also cited noise impacts of potential improvements as a concern. These
comments were incorporated and addressed in the preparation of the Environmental
Assessment (EA).
The second series of three meetings, again held once in each corridor city, occurred in May
2003. The goal of the meetings was to present the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) for comment and public input. The Alternatives Analysis process was detailed along with
the description of the other alternatives that were considered as part of the study. Details
about the service associated with the LPA were given to the public, including the evaluation
results documented in this report. The meetings were conducted with an informal presentation
that was open to questions and answers. Comment forms were distributed and residents were
encouraged to record their opinion on the conduct of the meeting and on the material
presented. RCTC and consultant staff were available after the presentations to answer any
additional questions and provide clarification.
Most participants gave comments that indicated a strong desire for commuter rail service to
begin in the corridor. General comments throughout all meetings related to issues such as
noise generated by the trains and the need to provide rail service to Highgrove. Presentation of
the draft EA results were also made at the second round of public meetings and a description of
specific measures was given to illustrate how noise impacts could be reduced. Residents noted
that Alternative E does not provide direct access to Highgrove, a growing area that is in favor of
additional transit options. The evaluation results indicated the reasons a Highgrove alignment
was not selected, and residents were informed that a recommendation will be made for a
station in Highgrove on the Metrolink Inland Empire-Orange County (IEOC) Line, which
currently passes through the area without a stop. A Highgrove station on the IEOC Line would
provide service to both Riverside and San Bernardino for residents of Highgrove and Grand
Terrace. An additional comment made by some residents concerned the affect of commuter rail
service on current freight shippers along the SJBL. It was explained that improvements and
upgrades to the line for implementation of Alternative E would also improve the line for freight
service as well. It was further explained that freight operations would occur during the off-peak
times so that joint-use of the line would be feasible, and that the line would be more attractive
to other rail shippers once refurbished and could encourage further economic development. A
summary of the public meetings is shown in Exhibit 33.
It is important to note that the study team intends to conduct continuous public involvement
efforts as the PVL project moves forward. As an example, the LPA will again be presented
along with a project update during public meetings that will be held for the final results of the
EA, which is expected in April of 2004.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 60 STV Incorporated
Exhibit 33: Summary of Public Meetings
Presentation Location Date Number of
Attendees
Project Introduction Moreno Valley 2/13/02 14
Project Introduction Riverside 2/19/02 14
Project Introduction Perris 2/20/02 25
LPA Perris 5/07/03 13
LPA Riverside 5/12/03 7
LPA Moreno Valley 5/19/03 9
7.3 COORDINATION WITH INDIVIDUAL GROUPS
In addition to input received from PTAC members, additional comments were solicited and
received from stakeholders separate from formal committee meetings. Discussions with the
following groups were held individually and in many cases on multiple occasions throughout the
development of alternatives and their evaluation.
BNSF – Meetings with the BNSF were held to discuss the capital cost estimates made for
Alternative C and Alternative D, as both of these alignments propose using the BNSF mainline to
access the Downtown Riverside Station. Additionally, discussions were held concerning the
agreement that governs the number of commuter train movements permitted on the BNSF
mainline.
City of Grand Terrace - A meeting with the mayor of Grand Terrace was held to discuss
opportunities for including Metrolink service to Highgrove as part of the SJBL project.
Discussion with the mayor included a recommendation for a Highgrove station on the Metrolink
Inland Empire-Orange County Line, as a station on that alignment would provide better service
options than service from the SJBL.
City of Perris – Meetings were held with the city of Perris to discuss possible station locations.
City of Riverside – A meeting was held with Riverside officials specifically pertaining to
Alternative E and the safety concerns of operating commuter rail service on the approximately
½ mile portion of the UP RIL that runs along Massachusetts Avenue. As the development of
Alternative E is further refined, specific reconfigurations of road crossings and construction of
separation barriers may be necessary, but the city did not deem commuter rail operations on
the UP RIL as infeasible.
March Joint Powers Authority – The March JPA meetings included making arrangements for
the donation of their land for a commuter rail station that would serve proposed development.
Also, coordination with March JPA has resulted in a commuter rail station being included into
the approved specific area plan for that segment of the corridor.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 61 STV Incorporated
Metrolink – Meeting were held with Metrolink regarding the role of their organization as the
likely operator of new commuter rail service. Specific feedback was received regarding the
operating plan, operating agreements with BNSF, cost/revenue estimates, train running times,
grade separation potential, and safety issues of the various alternatives. Metrolink has offered
to continue to work with the study team to refine the financial estimates of the project,
including such specifics as insurance costs and labor scales.
Union Pacific – Meetings were held with the Union Pacific Railroad concerning the possible
acquisition of the portion of the Riverside Industrial Lead needed for the Alternative E
alignment. The discussions resulted in a preliminary memorandum of understanding for the
purchase of the right-of-way.
The Valley Group – A project presentation was made to the Valley Group on February 19,
2004 where a project status was given by members of RCTC. The Valley group is a self
subscribed organization of community and business leaders that advocate for development and
infrastructure projects in Perris Valley and Western Riverside County to enhance economic
development and quality of life in the region.
Regional Stakeholders and Elected Officials – A project presentation was made by RCTC
and the study team to key regional stakeholders on February 19, 2004 in the city of Riverside.
Attendees included state and local elected officials, Valley Group members, community leaders,
RCTC board members and BNSF Railroad. The presentation included a description of the LPA,
status of the project development process and next steps, including an upcoming submittal to
FTA to request entry into PE.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study 62 STV Incorporated
8 NEXT STEPS
The Alternatives Analysis (AA) process resulted in the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) as documented in this report. This is the first step towards the full implementation of the
project. In parallel with the AA, an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared
documenting environmental impacts associated with the alternatives, as well as proposed
mitigations of impacts. Finally, a financial plan details how the LPA costs will be funded by
RCTC.
Subsequent to public review of the LPA, the selected alternative will be adopted by the RCTC
Board and entered into the Regional Long Range Transportation Plan. RCTC will then prepare
and submit a request to the Federal Transit Administration for the San Jacinto Commuter Rail
line to enter into Preliminary Engineering (PE). This request is made through an application to
the Federal New Starts Funding program (Section 5309 Funds). By following the FTA process,
the project may be eligible for federal dollars to offset the project capital cost, typically as much
as 50% of the capital investment. The FTA will review and rate the project in terms of its
justification – based on corridor conditions and the benefits resulting from the project, as well
as on the financial and administrative capability of RCTC to implement and operate the project.
In parallel with the Section 5309 review process, the EA review process will also be completed.
This includes internal and FTA reviews of a draft, followed by the publishing and distribution of
the EA document. A public hearing or information meeting will be held on the EA.
Subsequently, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) document will be prepared to include information from the EA, and
both the MND and EA will be approved by the RCTC Board. It is anticipated that the FTA will
then issue a “Finding of No Significant Impact” or FONSI.
The Section 5309 New Starts rating and the FONSI are both expected to be received in early
Fall of 2003, after which the project can move into PE – a more refined level of design of the
LPA – which is expected to be completed in 2004. The PE phase is expected to extend for 1 ½
years. Prior to completion of PE, an updated New Starts Application will be resubmitted to the
FTA with a request to enter into Final Design and a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). It is
at this stage that the FTA will decide to support the project with their financial commitment,
while also giving approval for the final construction drawings to be prepared. This is dependent
on the project rating received at this second submission of the application. A project rating of
“Highly Recommended” or “Recommended” will be needed from the FTA to secure the FFGA.
The final design and construction phase is then expected to take approximately four years with
the line opening in early 2008.
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
APPENDICES
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
APPENDIX A: GROWTH TRENDS
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
Exhibit A-1: Population Growth in Riverside County 1960-2000
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
Exhibit A-2: Population Growth within the Cities of Western Riverside County
City 2000 2010 2025 % Change
2000-2025
Riverside 255,166 302,507 340,328 33%
Perris 36,189 52,985 109,377 202%
Moreno Valley 142,381 169,459 221,343 55%
Banning 23,562 34,811 47,328 101%
Beaumont 11,384 26,279 56,450 396%
Calimesa 7,139 13,112 29,554 314%
Canyon Lake 9,952 10,675 10,702 8%
Corona 124,966 138,896 156,522 25%
Hemet 58,812 80,904 127,899 117%
Lake Elsinore 28,928 49,338 81,820 183%
Murrieta 44,282 67,601 96,382 118%
Norco 24,157 29,579 30,568 27%
San Jacinto 23,779 46,983 67,115 182%
Temecula 57,716 76,704 86,000 49%
Total 848,413 1,099,833 1,461,388 72%
Source: 2000 Census, SCAG
Exhibit A-3: Employment Growth within the Cities of Western Riverside County
City 2000 2010 2025 % Change
2000-2025
Riverside 125,938 182,943 232,326 84%
Perris 11,701 22,747 32,300 176%
Moreno Valley 33,163 53,887 71,859 117%
Banning 8,453 12,145 15,342 81%
Beaumont 6,185 14,811 22,291 260%
Calimesa 1,867 3,692 5,273 182%
Canyon Lake 1,958 2,451 2,875 47%
Corona 41,583 56,751 69,905 68%
Hemet 17,818 23,859 29,095 63%
Lake Elsinore 8,289 17,539 25,562 208%
Murrieta 8,447 19,028 28,205 234%
Norco 8,891 10,631 12,140 37%
San Jacinto 6,328 11,215 15,455 144%
Temecula 20,880 34,471 46,260 122%
Total 301,501 466,170 608,888 102%
Source: SCAG, 2001 RTP Growth Forecast
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
APPENDIX B: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Exhibit B-1: AM Freeway CongestionSan Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study1997 Base Year Freeway Congestion (AM)San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study2025 Forecast Year Freeway Congestion (AM)
Exhibit B-2: PM Freeway CongestionSan Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study1997 Base Year Freeway Congestion (PM)San Jacinto Branchline/I-215 Corridor Study2025 Forecast Year Freeway Congestion (PM)
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
APPENDIX C: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST BACK-UP
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
Exhibit C-1: O&M Cost Categories
Driving Factor for Cost Category
Cost Category Train
Miles
Annual
Boardings
Track
Miles Stations
Train Operations X
Equipment Maintenance X
Contingency (Train Opps) X
Fuel X
Non-Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs X
Operating Facilities Maintenance X
Other Operating Train Services X
Security – Sheriff X
Security – Guards X
Supplemental Additional Security X
Public Safety X
Passenger Relations X
Holiday Trains X
TVM Maintenance/Revenue
Collection X
Marketing X
Media and External Communications X
Utilities/Leases X
Transfers to other Operators X
Amtrak Transfers X
Station Maintenance X
Rail Agreements X
Maintenance of Way – Line
Segments X
Maintenance of Way – Extra-
Ordinary X
Salaries and Fringe Benefits X
Ambassadors X
Non Labor Costs X
Allocated Overhead X
Professional Services X
Liability X
Claims X
Claims Administration X
Insurance X
Local Station Obligations X
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
Exhibit C-2: Operation and Maintenance Costs for 2008
Operating and Maintenance Costs for SJBL Commuter Rail Alternatives for 2008 Operation
Budget
Operating and Cost Categories
FY 03-04 Train Mile
(TM)
Boarding
(BDG)
Track Mile
(TRM)
Station
(ST)
Alternative C
Base Case
(Turnback)
Alternative D
Citrus Ave.
Connection
Alternative E
Rustin Ave.
Connection
Operating Statistics:Systemwide Quantities Incremental Alternative Quantities
Train Miles (thousands) 2,145.7 2,145.7 64.9 62.6 58.2
Annual boardings (thousands) 9,282.7 9,282.7 981.0 1,066.8 1,066.8
Track Miles 389.0 389.0 26.4 25.5 23.8
Stations 53.0 53.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Expenses:
Operations and Services
Train Operations 20,536.2$ 9.6$ 652.1$ 599.1$ 556.7$
Equipment Maintenance 15,683.6 7.3 474.3 457.5 425.2
Contingency (Train Ops) 150.0 0.1 4.5 4.4 4.1
Fuel 5,557.0 2.6 168.1 162.1 150.6
Non-scheduled rolling stock repairs 350.0 0.2 10.6 10.2 9.5
Operating facilities maintenance 999.6 0.5 30.2 29.2 27.1
Other Operating Train Services 145.0 0.1 4.4 4.2 3.9
Security - Sheriff 3,093.6 1.4 93.6 90.2 83.9
Security - Guards 829.7 15.7 93.9 93.9 93.9
Supplemental Additional Security 340.0 0.2 10.3 9.9 9.2
Public Safety 489.0 1.3 33.2 32.0 29.9
Passenger Relations 1,342.3 0.1 141.9 154.3 154.3
Holiday Trains 147.5 0.1 4.5 4.3 4.0
TVM Maintenance / Revenue Collection 2,502.5 47.2 283.3 283.3 283.3
Marketing 958.4 2.5 65.0 62.8 58.6
Media and External Communications 597.4 1.5 40.5 39.1 36.5
Utilities/Leases 1,707.0 4.4 115.8 111.9 104.3
Transfers to Other Operators 3,580.0 0.4 378.3 411.4 411.4
Amtrak Transfers 490.0 0.1 51.8 56.3 56.3
Station Maintenance 637.1 12.0 72.1 72.1 72.1
Rail Agreements 2,826.5 1.3 85.5 82.5 -
Total Operations 62,962.4$ 23.2$ 0.6$ 9.6$ 74.9$ 2,813.8$ 2,770.9$ 2,574.7$
Maintenance of Way
MOW - Line Segments 18,879.5$ 48.5$ 1,280.6$ 1,237.2$ 1,153.6$
MOW - Extra-Ordinary 500.0 1.3 33.9 32.8 30.6
Total MOW 19,379.5$ -$ -$ 49.8$ -$ 1,314.5$ 1,270.0$ 1,184.1$
G & A
Salaries & Fringe Benefits 6,008.6$ 15.4$ 101.9$ 98.4$ 91.8$
Amabassadors 490.7 1.3 8.3 8.0 7.5
Non Labor Costs 602.0 1.5 10.2 9.9 9.2
Allocated Overhead 5,259.7 13.5 89.2 86.2 80.3
Professional Services 1,485.4 3.8 25.2 24.3 22.7
Total G & A 13,846.4$ -$ -$ 35.6$ -$ 234.8$ 226.8$ 211.5$
Liability 4,595.0$ 2.1$ 139.0$ 134.0$ 124.6$
Claims 1,350.0 0.6 40.8 39.4 36.6
Claims Administration 625.0 0.3 18.9 18.2 16.9
Insurance 6,570.0$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ 198.7$ 191.7$ 178.1$
Local Station Obligations 200.0$ 1,250.0$ 1,200.0$ 1,200.0$
Rail O&M Expenses (2003 $s)5,811.9$ 5,659.4$ 5,348.5$
Rail O&M Expenses (2004 $s)6,015.3$ 5,857.4$ 5,535.7$
Feeder Bus Network (RTA in 2004 $s)532.6$ 523.6$ 523.6$
Total Additional O&M Expenses (2004 $s) 106,872.3$ 58,373.0$ 5,601.7$ 38,271.9$ 4,315.2$ 6,547.9$ 6,381.1$ 6,059.3$
Notes:
Metrolink Existing System SJBL Alternatives
(2003 Dollars - based on 03/04 Metrolink O&M budget)
All unit costs in 2003 dollars based on Metrolink's most recent FY03/04 Operating and Maintenance Budget, unless otherwise noted
Operating and Maintenance costs from Riverside to Los Angeles not included. Service currently in operation and SJBL trains would be an extension of this service.
Cost Drivers (Unit Costs)O&M Costs (Perris to Riverside)
Alternative C includes a 5% penalty on train operations for the extra time required for labor costs of the turnback operation
General and Administrative Costs estimated at 25% of full allocation based on assumption that increases would not be proportionate
Track miles include double track and passing siding areas for both the existing Metrolink system and proposed SJBL
Local station obligations include an extra $50k for the larger station required for Alternative C - Turnback scenario at Highgrove
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
Exhibit C-3: Operation and Maintenance Costs for 2025
Operating and Maintenance Costs for SJBL Commuter Rail Alternatives for 2025 Operation
Budget
Operating and Cost Categories
FY 03-04 Train Mile
(TM)
Boarding
(BDG)
Track Mile
(TRM)
Station
(ST)
Alternative C
Base Case
(Turnback)
Alternative D
Citrus Ave.
Connection
Alternative E
Rustin Ave.
Connection
Operating Statistics:Systemwide Quantities Incremental Alternative Quantities
Train Miles (thousands) 2,145.7 2,145.7 142.8 137.7 128.0
Annual boardings (thousands) 9,282.7 9,282.7 1,681.3 1,920.3 1,920.3
Track Miles 389.0 389.0 26.4 25.5 23.8
Stations 53.0 53.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Expenses:
Operations and Services
Train Operations 20,536.2$ 9.6$ 1,434.7$ 1,318.0$ 1,224.7$
Equipment Maintenance 15,683.6 7.3 1,043.5 1,006.6 935.3
Contingency (Train Ops) 150.0 0.1 10.0 9.6 8.9
Fuel 5,557.0 2.6 369.7 356.6 331.4
Non-scheduled rolling stock repairs 350.0 0.2 23.3 22.5 20.9
Operating facilities maintenance 999.6 0.5 66.5 64.2 59.6
Other Operating Train Services 145.0 0.1 9.6 9.3 8.6
Security - Sheriff 3,093.6 1.4 205.8 198.5 184.5
Security - Guards 829.7 15.7 93.9 93.9 93.9
Supplemental Additional Security 340.0 0.2 22.6 21.8 20.3
Public Safety 489.0 1.3 33.2 32.0 29.9
Passenger Relations 1,342.3 0.1 243.1 277.7 277.7
Holiday Trains 147.5 0.1 9.8 9.5 8.8
TVM Maintenance / Revenue Collection 2,502.5 47.2 283.3 283.3 283.3
Marketing 958.4 2.5 65.0 62.8 58.6
Media and External Communications 597.4 1.5 40.5 39.1 36.5
Utilities/Leases 1,707.0 4.4 115.8 111.9 104.3
Transfers to Other Operators 3,580.0 0.4 648.4 740.6 740.6
Amtrak Transfers 490.0 0.1 88.7 101.4 101.4
Station Maintenance 637.1 12.0 72.1 72.1 72.1
Rail Agreements 2,826.5 1.3 188.1 181.4 -
Total Operations 62,962.4$ 23.2$ 0.6$ 9.6$ 74.9$ 5,067.8$ 5,012.8$ 4,601.4$
Maintenance of Way
MOW - Line Segments 18,879.5$ 48.5$ 1,280.6$ 1,237.2$ 1,153.6$
MOW - Extra-Ordinary 500.0 1.3 33.9 32.8 30.6
Total MOW 19,379.5$ -$ -$ 49.8$ -$ 1,314.5$ 1,270.0$ 1,184.1$
G & A
Salaries & Fringe Benefits 6,008.6$ 15.4$ 101.9$ 98.4$ 91.8$
Amabassadors 490.7 1.3 8.3 8.0 7.5
Non Labor Costs 602.0 1.5 10.2 9.9 9.2
Allocated Overhead 5,259.7 13.5 89.2 86.2 80.3
Professional Services 1,485.4 3.8 25.2 24.3 22.7
Total G & A 13,846.4$ -$ -$ 35.6$ -$ 234.8$ 226.8$ 211.5$
Liability 4,595.0$ 2.1$ 305.7$ 294.9$ 274.0$
Claims 1,350.0 0.6 89.8 86.6 80.5
Claims Administration 625.0 0.3 41.6 40.1 37.3
Insurance 6,570.0$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ 437.1$ 421.7$ 391.8$
Local Station Obligations 200.0$ 1,250.0$ 1,200.0$ 1,200.0$
Rail O&M Expenses (2003 $s)8,304.3$ 8,131.3$ 7,588.8$
Rail O&M Expenses (2004 $s)8,594.9$ 8,415.9$ 7,854.4$
Feeder Bus Network (RTA in 2004 $s)532.6$ 523.6$ 523.6$
Total Additional O&M Expenses (2004 $s) 103,258.3$ 56,399.0$ 5,412.3$ 36,977.7$ 4,169.3$ 9,127.5$ 8,939.6$ 8,378.1$
Notes:
(2003 Dollars - based on 03/04 Metrolink O&M budget)
Metrolink Existing System SJBL Alternatives
Cost Drivers (Unit Costs)O&M Costs (Perris to Riverside)
Track miles include double track and passing siding areas for both the existing Metrolink system and proposed SJBL
Local station obligations include an extra $50k for the larger station required for Alternative C - Turnback scenario at Highgrove
Alternative C includes a 5% penalty on train operations for the extra time required for labor costs of the turnback operation
All unit costs in 2003 dollars based on Metrolink's most recent FY03/04 Operating and Maintenance Budget, unless otherwise noted
Operating and Maintenance costs from Riverside to Los Angeles not included. Service currently in operation and SJBL trains would be an extension of this service.
General and Administrative Costs estimated at 25% of full allocation based on assumption that increases would not be proportionate
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study
APPENDIX D: CAPITAL COST BACK-UP
Capital Costs for Alternative B - Transportation System ManagementI-215 Express Bus Item Description Unit Unit PriceEst. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost5 Stations5.01 Bus Stop/Station EA 250,000$ 3 750,000$ 1 250,000$ 2 500,000$ 1 250,000$ 7.0 1,750,000$5.02 Parking (at-grade) EA 3,500$ 250 875,000$ 275 962,500$ 175 612,500$ -$ 700.0 2,450,000$Sub Total:1,625,000$ 1,212,500$ 1,112,500$ 250,000$ 4,200,000$Design/Const. Mgmt. (25%)406,250 303,125 278,125 62,500 1,050,000$Total Construction:2,031,250 1,515,625 1,390,625 312,500 5,250,000$ Property AcquistionStation PropertyLS 1$ 740520 740,520$ 784080 784,080$ 609840 609,840$ -$ 2,134,440 2,134,440$VehiclesExpress (Coach) BusesEA 400,000$ 18 7,200,000$Transit BusesEA 290,000$ 3 870,000$Total Cost incl. property & vehicles:2,771,770$ 2,299,705$ 2,000,465$ 312,500$ 15,454,440$ Contingency (25%)692,943 574,926 500,116 78,125 3,863,610Grand Total3,464,713$ 2,874,631$ 2,500,581$ 390,625$ 19,318,050$Ramona to AlessandroS. Perris to Ramona Alessandro to UCR UCR to Riverside Dtwn ALT. B (TSM) TOTALSTV IncorporatedALT B TSM
Capital Costs for Alternative C - Commuter RailBase Case - Turnback at HighgroveItem Description Unit Unit PriceEst. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost1 Trackwork1.01 Mainline Track Construction (Existing Track) TM 686,400$ 3.05 2,093,520$ 4.5 3,088,800$ 3.15 2,162,160$ 5.66 3,885,024$ 1.23 844,272$ 1.52 1,043,328$ 19.1 13,117,104$1.02 Mainline Track Construction (New ROW) TM 1,056,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00 -$ 0.0 -$ 1.03 Mainline Curve Realignment LS 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 500,000$ 1.04 Unclassified Cut CY 15$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 1.05 Unclassified Fill CY 10$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 1.06 Construct 3000' Passing Siding w/turnouts EA 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 500,000$ 1 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2.0 1,000,000$ 1.07 Rehabilitate Sidings/Ext. EA -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 1.08 Install Pwr. Op. Turnouts EA 180,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 180,000$ 1.0 180,000$ 1.09 Replace existing T.O.'s / Elec. Locks EA 80,000$ 1 80,000$ 9 720,000$ 8 640,000$ 3 240,000$ 0 -$ 3 240,000$ 24.0 1,920,000$ 1.10 Earthwork/Drainage/Culvert TM 264,000$ 3.05 805,200$ 4.5 1,188,000$ 3.15 831,600$ 5.66 1,494,240$ 1.23 324,720$ 1.52 401,280$ 19.1 5,045,040$ 1.11 Other Street Improvements LF 35$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 1.12 K Rail EA 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 1.13 Traffic Control EA 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 1.14 Support Facility/Layover Track LS 750,000$ 1 750,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 750,000$ 1.15 Track reclamation TM 25,000$ 3.05 76,250$ 4.5 112,500$ 5.55 138,750$ 5.66 141,500$ 1.23 30,750$ 1.5 38,000$ 21.5 537,750$ 1.16 New Rail Crossing EA 200,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 200,000$ 0 -$ 1.0 200,000$ 2 Structures2.01 Retaining Walls LF 1,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 2.02 Drainage Structures EA 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 2.03 New Bridge LF 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 2.04 Bridge Repair EA 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 300,000$ 2.05 Building Insulation EA 5,000$ 45 225,000$ 43 215,000$ -$ 32 160,000$ 16 80,000$ 6 30,000$ 142.0 710,000$ 2.06 Noise Mitigation LF 800$ 3000 2,400,000$ 2000 1,600,000$ 0 -$ 1900 1,520,000$ 400 320,000$ 750 600,000$ 8,050.0 6,440,000$ 3 Signals/Communication3.01 CTC (mainline) TM 150,000$ 3.05 457,500$ 4.5 675,000$ 5.55 832,500$ 5.66 849,000$ 1.23 184,500$ 1.5 228,000$ 21.5 3,226,500$ 3.02 CTC Control Pts. EA 750,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2 1,500,000$ 2 1,500,000$ 0 -$ 1 750,000$ 5.0 3,750,000$ 3.03 Modify Control Point EA 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 4 Grade Crossings4.01 At Grade Crossing EA 30,000$ 9 270,000$ 2 60,000$ 0 -$ 3 90,000$ 2 60,000$ 6 180,000$ 22.0 660,000$ 4.02 Private Crossing EA 7,500$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 7,500$ 1 7,500$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2.0 15,000$ 4.03 Crossing Warning Protection (new) EA 275,000$ 9 2,475,000$ 2 550,000$ 0 -$ 3 825,000$ 2 550,000$ 6 1,650,000$ 22.0 6,050,000$ 4.04 Modify GradeXing in Conjunction w. new CP EA 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$ 5 Stations5.01 Stations EA 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 6.0 12,000,000$ 5.02 Parking SPC 3,500$ 240 840,000$ 310 1,085,000$ 310 1,085,000$ 583 2,040,500$ 75 262,500$ 300 1,050,000$ 1,818.0 6,363,000$ Sub Total:12,772,470$ 11,294,300$ 9,697,510$ 15,752,764$ 4,856,742$ 8,390,608$ 62,764,394$Design/Const. Mgmt. (25%)3,193,118$ 2,823,575$ 2,424,378$ 3,938,191$ 1,214,186$ 2,097,652$ 15,691,099$Total Construction:15,965,588$ 14,117,875$ 12,121,888$ 19,690,955$ 6,070,928$ 10,488,260$78,455,493$Property AcquisitionAlignment ROW LS 1$ -$ Station Property LS 1$ 2,546,082 2,546,082$ -$ 3,666,881 3,666,881$ 2,439,360 2,439,360$ -$ 1,829,520 1,829,520$ 10,481,84310,481,843$VehiclesCR Locomotive EA 4,500,000$0.0 -$ CR Coaches EA 1,800,000$7.0 12,600,000$ Transit Buses EA 290,000$ 3.0 870,000$ Total Cost incl. property & vehicles:18,511,670$ 14,117,875$ 15,788,768$ 22,130,315$ 6,070,928$ 12,317,780$102,407,335$Contingency (25%)4,627,917$ 3,529,469$ 3,947,192$ 5,532,579$ 1,517,732$ 3,079,445$ 25,601,834$Grand Total 23,139,587$ 17,647,344$ 19,735,960$ 27,662,894$ 7,588,659$ 15,397,225$ 128,009,169$ Perris South to PerrisUP RIL Jct to Highgrove ALT. C TOTALUCRS to UP RIL JctPerris to Ramona Ramona to Alessandro Alessandro to UCRSSTV IncorporatedALT C
Capital Costs for Alternative D - Commuter RailCitrus Avenue Connection from SJBL to BNSFItem Description Unit Unit PriceEst. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost1 Trackwork1.01 Mainline Track Construction (Existing Track) TM 686,400$ 3.05 2,093,520$ 4.5 3,088,800$ 3.15 2,162,160$ 5.66 3,885,024$ 1.23 844,272$ 0.81 559,000$ 0.20 137,280$ 18.6 12,770,056$1.02 Mainline Track Construction (New ROW) TM 1,056,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.34 364,000$ 2.88 3,040,000$ 3.2 3,404,000$1.03 Mainline Curve Realignment LS 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 500,000$1.04 Unclassified Cut CY 15$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16178 242,667$ 0 -$ 16,177.8 242,667$1.05 Unclassified Fill CY 10$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5000 50,000$ 16889 168,889$ 21,888.9 218,889$1.06 Construct 3000' Passing Siding w/turnouts EA 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 500,000$ 1 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2.0 1,000,000$1.07 Rehabilitate Sidings/Ext. EA -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$1.08 Install Pwr. Op. Turnouts EA 180,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 180,000$ 0 -$ 1.0 180,000$1.09 Replace existing T.O.'s / Elec. Locks EA 80,000$ 1 80,000$ 9 720,000$ 8 640,000$ 3 240,000$ 0 -$ 3 240,000$ 2 160,000$ 26.0 2,080,000$1.10 Earthwork/Drainage/Culvert TM 264,000$ 3.05 805,200$ 4.5 1,188,000$ 3.15 831,600$ 5.66 1,494,240$ 1.23 324,720$ 1.52 401,280$ 3.08 812,800$ 22.2 5,857,840$1.11 Other Street Improvements LF 35$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$1.12 K Rail EA 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$1.13 Traffic Control EA 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$1.14 Support Facility/Layover Track LS 750,000$ 1 750,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 750,000$1.15 Track reclamation TM 25,000$ 3.05 76,250$ 4.5 112,500$ 5.55 138,750$ 5.66 141,500$ 1.23 30,750$ 0.8 20,360$ 0.0 -$ 20.8 520,110$1.16 New Rail Crossing EA 200,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 200,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 200,000$2 Structures2.01 Retaining Walls LF 1,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500 600,000$ 500.0 600,000$2.02 Drainage Structures EA 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8 80,000$ 8.0 80,000$2.03 New Bridge LF 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 44.0 220,000$ 44.0 220,000$2.04 Bridge Repair EA 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 300,000$ 2.0 600,000$2.05 Building Insulation EA 5,000$ 45 225,000$ 43 215,000$ -$ 32 160,000$ 16 80,000$ -$ -$ 136.0 680,000$2.06 Noise Mitigation LF 800$ 3000 2,400,000$ 2000 1,600,000$ 0 -$ 1900 1,520,000$ 400 320,000$ -$ -$ 7,300.0 5,840,000$3 Signals/Communication3.01 CTC (mainline) TM 150,000$ 3.05 457,500$ 4.5 675,000$ 5.55 832,500$ 5.66 849,000$ 1.23 184,500$ 1.2 173,864$ 0.0 -$ 21.1 3,172,364$3.02 CTC Control Pts. EA 750,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2 1,500,000$ 2 1,500,000$ 0 -$ 1 750,000$ 1 750,000$ 6.0 4,500,000$3.03 Modify Control Point EA 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 300,000$ 1.0 300,000$4 Grade Crossings4.01 At Grade Crossing EA 30,000$ 9 270,000$ 2 60,000$ 0 -$ 3 90,000$ 2 60,000$ 6 180,000$ 8 240,000$ 30.0 900,000$4.02 Private Crossing EA 7,500$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 7,500$ 1 7,500$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2.0 15,000$4.03 Crossing Warning Protection (new) EA 275,000$ 9 2,475,000$ 2 550,000$ 0 -$ 3 825,000$ 2 550,000$ 6 1,650,000$ 8 2,200,000$ 30.0 8,250,000$4.04 Modify GradeXing in Conjunction w. new CP EA 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 900,000$ 2.0 900,000$5 Stations5.01 Stations EA 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 0 -$ 6.0 12,000,000$5.02 Parking SPC 3,500$ 240 840,000$ 310 1,085,000$ 310 1,085,000$ 583 2,040,500$ 75 262,500$ 300 1,050,000$ -$1,818.0 6,363,000$Construction Sub Total:12,772,470$ 11,294,300$ 9,697,510$ 15,752,764$ 4,856,742$ 7,861,170$ 9,908,969$ 72,143,925$Design/Const. Mgmt. (25%)3,193,118$ 2,823,575$ 2,424,378$ 3,938,191$ 1,214,186$ 1,965,293$ 2,477,242$ 18,035,981$Total Construction:15,965,588$ 14,117,875$ 12,121,888$ 19,690,955$ 6,070,928$ 9,826,463$ 12,386,211$90,179,906$ Property AcquisitionAlignment ROW LS 1$ - - - - - 250,000 250,000$Station Property LS 1$ 2,546,082 2,546,082$ -$ 3,666,881 3,666,881$ 2,439,360 2,439,360$ 2,296,048 2,296,048$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 10,948,370 10,948,370$VehiclesCR Locomotive EA 4,500,000$0.0 -$CR Coaches EA 1,800,000$7.0 12,600,000$Transit Buses EA 290,000$ 3.0 870,000$Total Cost incl. property & vehicles:18,511,670$ 14,117,875$ 15,788,768$ 22,130,315$ 8,366,975$ 9,826,463$ 12,636,211$114,848,277$ Contingency (25%)4,627,917$ 3,529,469$ 3,947,192$ 5,532,579$ 2,091,744$ 2,456,616$ 3,159,053$ 28,712,069$Grand Total 23,139,587$ 17,647,344$ 19,735,960$ 27,662,894$ 10,458,719$ 12,283,078$ 15,795,264$ 143,560,346$ ALT. D TOTALUCRS to UP RIL Jct UP RIL Jct To BNSF BNSF to RiversidePerris South to Perris Perris to Ramona Ramone to Alessandro Alessandro to UCRSSTV IncorporatedALT D
Capital Costs for Alternative E - Commuter RailRustin Avenue Connection from SJBL to RIL Item Description UnitUnit PriceEst. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost Est. Qty. Cost1 Trackwork1.01 Mainline Track Construction (Existing Track) TM 686,400$ 3.05 2,093,520$ 4.5 3,088,800$ 3.15 2,162,160$ 5.66 3,885,024$ 1.23 844,272$ 1.74 1,194,336$ 0.00 -$ 19.3 13,268,112$1.02 Mainline Track Construction (New ROW) TM 1,056,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.00 -$ 0.93 982,080$ 0.9 982,080$1.03 Mainline Curve Realignment LS 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 500,000$1.04 Unclassified Cut CY 15$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$1.05 Unclassified Fill CY 10$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$1.06 Construct 3000' Passing Siding w/turnouts EA 500,000$ 0 -$ 1 500,000$ -$ 1 500,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2.0 1,000,000$1.07 Rehabilitate Sidings/Ext. EA -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$1.08 Install Pwr. Op. Turnouts EA 180,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 180,000$ 1.0 180,000$1.09 Replace existing T.O.'s / Elec. Locks EA 80,000$ 1 80,000$ 9 720,000$ 8 640,000$ 3 240,000$ 0 -$ 6 480,000$ 1 80,000$ 28.0 2,240,000$1.10 Earthwork/Drainage/Culvert TM 264,000$ 3.05 805,200$ 4.5 1,188,000$ 3.15 831,600$ 5.66 1,494,240$ 1.23 324,720$ 1.74 459,360$ 0.93 245,520$ 20.3 5,348,640$1.11 Other Street Improvements LF 35$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2500 87,500$ 0 -$ 2,500.0 87,500$1.12 K Rail EA 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 500,000$ 0 -$ 1.0 500,000$1.13 Traffic Control EA 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11 55,000$ 2 10,000$ 13.0 65,000$1.14 Support Facility/Layover Track LS 750,000$ 1 750,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 750,000$1.15 Track reclamation TM 25,000$ 3.05 76,250$ 4.5 112,500$ 5.55 138,750$ 5.66 141,500$ 1.23 30,750$ 1.5 38,500$ 0.5 11,625$ 22.0 549,875$1.16 New Rail Crossing EA 200,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 200,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 200,000$2 Structures2.01 Retaining Walls LF 1,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$2.02 Drainage Structures EA 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$2.03 New Bridge LF 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$2.04 Bridge Repair EA 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1.0 300,000$2.05 Building Insulation EA 5,000$ 45 225,000$ 43 215,000$ -$ 32 160,000$ 16 80,000$ -$ 39 195,000$ 175.0 875,000$2.06 Noise Mitigation LF 800$ 3000 2,400,000$ 2000 1,600,000$ 0 -$ 1900 1,520,000$ 400 320,000$ -$ 1200 960,000$ 8,500.0 6,800,000$3 Signals/Communication3.01 CTC (mainline) TM 150,000$ 3.05 457,500$ 4.5 675,000$ 5.55 832,500$ 5.66 849,000$ 1.23 184,500$ 1.7 261,000$ 0.9 139,500$ 22.7 3,399,000$3.02 CTC Control Pts. EA 750,000$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2 1,500,000$ 2 1,500,000$ 0 -$ 1 750,000$ 0 -$ 5.0 3,750,000$3.03 Modify Control Point EA 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$4 Grade Crossings4.01 At Grade Crossing EA 30,000$ 9 270,000$ 2 60,000$ 0 -$ 3 90,000$ 2 60,000$ 9 270,000$ 2 60,000$ 27.0 810,000$4.02 Private Crossing EA 7,500$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 7,500$ 1 7,500$ 0 -$ 2 15,000$ 0 -$ 4.0 30,000$4.03 Crossing Warning Protection (new) EA 275,000$ 9 2,475,000$ 2 550,000$ 0 -$ 3 825,000$ 2 550,000$ 9 2,475,000$ 2 550,000$ 27.0 7,425,000$4.04 Modify GradeXing in Conjunction w. new CP EA 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0 -$5 Stations5.01 Stations EA 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 1 2,000,000$ 0 -$ 6.0 12,000,000$5.02 Parking SPC 3,500$ 240 840,000$ 310 1,085,000$ 310 1,085,000$ 583 2,040,500$ 75 262,500$ 300 1,050,000$ -$ 1,818.0 6,363,000$Sub Total:12,772,470$ 11,794,300$ 9,197,510$ 15,752,764$ 4,856,742$ 9,635,696$ 3,413,725$ 67,423,207$Design/Const. Mgmt. (25%)3,193,118$ 2,948,575$ 2,299,378$ 3,938,191$ 1,214,186$ 2,408,924$ 853,431$ 16,855,802$Total Construction:15,965,588$ 14,742,875$ 11,496,888$ 19,690,955$ 6,070,928$ 12,044,620$ 4,267,156$ 84,279,009$ Property AcquisitionAlignment ROW LS 1$ - - - - - 6,125,000 1,400,000 7,525,000$Station Property LS 1$ 2,546,082 2,546,082$ -$ 3,666,881 3,666,881$ 2,439,360 2,439,360$ 2,296,048 2,296,048$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 10,948,370 10,948,370$VehiclesCR Locomotive EA 4,500,000$0.0 -$CR Coaches EA 1,800,000$7.0 12,600,000$Transit Buses EA 290,000$ 3.0 870,000$Total Cost incl. property & vehicles:18,511,670$ 14,742,875$ 15,163,768$ 22,130,315$ 8,366,975$ 18,169,620$ 5,667,156$ 116,222,379$ Contingency (25%)4,627,917$ 3,685,719$ 3,790,942$ 5,532,579$ 2,091,744$ 4,542,405$ 1,416,789$ 29,055,595$Grand Total 23,139,587$ 18,428,594$ 18,954,710$ 27,662,894$ 10,458,719$ 22,712,025$ 7,083,945$ 145,277,974$ UCRS to UP RIL JCT UP RIL JCT to Kansas Ave Kansas Av to 14th St ALT. E TOTALPerris South to Perris Perris to Ramona Ramona to Alessandro Alessandro to UCRSSTV IncoporatedALT E
FINAL REPORT Alternatives Analysis
San Jacinto Branchline/ I-215 Corridor Study Appendix
APPENDIX E: RIDERSHIP FORECASTS
Note: The subsequent tables in this section present station to station trips
on the 91 Line, including service on the SJBL. These trips are presented in
Production/Attraction (P/A) format. In P/A format, both the outgoing and the
return trip are assigned to the origin station. Thus, a person traveling from
Perris to L.A. and back would show up as two trips in the cell where the from
station (Perris row) and to station (L.A. column) intersect.
Trips attributable to service on the SJBL, either passenger trips traveling from
or attracted to the new stations, were summed. The distinction between
these trips is made in the tables showing those trips that were “generated”
on the extension, and those trips “attracted” to the extension. The sum of
these two indicates the total station activity.
StationFromTotalToTotalPerris SouthPerrisRamona ExpAlessandroUCRHighgroveSpruce StreetRiverside DtwnLa SierraCoronaWest CoronaFullertonNorwalk_SFSLA_UnionStnRail-nodeBoardings on ExtensionBoardingsAttracted to ExtensionCombined TotalPerris South506 40 55 1 1 5 17 0 142 3 1 30 157 10 8430720506 1507Perris430 12510159220128823716564630714430 12442Ramona Exp682 211 41 0 1 9 31 0 191 7 3 51 221 13 11330706682 5687Alessandro1160 181 14 9 0 9 39 0 412 18 4 66 337 24 227307021,160 81,168UCR57 42011201201420215173068457 663Highgrove908 1610342500217361048463279330790908 42950Spruce Street000000000000000030791000Riverside Dtwn565 19171322210065112941336030443La Sierra768 1900200190272058347448030445Corona1204 450311011036710014756527030446West Corona744 2960011030618104115919930447Fullerton129 32490212190771941400030402Norwalk_SFS319 285010117036144102450030214LA_UnionStn58 1119010112029103902030500Total Boardings associated with the Extension 3,817SegmentFromTotalToTotalPRCFul. NSFS L.A.Perris Ext.3743 371302 1432 1358 81 570 Generated on Extension Attracted to ExtensionRiverside Co.3281 244844 838 1646 204 549Fullerton129 324915 114 0 0 0TotalsDestinationDestinationExhibit E-1: Alternative C Station to Station Boardings in P/A Format - 2010
StationFromTotalToTotalPerris SouthPerrisRamona ExpAlessandroUCRHighgroveSpruce StreetRiverside DtwnLa SierraCoronaWest CoronaFullertonNorwalk_SFSLA_UnionStnRail-nodeBoardings on ExtensionBoardingsAttracted to ExtensionCombined TotalPerris South597 40551140518132321821112030720597 2599Perris521 1301015100101681034320096130714521 16537Ramona Exp785 28042017010247103572581513530706785 12797Alessandro1458 231 14 10 0 8 0 13 574 23 7 82 421 32 273307021,458 101,468UCR134 4501230013474174121330684134 10144Highgrove000000000000000030790000Spruce Street578 79022360013311424315195930791578 28606Riverside Dtwn617 219115425015074123143137030443La Sierra771 1980211102279059347448030445Corona1189 49032110235810014766527030446West Corona745 3200110001628104135919930447Fullerton128 33291322103762141500030402Norwalk_SFS318 295011210337144102450030214LA_UnionStn60 1210011210229103902030500Total Boardings associated with the Extension 4,151SegmentFromTotalToTotalPRCFul. NSFS L.A.Perris Ext.4073 309231 1676 1417 88 661 Generated on Extension Attracted to ExtensionRiverside Co.3322 275851 850 1667 205 549TotalsDestinationDestinationExhibit E-2: Alternatives D and E Station to Station Boardings in P/A Format - 2010
StationFromTotalToTotalPerris SouthPerrisRamona ExpAlessandroUCRHighgroveSpruce StreetRiverside DtwnLa SierraCoronaWest CoronaFullertonNorwalk_SFSLA_UnionStnRail-nodeBoardings on ExtensionBoardingsAttracted to ExtensionCombined TotalPerris South1745 00 60 0 33 11 42 0 507 9 0 177 403 43 460307201,745 01,745Perris568 1250 0 6 19 11 21 0 199 8 0 68 165 11 6030714568 11579Ramona Exp1610 320 38 0 2 10 47 0 520 15 0 163 443 43 329307061,610 61,616Alessandro1172 680660123304861109527125227307021,172 91,181UCR107 5306820160323072121030684107 4111Highgrove1279 19004635003473308957246174307901,279 311,310Spruce Street000000000000000030791000Riverside Dtwn525 2994032121004703340234030443La Sierra893 181011116035200133434812730445Corona1536 002010703476006009847530446West Corona680 67901010409611002906121630447Fullerton109 35100223170601801600030402Norwalk_SFS45 411010103022100800030214LA_UnionStn52 20780111030261001000030500Total Boardings associated with the Extension 6,542SegmentFromTotalToTotalPRCFul. NSFS L.A.Perris Ext.6481 468407 2769 1875 170 1260 Generated on Extension Attracted to ExtensionRiverside Co.3634 385435 905 1635 241 818Fullerton109 351015 94 0 0 0Norwalk SFS45 411540000LA Union Stn.52 2078646000Grand Total10321 10321TotalsDestinationDestinationExhibit E-3: Alternative C Station to Station Boardings in P/A Format - 2025
StationFromTotalToTotalPerris SouthPerrisRamona ExpAlessandroUCRHighgroveSpruce StreetRiverside DtwnLa SierraCoronaWest CoronaFullertonNorwalk_SFSLA_UnionStnRail-nodeBoardings on ExtensionBoardingsAttracted to ExtensionCombined TotalPerris South2106 00 61 0 32 12 0 13 623 10 0 204 474 51 626307202,106 02,106Perris692 1300 0 6 19 10 0 11 252 10 0 85 199 16 8430714692 17709Ramona Exp1914 350 39 0 2 10 0 14 631 16 0 190 509 54 449307061,914 151,929Alessandro1713 7103301001474415013138938366307021,713 121,725UCR157 61021200165150103852730684157 10167Highgrove000000000000000030790000Spruce Street807 970810490022511048386327430791807 29836Riverside Dtwn584 34300673701705503541836030443La Sierra899 177021110335800143444812730445Corona1521 003110023356006009847530446West Corona678 74901110019911002886021630447Fullerton108 36450333102631801500030402Norwalk_SFS46 438011200223100700030214LA_UnionStn52 24440111102261001000030500Total Boardings associated with the Extension 7,472SegmentFromTotalToTotalPRCFul. NSFS L.A.Perris Ext.7389 394311 3261 1995 196 1626 Generated on Extension Attracted to ExtensionRiverside Co.3682 435659 913 1650 242 818Fullerton108 364512 96 0 0 0Norwalk SFS46 438640000LA Union Stn.52 2444646000Grand Total11277 11277TotalsDestinationDestinationExhibit E-4: Alternatives D and E Station to Station Boardings in P/A Format - 2025
Air Quality Technical Report
Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail
Riverside County, California
Prepared for:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Prepared by:
Kenon Tutein
Environmental Engineer
STV Incorporated
March 2010
Revised May 2011
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
i
AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1
B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................ 1
C. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................16
D. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 252525
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - 2012 ........................................................................ 272626
F. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS ...................................................................... 333232
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2008 REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX B: AIR QUALITY MODELING DATA
APPENDIX C: MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E: REGIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSIS AND PARKING LOT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F: SCAG TCWG INTERAGENCY REVIEW FORM FOR PVL PROJECT
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
ii
AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LIST OF TABLES
# Description Page
Table 1: Ambient Air Quality Standards 2009 ............................................................................. 4
Table 2: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .............................................................. 6
Table 3: Toxic Air Contaminant Threshold ................................................................................. 7
Table 4: Regional Criteria Pollutants Attainment Status 2009 .................................................... 9
Table 5: 2006-2008 Air Quality Summary for Project Area Monitoring System ..........................10
Table 6: 2008 Emission Inventory for Riverside County - SCAB (tons per day) .........................11
Table 7: Criteria for Assessing Long Term Air Quality Impacts .......................................... 262626
Table 8: Net Change in Operational Emissions (in pounds per day) .................................. 282727
Table 9: Local Area Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis (2012) ................................... 292828
Table 10: Parking Lot Carbon Monoxide Analysis ............................................................. 302929
Table 11: Calculated Risk at Point of Greatest Concentration ........................................... 313030
Table 12: Greenhouse Gas Qualitative Assessment ......................................................... 323131
Table 13: PVL Predicted Daily Construction Emissions (lbs) ............................................. 333232
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
1
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to establish a commuter
rail service between Riverside and South Perris. The proposed Perris Valley Line (PVL) project
would be an extension of the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 line from the existing Riverside Downtown
Station, along a portion of the BNSF main line, and would connect to the San Jacinto Branch
Line (SJBL) using a new railway connection known as the Citrus Connection. For the opening
year of 2012, the PVL would include installation and rehabilitation of track; construction of four
stations, a Layover Facility; improvements to existing at-grade crossings and culverts;
replacement of two existing bridges along the SJBL at the San Jacinto River; and construction
of communication towers and landscape walls. The proposed rail corridor would be
approximately 24 miles in length. This Air Quality Technical Report provides an update of the air
quality analysis presented in the Draft Environmental Assessment (2004) in conformity with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has divided the state into regions called air basins
that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The project area is located in
western Riverside County (west of the San Gorgonio Pass), which is within the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB). The SCAB is a 6,745-square-mile area comprised of Orange County and the
non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The air basin’s
climate and topography are highly conducive to the formation and transport of air pollution.
Peak ozone (O3) concentrations in the last two decades have occurred at the base of the
mountains around Azusa and Glendora in Los Angeles County, and at Crestline in the mountain
area above the City of San Bernardino. Both peak O3 concentrations and the number of
exceedances have decreased within the SCAB throughout the 1990s. In addition, carbon
monoxide (CO) concentrations have lessened throughout the air basin during the past decade
as a result of strict new emission controls and reformulated gasoline sold in winter months. In
response to a scientific consensus linking greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to
global climate change, CARB is seeking to consider the cumulative effects of carbon dioxide
(CO2) released by new projects within the SCAB.
Regulatory and Planning
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for air quality
conditions in the SCAB. Regionally, the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) prepare the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which contains
measures to meet state and federal requirements. When approved by the CARB and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the AQMP becomes part of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
Federal Standards
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), enacted in 1970 and amended twice thereafter (including the
1990 amendments), establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The CAA
directs the USEPA to establish ambient air standards for six pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon
monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). The standards are divided into primary and secondary standards; the
former are set to protect human health within an adequate margin of safety and the latter to
protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
2
The CAA requires states to submit a SIP for areas designated as nonattainment for federal air
quality standards. The SIP, which is reviewed and approved by USEPA, must demonstrate how
the federal standards would be achieved. Failure to submit a plan or secure approval could
lead to denial of federal funding and permits. In cases where the SIP is submitted by the state
but fails to demonstrate achievement of the standards, the USEPA is directed to prepare a
federal implementation plan.
State Standards
Responsibility for achieving California’s Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are
more stringent than federal standards, is placed on the CARB and local air pollution control
districts. State standards are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans
that are incorporated into the SIP. The California CAA requires local and regional air pollution
control districts that are not attaining one or more of the CAAQS to expeditiously adopt plans
specifically designed to attain these standards. Each plan must be designed to achieve an
annual five percent reduction in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its
precursors.
Recently enacted amendments to the California CAA impose additional requirements that are
designed to ensure an improvement in air quality within the next five years. More specifically,
local districts with moderate air pollution that did not achieve ―transitional nonattainment‖ status
by December 31, 1997 must implement the more stringent measures applicable to districts with
serious air pollution.
Transportation Conformity
The concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the 1977 amendments to the CAA,
which includes a provision to ensure that transportation investments conform to the SIP in
meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Conformity requirements were
made substantially more rigorous in the federal CAA amendments of 1990, and the
transportation conformity regulation that details implementation of the conformity requirements
was first issued in November 1993, with a number of subsequent amendments. The most
recent complete set of amendments to the Transportation Conformity Rule is found at 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 93 (August 15, 1997). Additionally, on July 1, 2004,
USEPA published a set of the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments, amending the
August 1997 regulations, in Federal Register (FR) Volume 69 No. 26. The new amendments
provide regulations for the new 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 NAAQS. More recently, a March 2006
ruling establishes revised criteria for determining which transportation projects must be
analyzed for local particle emissions impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas.
Based on projects included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), transportation-related air
quality analyses are conducted to determine whether the implementation of those projects
would conform to SIP emission budgets or other tests showing that attainment requirements of
the CAA are met. If the conformity analysis is successful, the regional planning organization and
the appropriate Federal agencies make a determination that the RTP is in conformity with the
SIP for achieving the goals of the CAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP must be modified
until conformity is attained. If the design and scope of a proposed project is the same as
described in the RTP, then that project is deemed to meet regional conformity requirements for
purposes of project-level analysis. The General Conformity Rule may also require localized (hot
spot) analyses if an area is nonattainment or maintenance for carbon monoxide and/or
particulate matter.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
3
Regional Planning
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
The SCAG, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Southern California, is
mandated to comply with federal and state transportation and air quality regulations. SCAG is a
six-county region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) that
contains four air basins that are administered by five air districts.
All potential emissions from projects included in a Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
(RTIP) meet the transportation conformity requirements outlined in that RTIP. This means that
all of the emissions from projects included in the RTIP have been accounted for in the regional
emissions burden. The proposed PVL project is included in SCAG’s 2008 RTIP (Project ID
RIV520109), as shown in Appendix A, which means the project’s operational emissions
(including the O3 precursor emissions reactive organic compounds [ROC] and NO2) meet the
transportation conformity requirements imposed by USEPA and SCAQMD. As such, a project
under these circumstances would normally undergo a project-level rather than a regional-level
air quality analysis. However, a regional assessment was also conservatively performed for the
proposed PVL rail project. SCAG determined that the PVL is not a Project of Air Quality
Concern (POAQC) on April 16, 2010, http://www.scag.ca.gov/tcwg/projectlist/march10.htm. A
copy of the TCWG review form is shown in Appendix F.
Local and Regional Requirements
The air quality management agencies of direct importance to the SCAQMD portion of Riverside
County include USEPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD. USEPA has established federal ambient air
quality standards for which CARB and the SCAQMD have primary implementation
responsibility. CARB and the SCAQMD are also responsible for ensuring that state ambient air
quality standards are met. SCAG develops the RTP and RTIP in consultation with local air
management districts. The RTP includes projects that strive to meet the goals and objectives of
the NAAQS. The RTP is also in accord with USEPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule as it
pertains to air quality standards in Riverside County.
Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Existing air quality conditions in the project area can be characterized in terms of the ambient air
quality standards that the State of California and the federal government have established for
several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for different
measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some
pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection
of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). Table 1 shows the 2009 state and federal
standards for relevant air pollutants.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
4
Table 1: Ambient Air Quality Standards 2009
Pollutant Averaging
Time
State1 National2
Concentration3 Primary3,4 Secondary3,5
Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm -- Same as
Primary Standard 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
Particulate Matter
(PM10 )
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as
Primary Standard AAM 20 µg/m3 --
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 hours -- 35 µg/m3 Same as
Primary Standard AAM 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm None 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2 )
AAM 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Same as
Primary Standard 1 hour 0.18 ppm --
Lead (Pb)6 30 days 1.5 µg/m3 -- --
Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM -- 0.030 ppm --
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm --
3 hours -- -- 0.5 ppm
1 hour 0.25 ppm -- --
Visibility-
Reducing
Particles
8 hours
Extinction coefficient of
0.23 per kilometer —
visibility of ten miles or
more (0.07 — 30 miles
or more for Lake Tahoe)
due to particles when
relative humidity is less
than 70 percent. Method:
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape. N/A N/A
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 N/A N/A
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) 1 hour 0.03 ppm N/A N/A
continues next page
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
5
Table 1: Ambient Air Quality Standards 2009 (continued)
Notes:
N/A = standard is not applicable
ppm = parts per million by volume
AAM = annual arithmetic mean
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Notes:
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen
dioxide, suspended particulate matter—PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to
be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in
the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual
arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth
highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For
PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 -hour
average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is
attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the
standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are
based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air
quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this
table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect
the public health.
5. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known
or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
6. The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure
for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels
below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
Source: Ambient Air Quality Standards, California Air Resources Board, February 22, 2009
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
6
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines
SCAQMD has published guidance on conducting air quality analyses under CEQA by
establishing thresholds of significance for regional impacts, which are summarized in Table 2.
Thresholds are shown for criteria pollutant emissions during construction activities and project
operation. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its
construction and/or operational activities exceed these thresholds.
Table 2: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993)
Mobile Source Air Toxic Regulation
The Clean Air Act identified 188 pollutants as being air toxics, which are also known as
hazardous air pollutants (HAP). From this list, the USEPA identified a group of 21 as mobile
source air toxics (MSAT) in its final rule, Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Mobile Sources (66 FR 17235) in March 2001. From this list of 21 MSATs, the USEPA has
identified six MSATs, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/diesel
exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene, as being priority MSATs. To address
emissions of MSATs, the USEPA has issued a number of regulations that would dramatically
decrease MSATs through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines.
In the early 1980s, the CARB established a statewide comprehensive air toxics program to
reduce exposure to air toxics. The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act
(Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The Air
Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) supplements the AB 1807
program by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a
significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks.
Air toxics analysis is a new and emerging issue and is a continuing area of research. Although
much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain
unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques available for assessing project-specific
health impacts from MSATs continue to be developed. Shown in Table 3 are the SCAQMD
thresholds for the assessment of Toxic Air Contaminants. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) is currently preparing guidance as to how mobile source health risks should factor into
project-level decision making. In addition, USEPA has not established regulatory concentration
targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the project development
process.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
7
Table 3: Toxic Air Contaminant Threshold
TACs (including
carcinogens and non-
carcinogens)
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million)
Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993)
Greenhouse Gas Regulations
While climate change has been an international concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by
the establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the efforts devoted to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions reduction and climate change research and policy have increased dramatically in
recent years. In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), California launched
an innovative and pro-active approach to deal with GHG emissions and climate change at the
state level. AB 1493 requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce
automobile and light truck GHG emissions.
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The goal of
this EO is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) to 1990 levels by
2020 and 3) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The majority of GHG emissions are from
the burning of fossil fuels, and 40 percent of all human-made GHG emissions are the result of
transportation. Enhancing operations and improving travel times in high congestion travel
corridors, such as I-215, would lead to an overall reduction in GHG emissions.
Climate and Meteorological Conditions
Air Basin
The strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean, as with
all of Southern California in large part, controls the climate in and around the project area. The
high pressure maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity, and limits
precipitation to a few storms during the winter ―wet‖ season. Temperatures are normally mild,
except in the summer months which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures. In all
portions of the SCAB, temperatures well above 100 ºF have been recorded in recent years.
The annual average temperature in the SCAB is approximately 62 ºF.
Although Riverside County generates the lowest emissions of any county in the SCAB, air
quality in the county is among the air basin’s worst due to onshore winds transporting vast
amounts of pollutants from Los Angeles and Orange counties inland.
The dominant land-sea breeze circulation usually drives winds in the project area. Regional
wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally
slows and reverses direction, traveling towards the sea. Local canyons will alter wind direction,
with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind
pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor
southerly wind direction. The frequency of calm winds (less than two miles per hour) is less
than ten percent. Therefore, little stagnation occurs in the project vicinity, especially during busy
daytime traffic hours.
Southern California frequently has temperature inversions that inhibit the dispersion of
pollutants. Inversions may be either ground-based or elevated. Ground-based inversions
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
8
sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter
mornings. Under conditions of a ground-based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs,
and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. A variety of
meteorological phenomena can generate elevated inversions. Elevated inversions act as a lid,
or upper boundary, and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion, dispersion is not
restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent.
This low summer inversion puts a lid over the SCAB and is responsible for the high levels of O3
observed during summer months in the air basin.
Local
Latitude, topography, and the influence of the nearby Pacific Ocean produce a Mediterranean
climate in the project area, consisting of warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. However, at
a local level, the project area exhibits substantial climatic variation. Average January high
temperatures range from 66 ºF in the northwestern project area near Riverside to 63 ºF near
Perris in the southeastern project area. Nighttime lows in January and February can drop below
freezing throughout the project area. Average July high temperatures range from 94 ºF in the
northwestern project area near Riverside to 97 ºF near Perris in the southeastern project area.
Low altitude areas, however, have long mid-summer stretches of daily highs exceeding 110 ºF.
Average annual precipitation ranges from about ten inches in the Riverside and Moreno Valley
areas to eleven inches in Perris Valley. Annual rainfall in the project area typically ranges from
ten to 15 inches per year. Annual average wind speed in Riverside is six miles per hour.
Existing Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD monitors air quality conditions at 37 source receptor areas throughout the SCAB.
The project area extends from the City of Riverside to the City of Perris. The closest air basin
monitoring stations for this area are located in Rubidoux on Mission Boulevard, in Riverside on
Magnolia Avenue, and in Perris on North D Street. The Rubidoux monitoring station measures
ambient levels of O3, particulates, CO, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The Riverside
monitoring station measures PM2.5 and CO ambient levels. The Perris monitoring station
measures O3 and PM10 ambient levels. Data from the three monitoring stations, including two
located in receptor areas along the study corridor at Riverside and Perris, were used to
characterize existing conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project, and establish a baseline
for estimating future conditions both with and without the proposed project.
If a pollutant concentration is lower than the state or federal standard, the area is classified as
being in attainment for that pollutant. If a pollutant exceeds a state or federal standard, the area
is considered a nonattainment area. If data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is
violating the standard, the area is designated unclassified. The CARB has designated the
SCAB as nonattainment for O3, PM2.5 and PM10; and the USEPA has designated the SCAB as
nonattainment for O3 (Severe-17 classification for the 8-hour standard); CO (Serious
classification), PM10 (Serious classification) and PM2.5 (refer to Table 4).
Table 5 summarizes the local levels of these four pollutants for 2006, 2007 and 2008 and
compares them to national and state air quality standards. The Rubidoux monitoring station
shows exceedances of the Federal and state standards for O3, PM10 and PM2.5. At the Riverside
monitoring station, the federal standard for PM2.5 was exceeded. The Perris Valley monitoring
station has exceeded the state standard for PM10, and the federal and state standards for O3.
Riverside County emissions inventories are presented in Table 6. These data are collected by
CARB for the South Coast Air Basin.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
9
Table 4: Regional Criteria Pollutants Attainment Status 2009
Pollutant
Status
Federal State
Ozone (O3) 1-hour: N/A
8-hour: Severe-17
Nonattainment
1-hour: Nonattainment
Not yet rated for 8-hour
standard
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment/Maintenance Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Particulates (PM10) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead (Pb) No Designation Attainment
Source: Federal Register and CARB, 2009
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
10
Table 5: 2006-2008 Air Quality Summary for Project Area Monitoring System
Air-Pollutant Standard Exceedance Rubidoux Riverside Perris Valley
2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.151 0.131 0.146
Not Monitored
0.169 0.138 0.142
Maximum 8-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.117 0.111 0.116 0.123 0.117 0.115
Days >0.09 ppm (State 1-hr. standard) 45 31 54 77 66 65
Days >0.12 ppm (Federal 1-hr. standard)1 8 2 8 12 4 4
Days > 0.075 ppm (Federal 8-hr. standard) 57 46 64 83 73 77
Days > 0.070 ppm (State 8-hr standard) 75 69 89 98 88 94
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Maximum State 24-hr concentration (µg/m3) 106 540 70
Not Monitored
119 1155 87
Maximum Federal 24-hr concentration(µg/m3) 109 559 82 125 1212 85
Days >50 µg/m 3 (State 24-hr. standard) 69 65 7 18 25 8
Days >150 µg/m 3 (Federal 24-hr. standard) 0 1 0 0 2 0
Calculated >20 µg/m3 (State annual standard) 52.7 57.0 44.8 N/A N/A N/A
Calculated 3-year average 20 µg/m3 (State
annual standard) 53 57 57 37 37 N/A
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hr. concentration (ug/m3) 68.4 75.6 53.3 55.3 68.5 42.9
Not Monitored
Days >65 µg/m 3 (Federal 24-hr. primary std.)1 32 33 7 9 8 2
Calculated >15 µg/m3 (Federal annual std.) 20.7 19.6 18.1 18.6 17.7 N/A
Calculated 3-year average 15 µg/m3
(Federal annual standard) 19 19 16.4 16.9 18.3 N/A
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 8-hr. concentration (ppm) 2.29 2.93 1.86 2.38 2.16 1.93 Not Monitored Day > 9 ppm (State/Federal 8-hr. standard) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.076 0.072 0.092
Not Monitored Not Monitored Days >0.25 ppm (State 1-hr. standard)2 0 0 0
Calculated >0.0534 ppm (Federal annual std) 0.020 0.020 0.019
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 )
Maximum 24-hr. concentration (ppm) 0.003 0.004 0.003
Not Monitored Not Monitored Days >0.04 ppm (State 24-hr. standard) 0 0 0
Days >0.14 ppm (Federal 24-hr. standard) 0 0 0
>0.03 ppm (Federal annual primary standard) 0.003 0.001 0.002
N/A = data not available ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter bold = exceedance of state or federal standard
Source: SCAQMD Air Quality Data 2006-2008 California Air Quality Data Summaries 2006-2008, CARB (2009)
1. National 1-hour ozone standard revoked in all areas as of April 15, 2009
2. California measures its 24-hour PM10 standard using different methods than USEPA therefore 2 different concentrations are reported
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
11
Table 6: 2008 Emission Inventory for Riverside County - SCAB (tons per day)
Stationary
Sources TOG ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5
Fuel Combustion 2.2 0.3 1.8 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
Waste Disposal 3.4 1.2 0 0.1 0 0.4 0.2 0
Cleaning And
Surface Coatings
4.3 3.8 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1
Petroleum
Production And
Marketing
2.4 2.3 - - 0 - - -
Industrial Processes 2.5 2.3 0 0.1 0 4.5 2.6 1
* Total Stationary
Sources 14.8 10 1.9 3.7 0.4 5.2 3.1 1.4
Areawide Sources TOG ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5
Solvent
Evaporation
14.4 12.6 - - - 0 0 0
Miscellaneous
Processes
40.7 4 10.8 2.2 0.1 77.8 38.6 7.2
* Total Areawide
Sources 55.1 16.7 10.8 2.2 0.1 77.8 38.6 7.2
Mobile Sources TOG ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5
On-Road Motor
Vehicles
25.9 23.4 264.5 57.4 0.3 3.2 3.2 2.3
Other Mobile
Sources
14.4 13.3 70.2 22.7 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.3
* Total Mobile
Sources 40.3 36.7 334.6 80.1 0.3 4.8 4.7 3.7
Natural (Non-
Anthropogenic)
Sources
TOG ROG CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5
Natural Sources 27.8 24.1 37.7 1.1 0.3 4 3.8 3.2
* Total Natural
(Non-
Anthropogenic)
Sources
27.8 24.1 37.7 1.1 0.3 4 3.8 3.2
Total Riverside
County In South
Coast Air Basin
138 87.4 385 87.2 1.2 91.8 50.3 15.4
Source: CARB, 2009 SCAB – South Coast Air Basin
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
12
Description of Relevant Air Pollutants
Criteria Pollutants
Ozone (O3) is a respiratory irritant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections. It is also
an oxidant that can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. O3, which is a
regional pollutant, is not emitted directly into the air but is formed by a photochemical reaction in
the atmosphere. O3 precursors, which include reactive organic compounds (ROC) and NOx,
react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Because photochemical
reaction rates depend on the intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone primarily
forms in summer when it becomes an air pollution problem. In addition, photochemical
reactions take time to occur, so high ozone levels often occur downwind of the emission source.
The SCAB is classified as Nonattainment Severe-17 (Severe-17 = has 17 years from 1992 to
reach attainment). Unless the SCAB is granted an extension by the USEPA, the region has
until 2009 to demonstrate conformity with the NAAQS. CARB sent a letter with
recommendations for areas of attainment of the ozone standard in March of 2009 and is
awaiting response from the USEPA.
Inhalable Particulate Matter (such as PM2.5 and PM10) can damage human health and retard
plant growth. Health concerns associated with suspended particulate matter focus on those
particles small enough to reach the lungs when inhaled. Particular matter less than ten
micrometers in diameter can enter the lungs and bloodstream. Exposure to these particles can
cause a number of health problems such as decreased lung function, development of chronic
bronchitis, and irregular heartbeat. Particulates also reduce visibility and corrode materials.
Particulate emissions are generated by a wide variety of sources, including industrial emissions,
dust suspended by vehicle traffic and construction equipment, and secondary aerosols formed
by reactions in the atmosphere.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin
and reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. CO can cause health
problems such as fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness, and even death. Motor vehicle
emissions are the dominant source of CO emissions in most areas. High CO levels develop
primarily during winter when a period of light winds combines with the formation of ground-level
temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions
result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO
emission rates at low air temperatures.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a family of highly reactive gases that are primary precursors to the
formation of ground-level ozone, reacting in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted
from the use of solvents and combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high
temperatures, principally from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources such as electric
utilities and industrial boilers. A brownish gas, nitrogen dioxide is a strong oxidizing agent that
reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates.
NOx can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory inf ections
such as influenza. The effects of short-term exposure are still unclear, but continued or frequent
exposure to concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the
ambient air may cause increased incidence of acute respiratory illness in children. Health
effects associated with NOx are an increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung
irritation. Chronic exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) may lead to eye and mucus membrane
aggravation along with pulmonary dysfunction. NOx can cause fading of textile dyes and
additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to production of
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
13
particulate nitrates. Airborne NOx can also impair visibility. NOx is a major component of acid
deposition in California. NOx may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. NOx in the air
is a potentially significant contributor to a number of environmental effects such as acid rain and
eutrophication in coastal waters. Eutrophication occurs when a body of water suffers an
increase in nutrients that reduces the amount of oxygen in the water, producing an environment
that is destructive to fish and other animal life.
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) are a family of colorless, pungent gases, which include sulfur dioxide (SO2),
and are formed primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (mainly coal and oil),
metal smelting, and other industrial processes. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates, which
significantly reduce visibility. SOx are a precursor to particulate matter formation, for which the
project area is in non-attainment.
The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOx include
effects related to breathing, respiratory illness, alterations in pulmonary defenses, and
aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. Major subgroups of the population that are most
sensitive to SOx include individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such
as bronchitis or emphysema), as well as children and the elderly. Emissions of SOx also can
damage the foliage of trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOx, and NOx are the major
precursors to acid rain, which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams and
accelerated corrosion of buildings and monuments.
Lead is a metal that is a natural constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither
created nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. Lead was used
several decades ago to increase the octane rating in automotive fuel. Since gasoline-powered
automobile engines were a major source of airborne lead through the use of leaded fuels and
the use of leaded fuel has been mostly phased out, the ambient concentrations of lead have
dropped dramatically.
Short-term exposure to high levels of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, coma, or
even death. However, even small amounts of lead can be harmful, especially to infants, young
children, and pregnant women. Symptoms of long-term exposure to lower lead levels may be
less noticeable but are still serious. Anemia is common, and damage to the nervous system
may cause impaired mental function. Other symptoms are appetite loss, abdominal pain,
constipation, fatigue, sleeplessness, irritability, and headache. Continued excessive exposure,
as in an industrial setting, can affect the kidneys.
Lead exposure is most serious for young children because they absorb lead more easily than
adults and are more susceptible to its harmful effects. Even low-level exposure may harm the
intellectual development, behavior, size, and hearing of infants. During pregnancy, especially in
the last trimester, lead can cross the placenta and affect the fetus. Female workers exposed to
high levels of lead have more miscarriages and stillbirths.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Although ambient air quality standards exist for criteria pollutants, no ambient standards exist
for toxic air contaminants (TACs). These contaminants are sometimes also referred to as mobile
source air toxins or MSATs. Many pollutants are identified as TACs because of their potential to
increase the risk of developing cancer or because of their acute or chronic health risks. For
TACs that are known or suspected carcinogens, the CARB has consistently found that there are
no levels or thresholds below which exposure is risk-free. Individual TACs vary greatly in the
risk each presents. At a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
14
times greater than another. For certain TACs, a unit risk factor can be developed to evaluate
cancer risk. For acute and chronic health risks, a similar factor, called a Hazard Index, is used
to evaluate risk. The carcinogenic nature of the six TACs identified by the EPA is briefly
described below:
Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are
inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or
inhalation route of exposure.
Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and
sufficient evidence in animals.
1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal
tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after
inhalation exposure.
Diesel exhaust (DE) or Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is likely to be carcinogenic to
humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this
document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary
noncancerous hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function
and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure
relationships have not been developed from these studies.
Greenhouse Gases
Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as "greenhouse gases." These
gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface,
some of it is re-radiated back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases
absorb this infrared radiation and trap its heat in the atmosphere. It is widely accepted that the
accumulation of GHGs has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s
atmosphere and has contributed to global climate change. Many gases exhibit these
greenhouse properties. Many occur naturally. Some are also produced by human activities and
some are exclusively human made (for example, industrial gases). The principal GHGs are
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O).
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) results from fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. It
contributes to the greenhouse effect, but not to stratospheric ozone depletion. In 2004, CO2
accounted for approximately 84 percent of total GHG emissions in the state.1 In the SCAB,
approximately 48 percent of CO2 emissions come from transportation, residential and utility
sources, which contribute approximately 13 percent each; 20 percent come from industry; and
the remainder comes from a variety of other sources.2
1 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to
2004, Staff Final Report, Publication CEC-600-2006-013-D, December 2006.
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in
General Plans and Local Planning, May 6, 2005.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
15
Atmospheric methane (CH4) is emitted from both non-biogenic and biogenic sources. Non-
biogenic sources include fossil fuel mining and burning, biomass burning, waste treatment,
geologic sources, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. Biogenic sources include wetlands, rice
agriculture, livestock, landfills, forest, oceans, and termites. CH4 sources can also be divided
into anthropogenic and natural. Anthropogenic sources include rice agriculture, livestock,
landfills, and waste treatment, some biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion. Natural
sources are wetlands, oceans, forests, fire, termites and geological sources. Anthropogenic
sources currently account for more than 60 percent of the total global emissions. In the SCAB,
more than 50 percent of human-induced CH4 emissions come from natural gas pipelines, while
landfills contribute 24 percent. CH4 emissions from landfills are reduced by SCAQMD Rule
1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. CH4 emissions from petroleum
sources are reduced by a number of rules in SCAQMD Regulation XI that control fugitive
emissions from petroleum production, refining, and distribution.3
Other regulated GHGs include Nitrous Oxide, Sulf ur Hexafluoride, Hydrofluorocarbons, and
Perfluorocarbons. These gases all possess heat-trapping potentials hundreds to thousands of
times more effective than CO2. Emission sources of nitrous oxide gases include, but are not
limited to, waste combustion, waste water treatment, fossil fuel combustion, and fertilizer
production. Because the volume of emissions is small, the net effect of nitrous oxide emissions
relative to CO2 or CH4 is relatively small. SF6, HFC, and PFC emissions occur at even lower
rates.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are emitted from blowing agents used in producing foam insulation.
They are also used in air conditioners and refrigerators and as solvents to clean electronic
microcircuits. CFCs are primary contributors to stratospheric ozone depletion and to global
climate change. Sixty-three percent of CFC emissions in the SCAB come from the industrial
sector. Some CFCs are classified as TACs and regulated by SCAQMD Rule 1401 – New
Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants and SCAQMD Rule 1402 Control of Toxic Air
Contaminants from Existing Sources.
Carbon dioxide equivalents are often used as a metric measure to compare the emissions from
various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP). Carbon dioxide
equivalents are commonly expressed as "million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
(MMTCO2Eq)." The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the
gas by the associated GWP.
3 Ibid.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
16
C. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The fundamental approach to evaluating project-related air quality is to determine documented
air quality conditions for the study area and assess the anticipated air quality impacts
associated with the proposed project. The net increases and decreases in operational and
construction air emissions are compared to the No Project Alternative and the PVL project for
the opening year of 2012. The No Project Alternative includes air quality impacts of proposed I -
215 highway improvements, as defined in the Final Environmental Impact Statement: I-215
Improvements (California Department of Transportation, 2001). However, in the case of the
regional assessments, because the required No Project Alternative and PVL project data are
not available at this time, the evaluation approach involved only assessing the net increases
and or decreases in operational and construction air pollutant emissions.
The air quality analysis was prepared to conform to FTA, CARB, SCAQMD, and SCAG criteria.
Investigation methods, modeling protocols, and conformity issues relating to air quality were
developed, discussed, and reviewed with the responsible agencies as needed.
The methodology used to evaluate the operational and construction effects of the PVL is
described below.
Operational Assessment Methodology
The operational air quality assessment associated with the proposed project includes the study
of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, MSATs and greenhouse gases. The emission of these
pollutants can result in potential impacts on a local and/or regional level. Impacts from CO,
particulate matter and MSATs can occur on a local and regional level while ozone precursors
(ROC and NOX) and greenhouse gases are primarily regional pollutants. These pollutants are
primarily emitted via motor vehicle exhaust. Certain pollutants, MSATs (such as DPM and
acrolein) and SOx are also emitted from the operation of diesel locomotives.
Regional Impact Analysis
The proposed project area is within the South Coast Air Basin which is in nonattainment for
ozone, PM2.5 and PM10. While a hot-spot analysis is not required for particulate matter, the
region’s nonattainment status prohibits the PVL from significantly contributing to particulate
pollutant levels. The proposed project is also prohibited from significantly contributing to ozone
pollutant levels.
Existing and future VMT projections for the proposed project were not separately calculated for
the PVL. However, projected PVL ridership data was available to make engineering judgments
about project related VMT reductions as shown in Appendix E. Therefore, the regional
assessment involved estimating the net project-related emissions of CO, NOx, ROC, SOx, PM10
and PM2.5 from motor vehicles. Emissions estimates were calculated within the project area for
the 2012 project build year. Emissions estimates were based on project-related vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) traveling at average speeds within the PVL project traffic network. An
approximation of reduced VMT (as shown in Appendix E) was calculated based on the
assumption that the proposed PVL service would replace single passenger vehicles driving from
South Perris to Riverside to connect to SCRRA/Metrolink service. It is also considered that the
South Perris to Los Angeles service is in addition to and not replacing any existing service.
Therefore the emissions for the time of the entire trip to LA must be accounted for. The resulting
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
17
diversion from private car use to PVL ridership is estimated to reduce VMT by approximately 34
million miles per year in the project area. This estimate includes vehicle miles traveled from
private homes to the proposed stations. An average motor vehicle travel speed of 30 mph was
assumed. Emission factors were determined by using the CARB emission factor model
EMFAC2007 v2.3.
Regional emissions of CO, NOx, ROC, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 from PVL diesel locomotives
scheduled to operate within the project area in the year 2012 were calculated based on a
technical guidance from the USEPA.4 This USEPA technical memo provides diesel locomotive
emission factors and methods to calculate daily project emissions, based on estimated daily
usage for the locomotives.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law filed with the Secretary of State the
amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines providing guidance
regarding the analysis of greenhouse gases (GHG) in CEQA documents. The amendments,
which were approved by the Natural Resources Agency in December 2009 pursuant to Senate
Bill 97, became effective on March 18. The amendments are intended to minimize
inconsistencies in the analysis of GHG going forward and to provide CEQA lead agencies with
guidance on the evaluation of GHG emissions and their associated impacts. Specifically, the
new Guidelines confirm that the method of analysis is left to the sound discretion of the lead
agency. (CEQA Guidelines §15064.4.) Additionally, the new guidelines confirm that a lead
agency may use either a quantitative analysis or a qualitative analysis in determining whether a
project may have a potentially significant impact on climate change. (CEQA Guidelines
§15064.4.) The analysis required by RCTC includes both quantitative and qualitative elements.
The results of the quantitative portions of this assessment are shown in Table 12. Moreover,
and as permitted by the revised CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G, RCTC has determined that
the analysis of GHGs and Climate Change is more appropriate included in the Air Quality
Section rather than as a stand-alone Section of the EIR. Accordingly, this analysis fully
complies with the newly revised State CEQA Guidelines.
GHGs are considered to contribute to global warming by absorbing infrared radiation and
trapping heat in the atmosphere. Because this is a global effect, it is difficult to ascertain the
effects from an individual project. While there are many types of greenhouse gases, the most
prevalent contributors to the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor,
carbon dioxide (CO2) (53 percent), methane (CH4) (17 percent), near-surface ozone (O3) (13
percent), nitrous oxide (N2O) (12 percent), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (5 percent). Carbon
dioxide is the greenhouse gas most closely linked to passenger car and light truck emissions
and recent studies have shown that carbon dioxide (CO2) accounted for approximately 84
percent of total GHG emissions in the state of California.5. Worldwide, the State of California
ranks between the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO2 (the most prevalent GHG) and is
responsible for approximately two percent of the world’s CO2 emissions (CEC, 2006). Since
CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the project area, it is assumed that a reduction in
CO2 will indicate a reduction in the less prominent greenhouse gases.
4 Emission factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009
5 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to
2004, Staff Final Report, Publication CEC-600-2006-013-D, December 2006.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
18
According to a recent paper by the Association of Environmental Professionals (Hendrix and
Wilson, 2007), an individual project does not generate enough GHGs to significantly influence
global climate change; rather, global climate change is a cumulative effect. However, for this
project, some baseline quantification of the opportunity to switch from private vehicle to the PVL
was prepared to demonstrate the regional benefits that would accrue with the PVL. The CO2
emissions from the operation of the diesel locomotives is estimated based on national usage
data for commuter rail and compared to the reduction in CO 2 emissions expected from the
diverted ridership to the PVL.
As mentioned above for the regional pollutant assessment, projections of VMT were not
separately prepared for this analysis, and assumptions regarding the operation of the proposed
project were made, as detailed above. The same procedure described above for the regional
impact analysis was used for the assessment of GHGs.
Local Impact Analysis
Carbon Monoxide Modeling Protocol—Screening Procedure
The California Department of Transportation, in coordination with the University of California,
Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, has developed the Transportation Project-Level
Carbon Monoxide Protocol (California Department of Transportation, Garza et al., 1997). This
CO Protocol details a qualitative step-by-step screening procedure to determine whether
project-related CO concentrations have a potential to generate new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay attainment of NAAQS for CO. If the screening procedure reveals
that such a potential may exist, then the CO Protocol details a quantitative method to ascertain
project-related CO impacts. FTA has no separate guidance for assessing CO impacts. Based
on this protocol, a potential for air quality impacts was determined to exist and further analysis
was required.
Carbon Monoxide Modeling Protocol—Intersection Analysis
Within an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO emissions. Consequently,
the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested
intersection locations (LOS D or worse). Under typical meteorological conditions, CO
concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested
intersection) increases. For purposes of providing a conservative, worst-case impact analysis,
CO concentrations are typically analyzed at congested intersection locations, because if
impacts are less than significant in close proximity of the congested intersections, impacts
would also be less than significant at more distant sensitive receptor locations.
The SCAQMD recommends a hot-spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when
volumes-to-capacity ratios are increased by two percent at intersections with a Level-of-Service
(LOS) of CD or worse. Based on these criteria, four intersections were selected for analysis
based on information provided in the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Traffic Technical Report
(STV Incorporated, 2011). The selected locations were at the proposed Downtown Perris
Station site, where a large amount of parking is expected to be located and, thus, a significant
number of vehicle trips would be expected to be generated. The traffic analyses did not include
at-grade crossing locations since the project would operate with twelve trains per day and only
one train daily during the peak traffic hours. Moreover, it was determined that the delay to
vehicular traffic due to peak hour crossing closings would not be any more disruptive to traffic
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
19
operations than a single red phase of a typical traffic signal (30-40 seconds), which would not
be considered significant.
Local area CO concentrations were projected using the CAL3QHC line-source dispersion
model. The analysis of CO impacts followed the protocol recommended by the California
Department of Transportation, as detailed in their publication Transportation Project-Level
Carbon Monoxide Protocol (California Department of Transportation, Garza et al., 1997). It is
also consistent with procedures identified through the SCAQMD’s CO modeling protocol, with all
four corners of each intersection analyzed to determine whether project development would
result in a CO concentration that exceeds federal or state CO standards.
Carbon Monoxide - Parking Lot Analysis
In addition to congested intersection locations, proposed parking lot locations were also
evaluated for CO hot spots. There would be four stations with parking lots. Lot size would
range from approximately 440 spaces (Downtown Perris Station) to 880 spaces (South Perris
Station). For purposes of providing a conservative, worst-case impact analysis, CO
concentrations were evaluated for the largest parking lot (880 spaces), because if impacts are
less than significant at the largest parking lot location, impacts would also be less than
significant at each of the smaller parking lot locations. Although the parking lot with the largest
amount of vehicles was analyzed (South Perris), the screening distance of the lot closest to
sensitive receptors (Downtown Perris) was used to model the pollutant concentration.
The parking lot CO hot spot analysis considered emissions from all three vehicular emissions
categories: engine start, idle time, and vehicle miles of travel. Emissions factors were
ascertained using EMFAC2007 emissions model. Dispersion modeling was conducted using
the EPA SCREEN3 model, using EMFAC2007-generated emissions factors. EMFAC2007
emissions factors, and detailed emissions calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending
on the types of population groups exposed and the activities involved. According to CARB, air
pollution has an adverse effect on four primary groups of people: (1) children under 14 years of
age, (2) the elderly over 65 years of age, (3) athletes, and (4) people with cardiovascular and
chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that
may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include hospitals,
daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For the proposed PVL
project, the sensitive receptors closest to the alignment are:
Highland Elementary School - located approximately 65 feet (20 meters) east of the
alignment near the intersection of Watkins Drive and Blaine Street near the campus of
UC-Riverside
Highland Park - located approximately 75 feet (23 meters) east of the alignment
UC-Riverside Child Development Center - located approximately 110 feet (34 meters)
west of the alignment in Riverside
Hyatt Elementary School - located in the Box Springs area near Watkins Drive
approximately 130 feet (40 meters) west of the alignment
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
20
Nan Sanders Elementary School - located approximately 100 feet (31 meters) west of
the alignment in Perris
City of Perris Senior Center - located approximately 70 feet (21 meters) east of the
alignment in Perris
Highland Elementary School - located approximately 46 meters (150 feet) east of the
alignment near the intersection of Watkins Drive and Blaine Street near the campus of UC-
Riverside
Highland Park - located approximately 26 meters (85 feet) east of the alignment
UC-Riverside Child Development Center - located approximately 38 meters (125 feet)
west of the alignment in Riverside
Hyatt Elementary School - located in the Box Springs area near Watkins Drive
approximately 152 meters (500 feet) west of the alignment
Nan Sanders Elementary School - located approximately 38 meters (125 feet) west of
the alignment in Perris
City of Perris Senior Center – located approximately 24 meters (80 feet) east of the
alignment in Perris
None of these sensitive receptors are located near the intersections that are projected to have
the most potential for future congestion, as identified in the Traffic Technical Report to this EIR.
In addition, these receptors would not be close to any of the proposed parking lots. Potential air
quality impacts at sensitive receptor locations with respect to both intersections and parking lots
are discussed below.
An analysis of the potential for impact to sensitive receptors is performed in circumstances
where CO pollution could be expected to occur, such as at parking facilities where extensive
idling could occur and at intersections where a large volume of automobiles and trucks could be
expected. At the intersections identified in the traffic analysis (refer to the Traffic Technical
Report) as having the potential for most future congestion, the Guideline for Modeling Carbon
Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (USEPA, 1992) was used to determine receptor
locations on sidewalks and near discrete sensitive receptor locations. Consequently, the CO
hot spot analysis evaluated the potential impacts to these sensitive receptors and calculated
pollutant concentrations. Pollutant concentrations decrease as distance from the pollutant
source to a receptor increases; therefore, if the analysis determined that there would be a less
than significant impact at the sensitive receptors closest to the congested intersection, then it is
expected that impacts to receptors located further away from these intersections (such as the
sensitive receptors listed above) would also be less than significant and would not require
analysis. As mentioned above, none of the specific sensitive receptors listed above would be
near any of these congested intersections.
In addition to the intersection analysis, an assessment of sensitive receptors near the proposed
PVL station parking lots was also conducted. The assessment identified residential receptors
located close to the proposed station parking lots. Specifically, the parking lot for the proposed
commuter rail station at Palmyrita Avenue (one of the Hunter Park Station options) would be
located approximately 35 meters (115 feet) south and east of residences, while the Downtown
Perris Station would be located approximately 65 meters (215 feet) east of a row of homes. At
these locations where receptor distances are nearest to the pollutant source, as shown
previously in the Parking Lot Analysis, the proposed station parking lots are not expected to
generate significant CO concentrations, and a less than significant impact would occur. Other
receptors located even further away (such as St. James Catholic School and Perris Elementary
School in Perris) would also experience less than significant impacts.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
21
In addition to potential impacts from intersections and parking lots, a health risk assessment
with respect to diesel emission from PVL locomotive operations was also considered. Emission
would be from trains traveling along the alignment as well as those idling temporarily within
layover yards. As a result, air quality modeling was conducted to predict maximum
concentrations of air toxic pollutants. Based on these predicted concentrations, the resulting
assessment indicated that the ―health risk‖ to sensitive receptors within the project corridor
would be substantially below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the potential
health risk from train operations would be less than significant.
PM2.5 and PM10 Evaluation Protocol—Screening Procedure
In March 2006, USEPA issued a guidance document titled Transportation Conformity Guidance
for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas.
This guidance details a qualitative step-by-step screening procedure to determine whether
project-related particulate emissions have a potential to generate new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay attainment of NAAQS for PM2.5 or PM10.
The proposed project is in an area designated as nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5. According
to the most recent USEPA Transportation Conformity Guidance, a PM10/PM2.5 hot-spot analysis
is required for a POAQC in non-attainment areas (40 CFR 93.123 (b) (1)). Projects that are
exempt under 40 CFR 93.126 or not POAQC do not require hot-spot analysis.
The proposed project does not meet the criteria of an exempt project under 40 CFR 93.126.
However, the USEPA specifies in 40 CFR 93.123(b) (1) that only projects considered POAQC
are required to undergo a PM10/PM2.5 hot-spot analysis. USEPA defines projects of air quality
concern as certain highway and transit projects that involve significant levels of diesel traffic or
any other project that is identified by the PM2.5 SIP as a localized air quality concern. A
discussion of the proposed PVL compared to POAQC, as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b) (1), is
provided below:
1) New or expanded highway projects with greater than 125,000 annual average daily
traffic (AADT) and 8 percent or more of such AADT is diesel truck traffic. The proposed
project is not a new or expanded highway project.
2) New or expanded highway projects affecting intersections that are at Level of Service
(LOS) D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles or those that will change to
LOS D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel
vehicles related to the project. The proposed project is not a new or expanded highway
project.
3) New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel
vehicles congregating at a single location. Although the proposed project has a rail
terminal component, it would not alter travel patterns to/from any existing bus or rail
terminal.
4) Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the
number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location. Although the proposed
project would expand service to an existing commuter rail terminal (Riverside Downtown
Station), it would not increase the number of diesel veh icles congregating at any single
location. In addition, the proposed Layover Facility in South Perris would only
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
22
accommodate a maximum of four SCRRA/Metrolink trains. These trains would receive
overnight light maintenance (cleaning, inspection etc.). Heavy maintenance of these
vehicles requiring excessive engine idling would be done at an existing off-site
SCRRA/Metrolink facility.
5) Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites that are identified in the
PM2.5 and PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as
appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation. The project site is not in or
affecting an area or location identified in any PM2.5 or PM10 implementation plan. The
immediate project area is not considered to be a site of violation or possible violation.
Based on the discussion provided above, the proposed project would not be considered a
POAQC with respect to PM10 or PM2.5 emissions as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b) (1).
Therefore, a PM10/PM2.5 hot-spot evaluation is not required, and the proposed project can be
screened from further analysis.
An Interagency Consultation project review form for PM2.5 and PM10 hot spot concurrence is
required to be submitted to the SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for
concurrence with this finding prior to final project approval. On April 16, 2010, the SCAG TCWG
determined that the PVL was not a POAQC,
http://www.scag.ca.gov/tcwg/projectlist/march10.htm). A copy of the TCWG review form is
shown in Appendix F.Once TCWG concurrence is given, Clean Air Act 40 CFR 93.116
requirements are met without an explicit hot-spot analysis.
Mobile Source Air Toxics—Screening Procedure
The FHWA has issued interim guidance on how MSATs should be addressed for highway
projects and has subsequently developed a tiered approach for analyzing them. FTA has no
separate guidance. Depending on the specific project circumstances, FHWA has identified three
levels of analysis:
1) no analysis for exempt projects or projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT
effects,
2) qualitative analysis for projects with low-potential MSAT effects, or
3) quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT
effects.
For the PVL, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the amount of project-
related rail activity, assuming that other variables (such as traffic and rail activity not associated
with this project) would remain the same. The rail activity estimated for the proposed project
would be higher than that for the no-action condition, because of the additional activity
associated with the proposed rail line extension. This increase in rail activity would mean that
the twelve daily train trips between Riverside and Perris would result in MSAT emissions
(particularly diesel particulate matter) in the vicinity of the SJBL alignment. The higher
emissions could be offset somewhat by two factors: 1) the decrease in regional automobile
commuter traffic due to increased use of commuter rail; and 2) increased speeds on area
highways due to the decrease in automobile traffic (according to USEPA's MOBILE6 emissions
model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
23
speed increases). However the extent to which these emissions decreases would offset the
project-related emissions increases is difficult to determine.
In addition, even with the PVL in place, emissions would likely be lower than present levels in
the design year as a result of USEPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce
MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent from 2000 to 2020. Local conditions may differ from these
national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control
measures. However, the USEPA-projected reductions are so significant (even after accounting
for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future as
well. Therefore the PVL has a low-potential for impacts from MSATs and falls under category
(2) of the FHWA guidance above and only requires a qualitative assessment.
Mobile Source Air Toxics—Health Risk Assessment
To estimate the localized MSAT effect of the new train service, a health risk assessment will be
conducted following CEQA air quality guidelines. This health risk assessment takes into account
the effects of air toxic contaminants on human health. Diesel PM2.5 and PM10, and acrolein were
selected for analysis as they would be the primary MSAT pollutants emitted by diesel train
exhaust and are identified by the USEPA as in the group of priority MSATs. This assessment
calculates a health risk index based on the emission factors of the existing SCRRA/Metrolink
diesel locomotives as well as the running and idle times of the engines.This assessment
calculates a health risk index based on the emissions from diesel locomotives currently being
used by SCRRA/Metrolink on other rail lines, as well as the running and idle times of the
engines. This estimate is conservative since engines used by the project completion year will
be required to meet stricter USEPA emissions standards. SCAQMD, in its CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, identifies an excess individual cancer risk of one in one million to be a minimal and
risk levels up to ten in one million are considered less than significant. The chronic hazard
indexes for these two toxics are also calculated to determine the likelihood of chronic health
effects due to exposure. As shown above in Table 3, per SCAQMD, a hazard index less than
1.0 is considered less than significant.
Construction Period Impacts Methodology
Construction is a source of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions that can have substantial
temporary impacts on local air quality causing exceedance of CAAQS for PM10 and/or PM2.5.
Dust emissions would result from earthmoving and use of heavy equipment, as well as land
clearing, ground excavation, and cut-and-fill operations. Dust emissions can vary substantially
from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing
weather. As the proposed PVL project would not involve extensive soils work,However, as most
standard dust prevention measures would significantly reduce the level of soil-related dust, a
major portion of the dust emissions forfrom the proposed project would be caused by
construction-related vehicle traffic on temporary construction roadways. Construction emissions
from vehicular exhaust would result from the movement and operation of vehicles related to
construction activities. Emissions would be generated by both off-site and on-site activities. Off-
site emission producing activesactivities include construction work crews traveling to and from
the work site. They also include on-road emissions from delivery trucks and dump trucks in
addition to locomotive emissions from freight deliveries. On-site emission producing
activesactivities include the operation of off-road construction machinery and vehicles.
Pollutants of interest with respect to construction exhaust emissions include CO, NOx, ROC,
SO2, PM10, PM2.5 and the GHG CO2.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
24
In order to assess construction emissions, daily average emissions were calculated for all
construction activities. These emissions were then compared to the SCAQMD daily construction
emission pollutant thresholds shown above in Table 2. This reasonable worst-case construction
day included installation of culverts, all road crossings and crossing improvements,
embankment work, all track work, turnout work, stations (including parking areas where
applicable) and the Layover Facility, Mapes Road construction, bridge replacement (including
demolition and removal of existing bridges), noise barriers, landscape walls, and installation of
signals and communication. For each activity, the duration of the activity, the number and types
of construction equipment, and equipment horsepower were used as inputs to define daily
emissions. Fuel type was assumed to be diesel, to assure a conservative analysis of particulate
matter. The assessment assumed that low vehicle speeds and fugitive dust suppression
measures (application of dust palliatives, covering of dust piles, etc.) would be strictly enforced
within the construction zones. As a result, fugitive dust emissions of particulate matter were
assumed negligible. Other Kkey assumptions include:
As the detailed PVL project construction schedule is not available at this point in the
project (30% engineering drawings), estimates of construction machinery/equipment and
construction duration, work crew trip estimates and delivery estimates using best
professional judgments from a senior railroad professional engineer are provided in
Appendix D. Estimates are provided for each individual construction task.
On-site emissions come from EPA NONROAD2008 construction model emissions
tables.
The ―Embankment Construction‖ is the only task with extensive soils work. Therefore, a
fugitive dust analysis was conducted using the 2007 URBEMIS Construction Emissions
Model (see Appendix D).
NoSome construction sites would required the import/export of soils material. The
amount of soils that would be removed is based on the ―90% Mass Haul Diagram
Exhibit‖ provided in Appendix D.
Although the overall construction would be approximatelyduration is estimated at 18
months, emissions estimates conservatively assume a peak construction year period for
allmost construction activities. Emissions estimates for soils exports are based on the
first 12 months of construction when the great majority of soils would be removed.
All construction activities are conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously.
The use of a ―Diesel Oxidation Catalyst‖ and ―Aqueous Diesel Fuel‖ will be required for
all non road construction vehicles and equipment. This would reduce NOx emission by
15%.
No idling of off road machinery or trucks would be allowed, which would reduce emission
of exhaust particulate matter.
This approach also assumes that process emissions (which include on-site soil movement as
well as fugitive dust emissions) will be negligible (with the exception of Embankment Work) due
to inclusion of dust control measures such as:
Water shall be applied by means of truck(s), hoses and/or sprinklers as needed prior to
any land clearing or earth movement to minimize dust emission. Haul vehicles
transporting soil into or out of the worksite shall be covered.
Water shall be applied to disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day or more as
necessary.
On-site vehicles limited to a speed of less than five mph.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
25
All visibly dry disturbed soil surface areas of operation shall be watered to minimize dust
emission.
Soil pile surfaces shall be moistened if dust is being emitted from the pile(s). Adequately
secured tarps, plastic or other material shall be employed to further reduce dust
emissions.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires all facilities to use CARB-certified low-VOC paints during
construction of commercial and industrial facilities. In accordance with that requirement,
the project will include special conditions in its design-build specifications to require the
following:
o To the extent practicable, use required coatings and solvents with a VOC content
lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 2113.
o To the extent practicable, use non-VOC paints and architectural coatings.
All paints shall be applied either by hand application or by using high-volume low-
pressure spray equipment.
Other project control measures would include:
The use of a ―Diesel Oxidation Catalyst‖ and ―Aqueous Diesel Fuel‖ will be required for
all non road construction vehicles and equipment. This would reduce NOx emission by
15%.
No idling of off road machinery or trucks. Reduces exhaust PM.
Additions to the PVL project construction plans and documents shall be made for all control
measures.
Analysis background material spreadsheet calculations, in addition to the URBEMIS model run,
are included in Appendix D. Although not included in the SCAQMD construction threshold limits,
emissions of the GHG CO2 were calculated for the construction period to help give quantifiable
estimate of the overall carbon footprint of the PVL project.
D. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
A project's air quality impacts can be separated into short-term impacts, arising from
construction, and long-term permanent impacts resulting from project operations. Determination
of significant impact is the responsibility of the lead agency, which is the RCTC for the CEQA
document. Much of RCTC’s concern under CEQA is with the long-term impacts of proposed
projects. Short-term impacts from construction of the proposed PVL were calculated as
described above. Unless construction period impacts are shown to exceed defined regional
thresholds, they are usually considered as temporary by FTA and addressed through
compliance with local and regional construction regulations. Because of the required specific
focus on construction-period air quality under CEQA, RCTC also evaluates short-term air quality
impacts, and potential mitigation for those impacts.
For evaluating the air quality impacts for the operation of this project, air quality screening tables
and significance thresholds appearing in the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are
applied. Based on the emission thresholds of significance in Chapter 6 of the SCAQMD’s
handbook, projects that have potential for significant air quality impacts were further assessed
against the thresholds replicated in Table 7 below. If operational emissions exceed the
thresholds listed in Table 7, both SCAQMD and FTA would consider the emissions signif icant.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
26
The SCAQMD emission thresholds apply to all federally regulated air pollutants except lead,
which is not exceeded in the SCAB.
For the PVL, air emission quantities and quality concentrations were predicted to determine
operational impacts. The air quality analyses address three aspects of potential air quality
impacts as follows:
1. Reduction in regional emissions associated with a reduction in vehicle miles travelled
(VMT).
2. Increase in regional emissions associated with diesel locomotive emissions.
3. Comparison of Numbers 1 and 2 above to determine net impact of project on
regional emissions.
Because of commuter movement away from private vehicle driving and changes in VMT with
the proposed project, the transportation-related air emissions would change in the region.
SCAG prepared the ridership analysis establishing transit passenger patronage and VMT during
the opening 2012 year. Due to riders switching modes of travel, changes in mesoscale air
emissions generated were calculated and compared to long term SCAG criteria. The CARB’s
EMFAC2007 emission factor program estimated air emissions per vehicle mile traveled.
Available data from the state vehicle emissions inventory provided the vehicular emission
factors during the appropriate years. The operational air quality impacts analysis of the
proposed project considers the diesel locomotive emissions including idle time.
Table 7: Criteria for Assessing Long Term Air Quality Impacts
Pollutant Operations
Pounds/day
Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) 55
Nitrogen Oxides (NO x) 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 5501
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1502
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150
1. In addition, CO concentrations resulting from the project operations must not exceed the 1 -
hour and 8-hour CAAQS.
2. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations resulting from project operations must not
exceed their respective CAAQS.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook (revised),
1993
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
27
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - 2012
Impact Assessment
Regional Emissions
Table 8 shows the air quality impacts that would occur during operation of the proposed PVL,
with the following operational characteristics. The proposed project would operate 12 one-way
trains (four from Perris to LA and one from LA to Perris in the morning peak; one roundtrip from
LA to Perris to LA midday; four from LA to Perris and one from Perris to LA in the
afternoon/evening). This schedule is executed using six train sets featuring F59PHI
locomotives, which are currently used by SCRRA/Metrolink. Four of the trains would layover at
South Perris to fulfill the morning schedule, while two train sets would reside at LA Union Station
to perform the AM and midday schedule out of LA Union Station. The operational analysis
includes the incremental increase in train service over the approximately 168-mile round trip
route between South Perris and LA Union Station. In addition, the operational air quality
impacts analysis includes the four new stations anticipated to be in service during the initial
operation, plus Riverside Downtown Station which is already in service. SOx emissions were
calculated by assuming operational times based on the proposed schedule and use of ultra low
sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel which will be used exclusively by 2012 as mandated by USEPA. The
operational emissions of the trains are based on fuel consumption during the entire trip from
South Perris to LA Union Station, and thus include fuel consumed during the train’s running and
idling phases. Appendix E details the calculation.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
28
Table 8: Net Change in Operational Emissions (in pounds per day)
Source Category
Pollutant
Sulfur
Oxides
(SOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Reactive
Organic
Compounds
(ROC)
Oxides of
Nitrogen
(NOx)
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)1
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)1
Train Emissions2
0.1 30 6 114 4 4
Vehicular Emissions
Reduced 1 1227 26 73 8 8
NET PROJECT
EMISSIONS -1 - 1197 - 20 41 - 4 - 4
SCAQMD
Significance
Thresholds for
Operation
150 550 55 55 150 55
Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Note: Vehicular Emissions assessed with EMFAC2007, V2.2, July 15, 2009 for summertime.
1. PM2.5 emissions calculated consistent with methodology provided in the SCAQMD guidance
document Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology (2006).
2. Assumes 6 F59PHI diesel engines (meeting EPA Tier 2 emission standards) each operating one 168
mile round trip per day between S. Perris and LA.
Source: STV Incorporated, 2009
The proposed PVL project would result in decreased emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile
organic compounds, SOx PM2.5 and PM10. Nitrogen oxide emissions would increase, but the
increase would be less than significant. With the reductions in these pollutants, the proposed
project would produce a cumulative net benefit to the region’s air quality. As rail passenger
ridership increases over time and the diesel engines continue to meet EPA’s more stringent
emission standards, there would be ongoing and increasing air quality benefits.
It is also important to note that the proposed project is included in SCAG’s 2008 Adopted RTIP
(Project ID RIV520109), as shown in Appendix A. Its presence in the RTIP shows that the
project’s operational emissions meet the transportation conformity requirements imposed by
USEPA and SCAQMD.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
29
Localized Emissions
The project’s CO concentrations for AM and PM peak hour periods (one- and eight-hour) are
provided in Table 9 (opening year 2012 concentrations). As shown in this table, the project
would not have a significant impact upon one-hour or eight-hour local CO concentrations due to
mobile source emissions.
Because significant impacts would not occur at the intersections with the highest traffic volumes
located adjacent to sensitive receptors, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur at any
other locations in the study area because the conditions yielding CO hotspots would not be
worse than those occurring at the analyzed intersections. Consequently, the sensitive receptors
included in this analysis would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by the
net changes in traffic that would occur with the project. Because the project does not cause an
exceedance or exacerbate an existing exceedance of an AAQS, the project’s localized
operational air quality impacts would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
Table 9: Local Area Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis (2012)
Intersection Peak
Period a
2012
Maximum 1-
Hour Base
Concentration
(ppm) b
Maximum 1-
Hour With-
Project
Concentration
(ppm) c
Significant 1-
Hour
Concentration
Impact? d
Maximum 8-
Hour Base
Concentration
(ppm) e
Maximum 8-
Hour With-
Project
Concentration
(ppm) f
Significant 8-
Hour
Concentration
Impact? d
C St. @
4th St.
AM 4.3 4.3 No 3.1 3.1 No
PM 4.4 4.4 No 3.2 3.2 No
D St. @
4th St.
AM 4.2 4.2 No 3.0 3.0 No
PM 4.4 4.4 No 3.2 3.2 No
D St.@
San Jacinto
Avenue
AM 4.1 4.1 No 3.0 3.0 No
PM 4.4 4.4 No 3.2 3.2 No
Perris Blvd
@ Nuevo
Road
AM 4.5 4.5 No 3.3 3.3 No
PM 4.7 4.7 No 3.4 3.4 No
Notes:
CAL3QHC dispersion model output sheets and EMFAC 2007 emission factors
ppm = parts per million
a
Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Technical Report prepared by STV Incorporated, 2011.
b SCAQMD 2012 1-hour ambient background concentration (4.1 ppm) + 2012 base traffic CO 1-hour contribution.
c SCAQMD 2012 1-hour ambient background concentration (4.1 ppm) + 2012 with-project traffic CO 1-hour contribution.
d The State standard for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 20 ppm, and the 8-hour average concentration is 9.0 ppm.
e SCAQMD 2012 8-hour ambient background concentration (2.9 ppm) + 2012 base traffic CO 8-hour contribution.
f SCAQMD 2012 8-hour ambient background concentration (2.9 ppm) + 2012 with-project traffic CO 8-hour contribution.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
30
Parking Lot Analysis
The analysis of parking lot conditions was prepared to assess the potential impacts to
individuals from ―cold start‖ emissions. Emissions from ―cold starts‖ are those that could occur
when peak hour riders, in this case, return to their vehicles from the train. This would occur
during the evening peak periods for the PVL. The pollutant of concern is CO. NOx is primarily a
regional pollutant so localized impacts from parking lot operations would be less than significant.
The largest parking lot at South Perris was evaluated, and if impacts were to be identified at this
location, then the next largest parking lot would be evaluated as well. If no impacts were
identified, then none of the other parking lots would result in any impacts. To prepare the
parking lot analysis, a key modeling assumption was to place sensitive receptors around the
proposed 880-space parking lot perimeter, set back at a model default distance of 25 meters.
This assumption is conservative, as there are no sensitive receptors within 200 meters of the
proposed parking lot at South Perris.
Based on the above-described approach, the maximum off-site CO concentration at any
sensitive receptor location was determined to be 7.9 parts per million and 5.6 parts per million
for the one-hour and eight-hour averaging periods, respectively. These maximum
concentrations occurred at a distance of 100 meters from the proposed parking lot. At the model
default distance of 25 meters, the one-hour and 8 hour-concentrations were 7.2 and 5.0 parts
per million respectively, as shown in Table 10. These worst-case concentrations are below the
NAAQS of 35 parts per million and 9 parts per million for the one-hour and eight-hour averaging
periods, respectively. They are also below the CAAQS one-hour concentration not exceeding
20 parts per million (ppm), and the eight-hour concentration of nine ppm. Accordingly, the
project’s localized operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
Table 10: Parking Lot Carbon Monoxide Analysis
Parking Lot
1-Hour
Concentration
(ppm)
Significant Impact? 8-Hour
Concentration
(ppm)
Significant Impact?
CAAQS
(20 ppm)
NAAQS
(35 ppm)
CAAQS
(9 ppm)
NAAQS
(9 ppm)
South Perris
Station 7.2 NO NO 5.0 NO NO
Concentrations measured at model default distance of 25 meters
CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Analysis done for lot at full capacity (880 cars) and all cars leaving during PM peak hour
PM10 and PM2.5
Based on the criteria listed in Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot
Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, the proposed project would
not be considered a POAQC with respect to PM10 or PM2.5 emissions as defined by 40 CFR
93.123(b) (1). The steel on steel interaction between the train wheels and the rails is not
expected to cause any fugitive dust. Therefore, a PM10/PM2.5 hot-spot evaluation is not required,
and the proposed project can be screened from further analysis.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
31
An Interagency Consultation project review form for PM2.5 and PM10 hot spot concurrence is
required to be submitted to the SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for
concurrence with this finding prior to final project approval. On April 16, 2010, the SCAG TCWG
determined that the PVL was not a POAQC,
http://www.scag.ca.gov/tcwg/projectlist/march10.htm). A copy of the TCWG review form is
shown in Appendix F.Once TCWG concurrence is given, Clean Air Act 40 CFR 93.116
requirements are met without an explicit hot-spot analysis.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
The FHWA has established interim guidance for analyzing the potential effect of MSATs. (FTA
currently has no guidance on this topic). This guidance stipulates that a qualitative assessment
be performed for highway related projects that establish a low-potential for MSAT effects. Based
on this guidance document, the proposed project falls under category (2) above, projects with
low potential MSAT effects. As such, a qualitative MSAT analysis utilizing a health risk
assessment is provided for diesel exhaust particulates and Acrolein.
The results of the health risk assessment are shown in Table 11. The health risk assessment is
presented in full detail in Appendix C. Per the SCREEN3 modeling program, the maximum
concentrations of these pollutants occurs at a distance of 25 meters from the source.
Table 11: Calculated Risk at Point of Greatest Concentration
Pollutant Risk Factor
Maximum
Concentration
(µg/m3)1
Calculated Risk
(Health Index - HI)
Threshold of
Significance
Diesel Exhaust
Particulate
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk 0.01078 3.226/million 10/million
Diesel Exhaust
Particulate Chronic Hazard 0.01078 HI = 0.002 HI = 1.0
Acrolein Acute Hazard 0.005055 HI = 0.004 HI = 1.0
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, STV Incorporated (2010)
1. Represents the maximum calculated pollutant concentrations
The additional commuter rail activity contemplated as part of the PVL would have a negligible
effect on diesel particulate matter or acrolein emissions in the vicinity of nearby homes, schools
and businesses along the PVL alignment. As locomotive diesel engines continue to meet EPA’s
more stringent TIER3 emission standards, there would be ongoing and increasing air quality
benefits. In addition, on a region-wide basis, USEPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with
fleet turnover, would cause substantial reductions over time so that in almost all cases, the
MSAT levels in the future would be significantly lower than today.
Based on the results shown in Table 11, there would be no exceedances of the impact
thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants arising from the operation of the proposed commuter
rail service; no mitigation of long-term impacts is necessary.
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
32
As requested by the SCAG TCWG, prior to construction, RCTC would submit a project review
form for the PM2.5 and PM10 hot spot analysis to TCWG for their concurrence with the finding
that the proposed project would not be considered a POAQC with respect to PM10 or PM2.5
emissions as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b) (1).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In accordance with the new CEQA Guidelines, a qualitative assessment of GHG emissions was
performed. The results of the assessment are shown below in Table 12.
The existing and future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projections for the proposed project were
not available. Therefore an approximation of reduced VMT (as shown in Appendix E) was
calculated based on the assumption that the proposed PVL service would replace the single
passenger vehicles driving from South Perris to Riverside to connect to the existing rail service.
The diversion from private car use to PVL ridership is estimated to reduce VMT by
approximately 34 million miles per year in the project area. This estimate includes vehicle miles
traveled from private homes to the proposed stations. Based on emission factors from
EMFAC2007 in the project operation year of 2012, the reduction in VMT was calculated to result
in decreased CO2 emissions of about 160,000 lbs per day. As CO2 is the most abundant GHG
found in automobile emissions, a reduction in CO2 indicates a reduction in the less prominent
exhaust based GHGs. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed PVL project operations would
increase the GHG burden in the region, but would likely result in a quantifiable reduction in
GHG.
Table 12: Greenhouse Gas Qualitative Assessment
Pollutant Source CO2
pounds/day
Diesel Locomotives 11,400
Passenger Vehicles -158,000
Net change in CO2 -146,600
Summary of Impacts
The proposed PVL project would reduce some long-distance trip-making that now occurs via
automobile, resulting in a corresponding improvement in air quality. Although the total amount
of air quality improvement is small compared to the region, the introduction of commuter rail
service provides an ongoing opportunity for reducing trips. The proposed rail service would
result in a net decrease in CO, ROC, and NOx emissions. In addition, SCRRA/Metrolink will be
replacing engines over time and the next generation would meet USEPA Stage III requirements,
which have lower emission characteristics than the current fleet. As these new engines are
incorporated into the fleet, air quality benefits would increase.
Riverside County and the study corridor are forecasted to have substantial increases in
population and employment over the coming decades. The general result of such growth would
be increased travel on the existing roadway network, demand for additional capacity on those
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
33
existing facilities, demand for new roadways, as well as additional demand for transit services.
The cumulative impacts of increased transportation demands would likely be degradation of air
quality as the volume of travel continues to expand, conversion of land use from
agriculture/vacant to residential and commercial development, a corresponding reduction of
habitats as land uses change, and increased demands on public facilities.
F. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS
As shown in Table 13, based upon the evaluation of the reasonable worst-case construction
day, the construction of the PVL would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD CEQA daily
construction emission limits. Significant adverse impacts would not occur; nonetheless, best
management practices are recommended following to control localized emissions.
Table 13: PVL Predicted Daily Construction Emissions (lbs)
CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx
PVL Total Emissions 4044 8898 649 515 89 2
SCAQMD Construction
Emission Limits 550 100 150 55 75 150
Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO
In accordance with the new CEQA Guidelines, a qualitative assessment of CO2 emissions was
performed. The results of the assessment indicate that emissions created by construction
activities would total approximately 10,08312,118 lbs per day during the construction period.
This estimate coupled with the net decrease in operational emissions of 160,000146,600 lbs per
day indicates that the implementation of the proposed PVL project would not result in increases
in CO2 pollutant emissions.
Construction Best Management Practices
During the construction period, contractors would be required to implement Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. In
addition to these regulatory requirements, the following construction-phase air quality BMPs
would also apply and be included in RCTC contract documents:
AQ-1: All land clearing/earth-moving activity areas shall be watered to control dust as
necessary to remain visibly moist during active operations.
AQ-2: Streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently
than hourly, if visible soils material hashave been carried onto adjacent public paved
roads.
AQ-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and
loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary.
AQ-4: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers, according to
manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from
all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces.
AQ-5: Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall not exceed 5 mph.
AQ-6: All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications.
AQ-7: Contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize
exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading
Perris Valley Line - Air Quality Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
34
queues would have their engines turned off when not in use, to reduce vehicle
emissions.
AQ-8: Establish an on-site construction equipment staging area and construction worker
parking lots, located on either paved surfaces or unpaved surfaces subject to soil
stabilization.
AQ-9: Use electricity from power poles, rather than temporary diesel or gasoline
powered generators.
AQ-10: Use on-site mobile equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., ultra-low
sulfur diesel, methanol, natural gas, propane or butane).
AQ-11: Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not limited
to: (1) consolidating truck deliveries (2) utilizing the existing rail freight line for materials
delivery.
AQ-12: Construction grading on days when the wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour
would be prohibited to control fugitive dust.
With application and compliance with the construction-period mitigation measures, potential
impacts during construction would be less than significant. By such avoidance, impacts would
be less than significant.
Summary of Construction Period Impacts
The overall potential for air quality impacts to be cumulatively significant is reduced because the
proposed project would comply with state and regional air quality requirements that construction
projects mitigate their individual impacts to less than significant levels, based on their forecasted
construction schedule and levels of activity. Traffic and construction data pertaining to the
construction of the other projects is a requirement for a quantitative assessment of cumulative
impacts. However, it is assumed that concurrent projects are following the same construction
BMPs or are included in the RTIP (in which the impacts of their emissions would be already
accounted for in the regional burden) and thus their impacts would not be considered significant.
Construction of the proposed Downtown Perris Station could occur simultaneously with the
construction of other proposed downtown revitalization projects, which could result in cumulative
construction impacts. One of these, the Perris Multimodal Transit Center, is currently in the
process of being built so there would be no potential for any cumulative impacts since it would
be completed before the PVL project. The extent of the potential impacts with other projects
would depend on the location, magnitude, and duration of construction activities for each of the
projects. CEQA analysis conducted for this proposed project indicates the use of several
pollution control measures to aid in reducing emissions. However, the proposed project would
avoid exceeding SCAQMD criteria thereby would reduce any potential for cumulative
construction period impacts. It is assumed and likely that other construction projects in Perris
would also be conducted with similar mitigation and control measures in place.
Development projects, such as the Meridian Business Park in Moreno Valley (formerly known
as March Business Center), would also be required to impose mitigation measure to address
fugitive dust or exceedances of other criteria pollutants during construction. Since construction
of each element of these master planned developments would also have to include mitigation
measures, the overall potential for cumulative air quality impacts would be reduced. However,
the Meridian Business Park would be built over the next 20 to 25 years and as such is unlikely
to interfere with the PVL construction schedule which would be implemented over the next two
years. As such, the overall potential for cumulative impacts would be reduced.
Noise and Vibration Technical Report
Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail
Riverside County, California
Prepared for:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Prepared by:
Douglas Swann
Senior Environmental Engineer
STV Incorporated
March 2010
Revised May 2011
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................1
II. NOISE ASSESSMENT .........................................................................................................3
A. INVENTORY OF NOISE SENSITIVE SITES .......................................................................3
B. MEASUREMENT OF EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS ......................................................7
C. PREDICTION OF NOISE FROM THE PROJECT .............................................................. 19
D. NOISE CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 2928
E. NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 3534
F. NOISE MITIGATION....................................................................................................... 3837
G. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS.............................................................................. 4140
III. VIBRATION ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 4947
A. INVENTORY OF VIBRATION SENSITIVE SITES ......................................................... 4947
B. MEASUREMENT OF EXISTING VIBRATION CONDITIONS ........................................ 5048
C. PREDICTION OF VIBRATION FROM THE PROJECT .................................................. 5250
D. VIBRATION CRITERIA................................................................................................... 5755
E. VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 6058
F. VIBRATION MITIGATION .............................................................................................. 6159
G. CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS ..................................................................... 6260
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
ii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: NOISE RECEPTOR GROUP IMPACT MAPS
APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND NOISE AND VIBRATION DATA
APPENDIX C: NOISE SCREENING CRITERIA MAPS
APPENDIX D: NOISE BARRIER LOCATIONS
APPENDIX E: GRADE CROSSING LOCATIONS
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
iii
LIST OF TABLES
# Description Page
Table 1: Summary of Noise Measurements (2002) .................................................................... 9
Table 2: Summary of Noise Measurements (2005) ...................................................................12
Table 3: Noise Monitoring Locations for Detailed Noise Assessment - 2008/2009 ....................16
Table 4: Summary of PVL Wheel Squeal Locations……………………………………………..2421
Table 5: Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses (2012) .......................... 2524
Table 6: Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses (2012) .......................... 2726
Table 7: Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 3 Land Uses (2012) .......................... 2827
Table 8: Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas ................................................................ 3130
Table 9: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise ................................................. 3231
Table 10: Examples Of Noise Impact Criteria For Transit Projects (Ldn or Leq in dBA) ........ 3332
Table 11: FTA Noise Impact Criteria ..................................................................................... 3433
Table 12: Perris Valley Line - Opening Year (2012) Operations ............................................ 3736
Table 13: Proposed Noise Barrier Locations to Reduce Noise Impacts at Residential and
Institutional Land Uses to Less than Significant Levels (2012) .............................................. 3938
Table 14: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels........................................ 4341
Table 15: City of Riverside - Exterior Noise Standards .......................................................... 4643
Table 16: FTA Construction Noise Criteria ............................................................................ 4846
Table 17: Summary of Vibration Measurements (2005) ........................................................ 5149
Table 18: Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 2 (Residential) Land Uses
RIVERSIDE, San Jacinto Branch Line (2012) ....................................................................... 5553
Table 19: Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 2 (Residential) Land Uses
PERRIS, San Jacinto Branch Line (2012) ............................................................................. 5553
Table 20: Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration, Category 3 (Institutional) Land Uses
(2012) ................................................................................................................................... 5654
Table 21: Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria for General Assessment ............... 5957
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
# Description Page
Figure 1: Study Area Map .......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Receptor Area Map ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3A: 2002 Noise Monitoring Locations .............................................................................10
Figure 3B: 2002 Noise Monitoring Locations .............................................................................11
Figure 4A: 2005 Noise Monitoring Locations .............................................................................13
Figure 4B: 2005 Noise Monitoring Locations .............................................................................14
Figure 5A: 2008/2009 Noise Monitoring Locations ....................................................................17
Figure 5B: 2008/2009 Noise Monitoring Locations ....................................................................18
Figure 6: Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels............................................................ 3029
Figure 7: Allowable Transit Noise Increases ......................................................................... 3332
Figure 8: FTA Vibration Prediction Base Curve ..................................................................... 5351
Figure 9: Typical Vibration Levels ......................................................................................... 5856
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
1
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to establish a commuter
rail service on the portion of the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) between Riverside and South
Perris as an extension of the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 commuter rail service from Los Angeles. As
this project would introduce new transit noise sources in areas where they do not now exist, this
Noise and Vibration Technical Report presents forecasted noise and vibration levels that are
expected to be generated by the proposed project for its opening year of 2012. Applicable
standards and criteria used to assess future environmental noise impacts for a rail project are
described along with the methodologies used in the assessments. Where noise or vibration
impacts were predicted, mitigation measures are identified and discussed.
This technical report supports the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Perris
Valley Line (PVL) project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
CEQA. In addition to NEPA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines (Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006) were followed to conduct the detailed noise and
vibration impact assessments presented in this report.
Noise Overview
In the case of the PVL project, the commuter rail would be the primary source of noise. Noises
associated with commuter rail are primarily generated from the following system elements:
· Diesel exhaust and cooling fans, which are part of a function of the rate of acceleration and
speed. These elements are more audible during slow speeds or when the train is in a
stationary position. Also, locomotive noise tends to increase approximately two dBA for
each increase in throttle setting. A typical locomotive has eight throttle settings, which
means that at full power locomotives are about 16 dBA louder than when they are idle.
· Wheel/rail interaction (a function of the condition of wheels and type [e.g., welded or jointed],
truck suspension and condition of the rails). Noise levels typically increase with increasing
speed of the train. Other factors that increase levels of wheel/rail noise are wheel squeal on
tight radius curves (< 900 feet), wheel impact at rail joints and poor condition of the wheel or
rail operating surface.
· Train horns and grade crossing bells, at and approaching grade crossings. These sources
are probably the major source of noise-related impacts. For the PVL, it was assumed that
horn noise would dominate over the grade crossing bells. As per the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), regulations require that all freight and commuter rail trains sound an
audible warning in a long-long-short-long pattern starting 20 seconds before all public grade
crossings. FRA regulations stipulate that the train horn be a minimum of 96 dBA at a
distance of 100 feet from the front of the lead locomotive and a maximum of 110 dBA.
Commuter rail noise, as perceived by an individual at a given location and time, is a function of
several factors, including:
· the distance from the noise source to the receiver,
· intervening terrain between a receiver and a noise source,
· the existence of natural or constructed noise barriers, and
· the combination of railroad-related noise levels and other local sources of noise.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
2
Vibration Overview
Vibration is a type of movement that rapidly fluctuates back and forth, potentially causing
“feelable” and audible sensations for humans. For rail projects, Ground-borne vibration (GBV) is
usually caused by train operations and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and
operating heavy earth-moving equipment. With trains, GBV is a result of the interaction of
wheels and rails, which can cause windows, pictures on walls, or items on shelves to rattle. A
rumbling sound can also accompany GBV, known as ground-borne noise (GBN) or noise that
radiates from the motion of building surfaces.
Although GBV effects usually go unnoticed outdoors, it can be a significant annoyance to
people inside buildings. Though GBV is almost never of sufficient magnitude to cause even
minor cosmetic damage to buildings, the primary consideration is whether GBV would be
intrusive to building occupants or interfere with interior activities or machinery.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
3
II. NOISE ASSESSMENT
A. INVENTORY OF NOISE SENSITIVE SITES
Site and Study Area
The site and study area for this project is an existing rail freight corridor located in western
Riverside County, part of the Inland Empire region of Southern California. Situated
approximately 70 miles east of Los Angeles, the corridor extends approximately 24 miles
southeast from the City of Riverside toward the City of Perris. Three incorporated cities in the
study area include Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris. A map of the study area is shown on
Figure 1.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
4
Figure 1: Study Area Map
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
74
60
60
60
91
215
215
215
215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Hunter Park
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Downtown Perris
South PerrisCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
HARL
EY
J
OHN RDWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLU
MBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
1
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise3.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
STUDY AREA MAP
1 0 1 20.5
Miles
www.kleinfelder.com
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
LEGEND
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
Basemap Source:
STV Incorporated
10-3-08
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
5
Locations of Noise Sensitive Receptors
Shown on Figure 2 is an overview of the PVL alignment with the general locations of noise
sensitive properties separated into receptor “Areas.” Below is a summary of the types of
sensitive land uses found in each of these receptor “Areas.”
Area A: Consists primarily of commercial and industrial uses along the BNSF alignment from
the Riverside Downtown Station to the Citrus Connection. One small residential neighborhood
exists along the inbound side of the BNSF alignment from Down Street north to where the
alignment crosses Marlborough Street.
Area B: Residential neighborhood exists along the southern portion of Transit Avenue with
several houses abutting the alignment near Citrus Street.
Area C: Residential neighborhood exists north of the University of California, Riverside (UCR)
campus between Spruce Street and Mount Vernon Avenue. The majority of the sensitive
receptors are single-family residences north of the SJBL along Kentwood, Highlander, West
Campus View, and East Campus View Drives. In addition there are some multi-family
residences along Watkins Drive. Institutional uses include St. George’s Episcopal Church at
Watkins Drive and Spruce Street, Highland Elementary School, UCR Daycare Center and Crest
Community Baptist Church.
Area D: Residential neighborhoods exist west of the PVL alignment and east of the UCR
campus. Some of the streets in this area are Big Springs Road, Quail Road, Swain Road, and
East Manfield Street. This area also includes Hyatt Elementary School.
Area E: Predominantly low density open land with commercial and office type uses. However,
the landscape of the area is dominated by I-215 which parallels the PVL alignment going into
Perris. The closest residential areas to the PVL are blocked by I-215 in the area of Edgemont.
The March Air Reserve Base exists in the Moreno Valley area. This section also includes some
former March Air Reserve Base housing. However, this housing is no longer used for
residential purposes.
Area F: Residences in Perris from San Jacinto Avenue to 10th Street. The area includes
residences and commercial uses both west and east of the PVL alignment in addition to Nan
Sanders Elementary School to the north and St. James Church and School farther south. The
last noise sensitive receptor is an apartment complex on Case Road just east of Perris Boulevard.
Area G: A small number of single- and multi-family residences exist after the alignment turns to
parallel Case Road in the southern section of Perris. The terminus of the PVL would not be
located near any noise sensitive receptors.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
6
Figure 2: Receptor Area Map
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
74
60
60
60
91
215
215
215
215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Hunter Park
Moreno Valley/
March Field
Downtown Perris
South PerrisCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
HARL
EY
J
OHN RDWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLU
M
BIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD G
F
E
D
C
B
A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise3.MXD
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
RECEPTOR AREA MAP
1 0 1 20.5
Miles
www.kleinfelder.com
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
SENSITIVE AREA RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
LEGEND
A
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
Basemap Source:
STV Incorporated
10-3-08
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
7
B. MEASUREMENT OF EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS
Noise Environmental Setting
Noise sensitive land use areas within the proposed PVL project area were identified by
screening GIS data for buildings with residential or institutional uses nearby the PVL corridor.
Then, field observations were also made to identify and confirm noise sensitive land use
locations within the corridor and the larger study area.
The proposed PVL project area would include portions of the existing BNSF alignment, between
the Downtown Riverside Station and the Highgrove area, as well as the SJBL alignment
between the areas of Highgrove and Perris. These two active railways would be connected by
the proposed new Citrus Connection.
The noise environment conditions for each segment are described below.
· The noise environment along the Riverside to Highgrove BNSF Main Line segment is
dominated by an extremely heavy volume of rail activity; between 60 and 80 trains travel
along it during a typical 24-hour period. The majority of these trains (about 80 percent) are
freight trains, which generally operate with three to four diesel locomotives and about 50 to
100 freight cars. Typical speeds are approximately 30 mph. The remaining rail traffic
consists of mostly SCRRA/Metrolink, and a few Amtrak trains. The SCRRA/Metrolink trains
have a single diesel locomotive and about three passenger cars and travel at average
speeds of approximately 50 mph. The Amtrak trains have two to three diesel locomotives
and about 15 cars, traveling at about 50 mph. Train traffic occurs during both day and night
hours. Vibration along the BNSF would be dominated by the existing train activity. In
addition to rail activity, vehicles traveling on I-215 and SR 60 make a significant contribution
to the noise environment, as do local streets.
· The SJBL corridor from Highgrove to Perris currently has about two freight trains traveling
on it daily. These trains typically consist of three diesel locomotives and about 25 freight
cars, and travel at maximum speeds of 20 mph. In those portions of the rail segment that
have at-grade rail crossings (where the majority of the corridor’s noise sensitive receptors
are located), horn noise is a significant contributor to the existing noise environment. Noise
from automobile traffic becomes significant along the corridor from Moreno Valley to Perris,
where the I-215 freeway parallels the SJBL, and at-grade rail crossings are limited.
However, this portion of the SJBL corridor contains very few sensitive noise receptors.
Vibration along the SJBL would be dominated by the existing train activity.
As a result of the train activity, the existing alignment contains grade crossings areas where
warning bells would be required for passing trains. At most crossings, these devices are
represented by electro-mechanical railroad warning gongs. At a point 10 feet from the gong and
in increments of 20 degrees, the sound level should not be more than 105 dBA and not less
than 85 dBA. The gongs typically operate between 30 to 60 seconds per normal through train
movement. Whenever a train is physically occupying the space where the railroad and roadway
intersect, the gongs will be active.
The current CPUC requirements for audible warning devices at grade crossings dictate that
bells or other audible warning devices shall be included in all automatic warning device
assemblies and shall be operated in conjunction with the flashing light signals. (American
Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association’s Communications and Signals
Manual of Recommended Practices, 2007)
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
8
Existing Noise Levels
To assist in the assessment of potential impacts, noise measurements were conducted at
several selected sensitive receptors along the corridor. The measurement sites were selected
on the basis of several factors, the most important of which was the site’s potential sensitivity to
changes in noise levels. Since the initial Draft EA measurement program (2002), subsequent
measurements were taken in 2005 and again in 2008/2009 to update and enhance the data.
For all noise measurements, each site was either representative of a unique noise environment,
or of nearby, similarly situated receptors. Along the BNSF, the primary land uses are industrial
and commercial; however, noise monitoring was conducted at several residential properties
along the corridor. As the Citrus Connection and the existing SJBL corridor pass through
predominately residential neighborhoods, most of the sensitive receptors monitored along these
segments are residential in nature. Several non-residential land uses also exist along these
segments and, as such, were included in the monitoring program; these sites include schools,
churches and senior centers. For noise, both long-term (24-hour) and short-term (20 minutes to
one hour) measurements were conducted.
All noise measurements were taken with a Type I sound level meter. A windscreen was placed
over the microphone for all measurements. The meter was properly calibrated before and after
all measurements using a calibrator. In accordance with FTA procedures, monitored noise
levels resulting in an equivalent hourly noise level (Leq) were, according to the time of day they
were monitored, adjusted in some cases to obtain the resulting Ldn noise level for Category 2
receptors. No adjustments were required for monitored noise levels at Category 3 receptors,
because Leq is the appropriate noise descriptor.
Summary of the 2002 Noise Measurement Program
All locations were monitored during a three-day period (May 14-16, 2002), typically during the
peak morning or afternoon traffic hours. No long-term measurements were taken at any of the
sensitive locations. The descriptor recorded during field measurements was Leq. These
measured values were used to derive a calculated Ldn value. A tabulation of the results of the
calculations of existing noise levels at potentially sensitive, monitored locations is provided in
Table 1. Monitoring locations are shown on Figures 3A and 3B.
The 2002 existing noise levels at sensitive receptors along the BNSF Main Line portion of the
corridor are high and in the “downtown city” noise range. The 2002 existing noise levels at
residential areas of Riverside and Perris adjacent to the SJBL are in the “’very noisy’ urban
residential areas” range as shown later in this report in Table 1.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
9
Table 1: Summary of Noise Measurements (2002)
Site No. Land Use Description
Dist.
from
Tracks
(ft)
Existing Noise
Level (Ldn)
1 SFR 3015 9th St 450 74
2 SFR 3112 1st St 180 79
3 SFR 1901 Thornton Ave 80 82
4 SFR 1148 Ardmore St 340 76
5 SFR Transit & Villa Streets 330, 20 1 78
6 SFR 890 Kentwood Dr 55 70
7 MFR 10 Watkins Dr 125 68
8 SFR 121 Nisbet Way 80 68
8A SFR 277 Nisbet Way 50 70
9 SFR 396 E Big Springs Road 125 54
10 SFR 298 E Manfield St 110 56
11 SFR 20511 Claremont 560 61
12 SFR 7005 Old Frontage Rd 500 60
13 SFR California & Wade Streets 240 68
14 School Nan Sanders Elementary School 140 60*
15 SFR 234 Bowen St 230 59
16 SFR 30 C St 210 66
17 SFR 10th St & Perris Blvd 75 69
18 SFR 124 8th St 250 64
19 Hotel 27272 SR-74 130 75
20 SFR 25688 Sherman Rd 330 54
21 Commercial Old Spaghetti Factory 250 72*
22 SFR Marlborough Avenue (bet Catania Dr & PVL) 320 76
23 SFR Villa St ( bet Transit Ave & PVL) 330,125 1 76
24 SFR Transit Ave (near Fountain St) 200,30 1 79
25/26 SFR Trailer park (274 Sir Belvidere Dr) 50 72
27 Church St Georges (Spruce St & Watkins Dr) 180 67*
27A MFR Box Spring & Morton 125 57
28 Cemetery Riverside National 100 61*
29 Senior Center San Jacinto & D St 95 70*
30 SFR C St & 7th St 60 71
31 SFR 1021 Citrus Street 60 70
Notes:
* Noise levels presented as Leq
SFR = Single-family residence, MFR = Multi-family residence
(1) BNSF & SJBL Tracks
Source: STV Incorporated, 2002
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
10
Figure 3A: 2002 Noise Monitoring Locations
UC RIVERSIDE
HIGHGROVE
60
60
12TH STREET
3RD STREET
PARK AVENUESPRUCE STREET
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
PALMYRITA AVENUE
IOWA AVENUECHICAGO AVENUEWATKINS DRIVEBIG SPRINGS
ROAD
RIVERSIDE
215
215
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Hunter Park
5
7
6
8
9
3
4
2
1
8A
10
23
24
22
31
27
21
25/26
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
3A
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise2.MDX
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
2002 NOISE MONITORING
LOCATIONS
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
2002 MONITORING LOCATION
0.3 0 0.3 0.60.15
Miles
Basemap Source: STV
Incorporated 10-3-08
LEGEND
www.kleinfelder.com
Palmyrita
Avenue
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
74
60
60
60
91
215
215
215
215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
FIGURE 5A
FIGURE 5BCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
O
H
N R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
1
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
11
Figure 3B: 2002 Noise Monitoring Locations
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
60
215
LAKE
PERRIS
Moreno Valley/
March Field
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
South Perris
ROMOLAND
74
215
Perris
12
27A
11
NUEVO RD
VAN BUREN BLV
SAN JACINTO AVE
MAPES RD
13
20
19
28
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
3B
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise3.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
2002 NOISE MONITORING
LOCATIONS
0.8 0 0.8 1.60.4
Miles
Basemap Source: STV Incorporated 10-3-08
www.kleinfelder.com
74
215
ELLIS AVE A STB STD STPERRIS BLVSAN JACINTO AVE
7TH ST
JARVIS ST
F STTHIRD STDE LINES DRREDLANDS AVEMETZ RD
17
18
15
29
14
16
30
INSET AREA
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
2002 MONITORING LOCATION
LEGEND
1
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
12
Summary of the 2005 Measurement Program
In 2005, several additional noise measurement locations were identified, including locations
suggested by public comment on the Draft EA. In all, the 2005 measurement program included
additional monitoring at twelve noise sensitive sites along the SJBL alignment. A tabulation of
these monitored locations is provided in Table 2 and monitoring locations are mapped on
Figures 4A and 4B.
Table 2: Summary of Noise Measurements (2005)
Site
No. Description Measure
Type(1)
Dist.
from
Tracks
(ft.)
Ldn, dBA
No. of
Trains(43) With
Trains
Without
Trains(2)
1 103 Sir Dames Dr, Riverside LT 35 63 62 3
2 441 Transit Avenue, Highgrove LT 35 67 67 3
3 2294 Kentwood/Spruce, Riverside LT 100 67 59 8
4 518 W. Campus View, Riverside LT 83 66 57 8
5 232 E. Campus View, Riverside LT 62 65 49 2
6 396 E. Big Springs Rd., Riverside LT 90 62 54 2
7 228 C Street, Perris LT 240 67 67 2
8 81W. 8th Street, Perris LT 300 -- 59 0
9 Church at Spruce & Watkins, Riverside ST 150 -- 61 0
10 Church at Mt. Vernon Crossing, Riverside ST 50 -- 49 1
11 Hyatt Elementary School/E. Manfield Rd.,
Riverside ST 50 -- 50 1
12 Highland Park off Kentwood, Riverside ST 50 -- 56 0
Notes: (1) LT = long term (24 hours or more), ST = short term (30 minutes to one hour).
(2) For measurements that included one or more train events, this column shows what the Ldn would have
been without the train noise. No trains passed during the short term noise measurements.
(3) Average train vibration level when locomotives passed measurement position.
(43) Total number of trains passing measurement position during measurements. Measurement period may be
for more than 24 hours.
(5)Train vibration measurements were performed at a different time than the short-term noise measurements. Shown
are the train vibration levels at 50 feet from track center.
Source: ATS Consulting, 2005
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
13
Figure 4A: 2005 Noise Monitoring Locations
UC RIVERSIDE
HIGHGROVE
60
60
12TH STREET
3RD STREET
PARK AVENUESPRUCE STREET
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
PALMYRITA AVENUE
IOWA AVENUECHICAGO AVENUEWATKINS DRIVEBIG SPRINGS
ROAD
RIVERSIDE
215
215
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Hunter Park
5
4
3
6
9
2
1
11
10
12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
4A
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise2.MDX
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
2005 NOISE AND VIBRATION
MONITORING LOCATIONS
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
2005 MONITORING LOCATION
0.3 0 0.3 0.60.15
Miles
Basemap Source: STV
Incorporated 10-3-08
LEGEND
www.kleinfelder.com
Palmyrita
Avenue
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
74
60
60
60
91
215
215
215
215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
FIGURE 6A
FIGURE 6BCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RID ER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDR O BLV
HAR
L
E
Y J
OH
N RDWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
1
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
14
Figure 4B: 2005 Noise Monitoring Locations
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
60
215
LAKE
PERRIS
Moreno Valley/
March Field
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
South Perris
ROMOLAND
74
215
Perris
NUEVO RD
VAN BUREN BLV
SAN JACINTO AVE
MAPES RD
8
7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
4B
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise3.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
2005 NOISE AND VIBRATION
MONITORING LOCATIONS
0.8 0 0.8 1.60.4
Miles
Basemap Source: STV Incorporated 10-3-08
www.kleinfelder.com
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
2005 MONITORING LOCATION
LEGEND
1
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
15
Following is an overview of the existing noise and vibration environment in each major section
of the corridor from the 2005 monitoring program:
· Residential areas north of UCR: Three long-term measurements (at Sites 3, 4 and 5)
and three short-term measurements (at Sites 9, 10, and 12) were performed in this area.
The measured Ldn, including freight train noise, was up to 16 dBA higher than the Ldn with
the train noise removed. As discussed below, much of the track in this area is older, jointed
rail, another source of the noise from rail operations.
· Residential area east of UCR: There was one long-term measurement (Site 6) and one
short-term measurement (Site 11) in this area. The measured Ldn at Site 6 was 62 dBA,
and 54 dBA with the train noise removed.
· Central Section of Perris: The measured Ldn at Site 7 on C Street was 67 dBA. There
was some train activity during this measurement although the train noise only marginally
added to the Ldn.
· South Perris: One 24-hour noise measurement was performed in this area (Site 8) where
the measured Ldn was 59 dBA. The primary noise sources were local traffic and
landscaping activities with background noise from traffic on I-215. No freight trains passed
during the 24-hour measurement at Site 8.
Summary of the 2008/2009 Measurement Program
The 2008/2009 noise measurement program included measurements of noise sensitive
locations previously monitored in 2002 and 2005, in addition to several new locations. They
include both long-term (24-hour) and short-term noise measurements. Schools along the SJBL
alignment were specifically re-monitored and other residential and institutional (including two
schools) uses were added to the monitoring program. In general, the results of the 2008/2009
monitoring program were consistent with the existing noise environment during the monitoring
programs for 2002 and 2005. There were however, several sites within the area of UCR which
tended to exhibit lower noise levels for the 2008/2009 measurement program. Site 18
represents new residential construction. The overall results of the measurements are
summarized in Table 3. Monitoring locations are shown on Figures 5A and 5B.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
16
Table 3: Noise Monitoring Locations for Detailed Noise Assessment - 2008/2009
Site
No. Description Measure
Type(1)
Dist. from
Tracks (ft.)
Ldn,
dBA
1 518 West Campus View Dr LT 117 59
2 232 East Campus View Dr LT 65 56
3 228 C Street LT 244 70
4 St. George's Episcopal Church @ Spruce & Watkins Drive ST1 190 57*
5 Crest Community Baptist Church ST1 163 52*
6 Hyatt Elementary School (4466 Mount Vernon Avenue) ST1 370 60* 2
7 Highland Elementary School ST1 88 54* 2
8 3015 9th Street ST2 450 69
9 3112 1st Street LT 210 75
10 1901 Thornton Ave LT 90 76
11 2970 Watkins Dr LT 124 66
12 137 Nisbet Way LT 180 62
13 7005 Old Frontage Rd ST2 564 62
14 California & Wade Streets ST2 258 70
15 Nan Sanders Elementary School (1461 N. A Street) ST1 123 64* 2
16 234 W. Bowen St ST2 235 59
17 116 State Street ST2 80 72
18 New Homes on 9th Street in Perris ST2 300 66 3
19 Old Spaghetti Factory ST1 280 65*
20 1824 Marlboro Ave ST2 260 63
21 Senior Citizens Center (146 W. San Jacinto Avenue) ST1 96 59*
22 1027 Citrus St LT 62 73
23 842 Kentwood Drive LT 80 63 2, 3
24 St. James Catholic Church/School ST1 370 64* 2, 3
25 UCR Day/Childcare (3338 Watkins Drive) ST1 175 54* 2
Notes: * Represents a Leq value
(1) LT = long term (24 hours or more), ST1 = short term (30 minutes to one hour), ST2 = short
term (measurement adjusted to reflect LT Ldn)
(2) Noise monitoring conducted in 2009
(3) New monitoring site
Source: STV Incorporated, 2008/2009
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
17
Figure 5A: 2008/2009 Noise Monitoring Locations
UC RIVERSIDE
HIGHGROVE
60
60
12TH STREET
3RD STREET
PARK AVENUESPRUCE STREET
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
PALMYRITA AVENUE
IOWA AVENUECHICAGO AVENUEWATKINS DRIVEBIG SPRINGS
ROAD
RIVERSIDE
215
215
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Hunter Park
8
6
1
4
7
2
5
9
19
23
25
12
22
10
20
11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
5A
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise2.MDX
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
2008/2009 NOISE
MONITORING LOCATIONS
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
2008/2009 MONITORING LOCATION
0.3 0 0.3 0.60.15
Miles
Basemap Source: STV
Incorporated 10-3-08
LEGEND
www.kleinfelder.com
Palmyrita
Avenue
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
74
60
60
60
91
215
215
215
215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
FIGURE 7A
FIGURE 7BCHICAGO AVENUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RID ER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
AL ESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y J
O
H
N RDWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
1
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
18
Figure 5B: 2008/2009 Noise Monitoring Locations
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
60
215
LAKE
PERRIS
Moreno Valley/
March Field
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
South Perris
ROMOLAND
74
215
Perris
NUEVO RD
VAN BUREN BLV
SAN JACINTO AVE
MAPES RD
14
13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RCTC
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
5B
92666
7/9/09
JP
RM
92666noise3.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
2008/2009 NOISE
MONITORING LOCATIONS
0.8 0 0.8 1.60.4
Miles
Basemap Source: STV Incorporated 10-3-08
www.kleinfelder.com
74
215
ELLIS AVE A STB STD STPERRIS BLVSAN JACINTO AVE
7TH ST
JARVIS ST
F STTHIRD STDE LINES DRREDLANDS AVE3
16
15
18
17
24
21
INSET AREA
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE
2008/2009 MONITORING LOCATION
LEGEND
1
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
19
Following is an overview of the existing noise environment in each major segment of the
corridor:
· Citrus Street, Highgrove: This segment has several homes abutting the SJBL where it
would join the Citrus Connection. The measured Ldn in this vicinity was 73 dBA.
· Residential areas north and northeast of UCR: Five long-term measurements (at Sites 1,
2, 11, 12 and 23) and three short-term measurements (at Sites 4, 5, and 7) were performed
in this area. Important sources of train noise are train horns sounded at grade crossings,
freight locomotives going uphill operating under high power settings, and wheel squeal on
curves. Measured Ldn ranged from 56 dBA to 66 dBA.
· Residential area east and southeast of UCR: This area is similar to the neighborhoods
north of UCR, except that there are limited grade crossings so train horns are not the
primary noise source at most of the sites. Because of the number of large and small
horizontal curves, freight trains that currently operate in this area often generate wheel
squeal. There was one short-term measurement (Site 6) in this area, representative of the
Hyatt Elementary School. The measurement was 46.3 dBA.
· Downtown Perris: The SJBL passes through the City of Perris between C and D Streets,
turning east to follow Case Road. Freight train operations are less frequent in Perris since
many of the BNSF customers served by the SJBL are located north of Perris, in the vicinity
of the March Air Reserve Base and the Meridian Business Center. One long-term
measurement at Site 3 and five short-term measurements (at Sites 15, 17, 18, 21 and 24)
were performed in this area. The dominant noise sources in the central section of Perris are
traffic on surface streets along with intermittent emergency vehicle sirens and freight traffic.
No freight trains passed during monitoring.
C. PREDICTION OF NOISE FROM THE PROJECT
The specific detailed noise modeling procedures used on each of the major noise sources are
discussed below. Noise prediction equations contained in Chapter 6 of the FTA Guidance
Manual were used in the analysis.
Train Horns
FRA regulations require that freight and commuter train horns be sounded prior to all public
grade crossings unless a “quiet zone” has been established. The horn is required to produce
“… a minimum sound level of 96 dBA and a maximum sound level of 110 dBA at 100 feet
forward of the locomotive in its direction of travel.” The locomotive horn can be blown not more
than 25 seconds before the locomotive enters a grade crossing.
With respect to horn use from proposed SCRRA/Metrolink trains, the following is assumed:
· The SCRRA/Metrolink locomotives and cab cars would have roof-mounted air horns
· Based on FTA guidance, the SCRRA/Metrolink horns would be set to an Lmax of 96
dBA. Using Table 6-3 in the FTA Guidance Manual, this translates into a Sound
Equivalent Level (SEL – or the cumulative noise exposure from a single noise event) of
approximately 99dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet.
· The SEL is assumed to be independent of train speed.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
20
· As much of the proposed rail alignment is near pavement and hard dirt, the ground
factor (G) is conservatively assumed to be zero.
· The horn is sounded continuously starting at 1/4 mile prior to a crossing and ending as
the train reaches the crossing,
SCRRA/Metrolink - Locomotive Engine Noise / Railcar Noise
Locomotive noise sources include the engine, exhaust, and cooling fans. For the proposed
project, SCRRA/Metrolink trains would utilize one locomotive and six railcars. The reference
locomotive SEL used in the analysis is 92dBA and was obtained from Table 6-3 of the FTA
Guidance Manual.
The noise level from railcars is generally due to the wheel/rail interaction. These levels typically
increase with increasing speed of the train. Although noise emissions from this source are
significantly less than that of the locomotive horn and engine noise, it was conservatively
included in the analysis. The railcar reference SEL used in the analysis was 82dBA and was
also obtained from Table 6-3 of the FTA Guidance Manual.
Grade Crossings Bell Noise
Grade crossing bells can be a major source of noise. The degree to which they are a major
noise source is dependent upon the volume of train trips. Although the proposed PVL corridor
would not include a significant number of daily train trips relative to other major commuter rail
lines, their noise contribution was conservatively added to the analysis. It was assumed that the
crossing bells would sound for 30 seconds at each crossing. The reference SEL used in the
analysis was 109dBA and was obtained from Table 6-7 of the FTA Guidance Manual. Appendix
E contains a list of grade crossing locations for the PVL project.
Wheel/Rail Noise
Wheel squeal on tight radius curves (<10 times the SCRRA/Metrolink locomotive wheel base or
900 feet) can contribute to community noise levels. Table 4 lists all short radius curves along the
proposed PVL alignment. As wheel squeal noise can be significant, wayside applicators will be
installed as part of project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius curves.
Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to
reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Transit
Cooperative Research Program – “Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual” (Transportation Research
Board, 1997) a report which was sponsored by the FTA, the use of a petroleum lubricant would
reduce squeal while the use of a water lubricant would eliminate squeal. These steps taken to
reduce wheel squeal from the commuter rail operations would also reduce the existing wheel
squeal from BNSF freight trains, which do and would continue to operate along the SJBL. The
only location at which the construction of new PVL rail would result in a short radius curve would
be the “Citrus Connection” (P-1A). The Citrus Connection curve is also the longest curve along
the entire extent of the PVL alignment. This length along with the required slower train speeds
along the curve would increase the wheel squeal noise exposure time. Therefore, as requested
by the FTA, an analysis of wheel squeal noise was conducted at this location. The analysis of
the noise contribution from wheel squeal was conservatively performed for nearby sensitive
residences. A reference SEL of 136 dBA used in the wheel squeal prediction equation was
obtained from the FTA Guidance Manual Table 6-7.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
21
Table 4: Summary of PVL Wheel Squeal Locations
Curve Number Description Residential Area
P-1A Citrus Connection Yes
P-3B Near East Campus Drive Yes
P-3D Box Springs Area Yes
P-4A Box Springs Area Yes
P-4C Box Springs Area Yes
P-4D Box Springs Area Yes
P-4E Box Springs Area Yes
P-4F Box Springs Area Yes
P-4G Near Watkins Drive and Poarch Road No
P-6C Near Intersection of I-60 and I-215 No
P-18A Perris Yes
Notes: Based on PVL 30% Engineering Drawings
The only location at which the construction of new PVL rail would result in a short radius curve
would be the “Citrus Connection” (P-1A). The Citrus Connection curve is also the longest curve
along the entire extent of the PVL alignment. This length along with the required slower train
speeds along the curve would increase the wheel squeal noise exposure time. Therefore, as
requested by the FTA and analysis of wheel squeal noise was conducted at this location. The
analysis of the noise contribution from wheel squeal was conservatively performed for nearby
sensitive residences. A reference SEL of 136 dBA used in the wheel squeal prediction equation
was obtained from the FTA Guidance Manual Table 6-7. The resulting analysis indicated that
the wheel squeal noise component would result in impacts to residences in the area of Transit
Avenue. Predicted project noise levels would surpass the FTA noise impact criteria by 1 dB.
However, as mentioned above, it is important to note that as part of the PVL project, RCTC will
include wayside applicators on all short radius curves. These measures would therefore
successfully reduce the significance of wheel squeal noise on all segments of the PVL
alignment, including the “Citrus Connection” area. As a result, with the wheel squeal noise
component successfully reduced no noise impacts would result at residences along Transit
Avenue.
Noise from Train Stations / Parking Lots and the South Perris Layover Facility
Noise from proposed train stations, parking lots and the Layover Facility were all assessed
utilizing noise screening Tables 4-1 and 4-2 found in the FTA Guidance Manual. The FTA noise
impact assessment spreadsheet tool was also utilized to adjust the screening parameters based
on facility size and train volume. Maps of the proposed train stations, parking lots and the
Layover Facility are shown with the applicable noise screening distances in Appendix C. The
noise screening assessment determined these facilities would be located beyond the minimum
screening distances prescribed by FTA, and that no further analysis of these sites were
required.
Using the noise models described above, future train-generated noise levels were estimated
and compared against the applicable FTA impact thresholds to identify potential noise impacts.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
22
Night-Time Noise
Because night-time noise is more annoying to humans than day-time noise (e.g., a train horn
heard at 3 AM is more annoying than a train horn heard at 1 PM), the FTA prediction formulas
applied to the PVL project include an adjustment in the actual noise level to simulate the
increased annoyance of night-time activities. Utilizing this adjustment penalty, the noise from
project-related night-time activity is effectively increased to account for the increased annoyance
level of residents.
Future Noise Level Estimates
As the PVL project proposes new rail operations, criteria applicable to the assessment of
potential project-related noise impacts as defined by CEQA would be governed by the FTA
impact criteria described later in this report. Based on these criteria, Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the
results of the Detailed Noise Impact Assessment. The projected noise impacts are summarized
below.
Trains
By 2012, commuter train operations would consist of twelve total train movements per day with
the proposed project. These operations would include four trains leaving South Perris for
Riverside (to connect to LA Union Station) in the AM, two trains from South Perris to Riverside
in the PM, one train from Riverside to South Perris in the AM, and five trains from Riverside to
South Perris in the PM.
Trains are assumed to operate with one diesel locomotive and six passenger cars on rail. The
PVL would use welded rail throughout, reducing train-rail noise. Free flow train speeds along
the study corridor would range from 25 to approximately 60 mph. FRA and CPUC rules
currently require that all trains approaching roadway-rail grade crossings blow their horns for
one-quarter of a mile prior to reaching the grade crossing. In addition, as trains pass grade
crossings, warning devices are sounded.
Under the FTA methodology, noise impacts are projected at several Category 2 land uses
(residences and buildings where people normally sleep) located along the SJBL in Riverside,
north of the UCR campus. The majority of the predicted impacts would be a result of the train
horns being sounded by trains scheduled to pass through areas with sensitive land uses prior to
7 AM, the demarcation between nighttime and daytime in the calculation of Ldn. Noise from
grade crossing warning devices would only affect homes nearby the intersection and would be
minimal in comparison to the sounding of train horns. Noise impacts are projected at a total of
83 residential locations, all of which would be located in the UCR area. Impacts at 18 of the total
83 residential locations would be characterized as severe. The FTA severe impact designation
is analogous to the CEQA potentially significant impact. Tables 5 and 6 present the findings of
the noise analysis and its characterization for Category 2 land uses, along the length of the
SJBL.
Noise impacts are also predicted for three Category 3 buildings. In the UCR area of Riverside,
these impact locations would include the school gymnasium of the Highland Elementary School,
St. George’s Episcopal Church and Crest Community Baptist Church. None of these impacts
would be severe. No impacts on Category 3 buildings were predicted in Perris. Table 7 presents
the land use Category 3 noise impact predictions.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
23
Predicted noise impacts for both Category 2 and 3 buildings are also identified on maps in
Appendix A.
Stations and Parking Lots
Noise due to the operation of a train station is primarily associated with automobile traffic
entering and exiting the station drop-off and parking areas. The noise analysis considered the
parking lots at each of the four proposed opening year stations. The proposed station parking
lots would range from approximately 440 to 880 cars. However, all noise sensitive receptors are
located beyond the FTA screening distances (as shown in Appendix C) for all proposed stations
and parking lots. This is significant since screening distances are conservatively based on the
lowest FTA threshold of impact as indicated in Chapter 4 of the FTA Guidance Manual. As a
result, sensitive receptors located beyond this distance would not experience noise disturbance
from station or parking lot operations (see section 4.2 of the FTA Guidance Manual). Noise from
station emergency generators would also not result in any impact from stations as they are not
considered to be a normal operating component of the project and would only be used in the
event of an emergency (e.g., a power outage).
Layover Facility
Trains in the vicinity of the Layover Facility in South Perris would be traveling at low rates of
speed and therefore are not expected to be significant sources of noise. In addition, the
proposed Layover Facility (for overnight storage and light, routine maintenance of the trains) is
located substantially further away from noise sensitive resources than the 1,000-foot FTA noise
screening distance for noise sensitive land uses. Graphics depicting the Layover Facility
location and the FTA noise screening distance can be found in Appendix C. As a result, noise
impacts related to the Layover Facility are not expected.
Wheel Squeal
In addition to noise from train horns, locomotives and crossing bells, wheel squeal on tight
radius curves (<10 times the SCRRA/Metrolink locomotive wheel base or 900 feet) can
contribute to community noise levels. Table 4 lists all short radius curves along the PVL
alignment. As wheel squeal noise can be significant, wayside applicators will be installed as
part of project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius curves. Wayside
applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to reduce the
metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Transit Cooperative
Research Program – “Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual” (Transportation Research Board,
1997), a report which was sponsored by the FTA, the use of a petroleum lubricant would reduce
squeal while the use of a water lubricant would eliminate squeal. These steps, which will be
taken to reduce wheel squeal from the commuter rail operations, would also reduce the existing
wheel squeal from BNSF freight trains, which do and would continue to operate along the SJBL.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
24
Table 4: Summary of PVL Wheel Squeal Locations
Curve Number Description Residential Area
P-1A Citrus Connection Yes
P-3B Near East Campus Drive Yes
P-3D Box Springs Area Yes
P-4A Box Springs Area Yes
P-4C Box Springs Area Yes
P-4D Box Springs Area Yes
P-4E Box Springs Area Yes
P-4F Box Springs Area Yes
P-4G Near Watkins Drive and Poarch Road No
P-6C Near Intersection of I-60 and I-215 No
P-18A Perris Yes
Source: STV Incorporated, Notes: Bbased on PVL 30% Engineering Drawings
The only location at which the construction of new PVL rail would result in a short radius curve
would be the “Citrus Connection” (P-1A). The Citrus Connection curve is also the longest curve
along the entire extent of the PVL alignment. This length along with the required slower train
speeds along the curve would increase the wheel squeal noise exposure time. Therefore, as
requested by the FTA, andan analysis of wheel squeal noise was conducted at this location.
The analysis of the noise contribution from wheel squeal was conservatively performed for
nearby sensitive residences. A reference SEL of 136 dBA used in the wheel squeal prediction
equation was obtained from the FTA Guidance Manual, Table 6-7. The resulting analysis
indicated that the wheel squeal noise component would result in impacts to residences in the
area of Transit Avenue. Predicted project noise levels would surpass the FTA noise impact
criteria by 1 dB. However, as mentioned above, it is important to note that as part of the PVL
project, RCTC will include wayside applicators on all short radius curves. These measures
would therefore successfully reduce the significance of wheel squeal noise on all segments of
the PVL alignment, including the “Citrus Connection” area. As a result, with the wheel squeal
noise component successfully reduced, no noise impacts would result at residences along
Transit Avenue.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
25
Table 5: Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses
Description(1)
Dist. To
Track
CL, ft
Land
Use
No.
Dwelling
Units
Track
Side(2) Horn
Exist
Ldn,
dBA
Speed,
mph Predicted
Ldn, dBA
Impact
Threshold
Impacts
No. Dwelling Units
IB OB Impact Severe Type(3) Impact Severe
Mitigation(4)
/ Barrier
Reduction
RIVERSIDE
1st Street 210 SF 4 OB IB 75 45 45 59.9 65..0 73.2 None
Thornton Avenue 90 SF 17 OB OB 76 45 45 58.6 65..0 74.0 None
Transit Avenue 141 SF 12 IB OB 67 30 30 56.9 62.2 67.5 None
Citrus Street 1 62 SF 1 IB OB 73 30 30 66.3 65.0 71.7 None 1 SI
Citrus Street 2 102 SF 2 IB OB 73 30 30 58.4 65.0 71.7 None
Kentwood 1 170 SF 3 IB OB 67 60 60 54.8 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 2 186 SF 2 IB OB 67 60 60 54.9 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 3 80 SF 7 IB IB 63 60 60 63.7 59.6 65.0 Moderate 14 NB / 7dB
Kentwood 4 80 SF 6 IB IB 63 60 60 62.1 59.6 65.0 Moderate 6 NB / 4dB
Kentwood 5 80 SF 1 IB Both 63 60 60 65.1 59.6 65.0 Severe 1 SI
Kentwood 6 150 SF 1 IB OB 67 60 60 62.0 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 7 186 SF 2 IB OB 67 60 60 59.3 62.2 67.5 None
Kentwood 8 160 SF 1 IB Both 67 60 60 62.2 62.2 67.5 Moderate 1 SI
Watkins 1 124 MF 3 OB IB 66 60 60 60.8 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 2 140 MF 6 OB IB 66 60 60 59.7 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 3 140 MF 7 OB NO 66 60 60 53.9 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 4 140 MF 10 OB OB 66 60 60 55.3 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 5 124 MF 9 OB OB 66 60 60 56.0 61.5 66.8 None
Watkins 6 124 MF 6 OB IB 66 60 60 60.2 61.5 66.8 None
Highlander 1 127 SF 8 IB OB 59 30 30 57.4 57.2 62.9 Moderate 8 NB / 3dB
Highlander 2 127 SF 1 IB Both 59 30 30 63.2 57.2 62.9 Severe 1 SI
Highlander 3 152 SF 1 IB Both 59 30 30 56.7 57.2 62.9 None 1
W. Campus View 1 127 SF 6 IB IB 59 30 30 61.9 57.2 62.9 Moderate 6 NB / 5dB
W. Campus View 2 117 SF 7 IB NO 59 30 30 55.4 57.2 62.9 None
W. Campus View 3 125 SF 9 IB OB 62 30 30 61.4 58.9 64.5 Moderate 9 NB / 6dB
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
26
Table 5: Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses (Continued)
Description(1)
Dist. To
Track
CL, ft
Land
Use
No.
Dwelling
Units
Track
Side(2) Horn
Exist
Ldn,
dBA
Speed,
mph Predicted
Ldn, dBA
Impact
Threshold
Impacts
No. Dwelling Units
IB OB Impact Severe Type(3) Impact Severe
Mitigation(4)
/ Barrier
Reduction
RIVERSIDE
W. Campus View 4 104 SF 8 IB OB 59 30 30 60.3 57.2 62.9 Moderate 8 NB /5dB
W. Campus View 5 104 SF 6 IB NO 59 30 30 55.9 57.2 62.9 None
Nisbet Street 1 137 SF 6 OB OB 62 30 30 60.9 58.9 64.5 Moderate 6 NB / 3dB
Nisbet Street 2 137 SF 5 OB OB 62 30 30 60.8 58.9 64.5 Moderate 5 NB / 3dB
Mt. Vernon 1 110 SF 1 OB OB 62 30 30 65.0 58.9 64.5 Severe 1 SI
Shady Grove 356 SF 11 IB OB 62 30 30 56.8 58.9 64.5 None
E. Campus View 1 80 SF 4 IB IB 56 25 25 65.3 55.7 61.6 Severe 4 NB / 11dB
E. Campus View 2 65 SF 4 IB IB 62 25 25 67.9 58.9 64.5 Severe 4 NB(5) / 10dB
E. Campus View 3 65 SF 4 IB IB 56 25 25 66.8 55.7 61.6 Severe 7 NB(6) / 13dB
Big Springs 120 SF 4 OB No 62 30 30 57.3 58.9 64.5 None
Quail and Swain 140 SF 5 OB No 62 30 30 56.7 58.9 64.5 None
Masters Avenue 170 SF 4 OB No 62 30 30 55.8 58.9 64.5 None
E. Manfield Street 130 SF 3 OB No 62 30 30 57.0 58.9 64.5 None
Total, SJBL, Riverside 65 18
Notes: (1) See Appendix A for graphics showing each receptor cluster on aerial photographs.
(2) IB = inbound side of track, OB = outbound side of tracks.
(3) Represents FTA impact criteria, with respect to CEQA criteria; “impact” = “less than significant”, “severe” = “potentially significant
impact”
(4) NB = Noise Barrier, SI = Sound Insulation
(5) One home would require insulation at this location. See mMitigation Measure NV-2.section.
(6) Includes three moderately impacted second row buildings.
Source: STV Incorporated, 2009
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
27
Table 6: Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 2 Land Uses
Description(1)
Dist. To
Track
CL, ft
Land
Use
No.
Dwelling
Units
Track
Side(2) Horn
Exist
Ldn,
dBA
Speed,
mph
Predicted
Ldn, dBA
Impact
Threshold
Impacts
No. Dwelling Units
IB OB Impact Severe Type(3) Impact Severe
Mitigation(4)
/ Barrier
Reduction
PERRIS
C Street 220 SF 19 OB Both 70 46 46 61.8 64.4 69.5 None
10th Street 120 SF 1 OB Both 72 30 30 61.2 65.0 70.9 None
State Street 80 SF 1 OB Both 72 30 30 63.3 65.0 70.9 None
9th Street 208 SF 3 IB Both 66 30 30 53.7 61.5 66.8 None
Case Road 130 MF 12 OB IB 72 30 30 61.7 65.0 70.9 None
Total, SJBL, Perris 0 0
Notes: (1) See Appendix A for graphics showing each receptor cluster on aerial photographs.
(2) IB = inbound side of track, OB = outbound side of tracks.
(3) Represents FTA impact criteria, with respect to CEQA criteria; “impact” = “less than significant”, “severe” = “potentially significant
impact”
(4) NB = Noise Barrier, SI = Sound Insulation
(5) One home would require insulation at this location. See mitigation section.
Source: STV Incorporated, 2009
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
28
Table 7: Detailed Noise Impact Assessment Category 3 Land Uses
Description
Dist. To
Track
CL, ft
Track
Side(1) Horn
Exist
Leq,(2)
dBA
Speed, mph Predict
Leq, Impact Threshold Impact Mitigation
IB OB dBA Impact Severe Type(3)
Type(4)/Barrier
Reduction
St George’s Episcopal
Church 190 OB IB 57 60 60 61.4 61.2 67.0 Moderate SI
UCR Day Care 175 OB IB 54 30 30 57.1 59.9 65.8 None
Highland Elementary
School 88 IB IB 52 3060 3060 60.5 59.9 65.8 Moderate NB / 3dB
Crest Community Baptist
Church 163 IB OB 52 30 30 63.3 59.1 65.1 Moderate NB / 6dB
Mt. Vernon Day Care 180 OB IB 52 25 25 58.7 59.1 65.1 None
Hyatt Elementary School 370 OB No 60 35 35 58.1 62.8 68.4 None
Nan Sanders
Elementary School 123 OB No 64 60 60 55.6 65.2 70.6 None
Senior Citizens Center 96 IB OB 59 44 44 60.2 62.2 67.9 None
St. James School 370 OB Both 64 46 46 56.2 65.2 70.6 None
Notes: (1) IB = inbound side of tracks, OB = outbound side of tracks.
(2) Existing Leq is based on short-term noise measurements or daytime Leq with no freight train noise.
(3) Represents FTA impact criteria, with respect to CEQA criteria; “impact” = “less than significant”, “severe” = “potentially significant
impact”
(4) NB = Noise Barrier, SI = Sound Insulation
Source: STV Incorporated, 2009
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
29
Summary of Results
Utilizing FTA noise criteria, the results of the noise study indicate that both moderate and severe
noise impacts would occur at several locations along the SJBL with the proposed PVL. For the
2012 operational year, moderate impacts were predicted at 83 separate Category 2 locations
along the alignment. Of these 83 impact locations, 18 were predicted to be severe. The
predicted noise impacts were located in the UCR area. Noise predictions at Category 3
locations revealed moderate impacts at three locations which included St. George’s Episcopal
Church, Crest Community Baptist Church, and Highland Elementary School.
As a result of the noise prediction analysis, an assessment of measures that would mitigate the
predicted noise impacts was conducted. The resulting mitigation measures (noise barriers,
sound insulation) which would eliminate predicted noise impacts at noise sensitive properties
are also shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7.
D. NOISE CRITERIA
Fundamentals of Noise
Noise, otherwise known as unwanted sound, is what humans hear when exposed to small
pressure fluctuations in the air (FTA, 2006). Noise is generated by a source and the magnitude
of the noise depends on the type of source and its operating characteristics. When excessive
noise interrupts ongoing activities, such as sleeping, conversing, and watching TV, it can create
annoyance in communities, especially residential areas. Noise is measured using several
descriptors:
· Decibel (dB) - The logarithmic unit used to measure sound.
· A-weighting Sound Level (dBA) –The basic noise unit that measures sound audible to
humans. Noises contain sound energy at different frequencies whose range depends on
the individual noise source. Human hearing does not register the sound levels of all
noise frequencies equally, which reduces the impression of the magnitude of high and
low pitched sounds. dBA units are sound levels measured through a process that filters
noise levels to predominantly include sounds that are audible to humans. This process
reduces the strength of very low and very high pitched sounds, such as low-frequency
seismic disturbances and dog whistles, to more accurately measure sounds that affect
humans. Normally occurring sounds lie in the range of 40 to 120 dBA. A sample of the
dBA of common transit-related and other noise sources is shown on Figure 6.
· Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) – Leq represents a single value of sound level that
quantifies the amount of noise in a specific environment for a particular period of time.
· Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq (h)) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound
that occur in a particular location for one hour. For example, as a train approaches,
passes by, and recedes into the distance, the dBA will rise, reach a maximum level, and
eventually fade. The Leq (h) for this event would be a value that measures the
cumulative impact of each level of sound that resulted from the train’s passing, in
addition to any other sounds that occurred during one hour. It is particularly useful when
measuring the cumulative noise impact for communities.
· Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) - A value that accounts for all levels of sound that occur in
a particular location for 24 hours. This cumulative value also includes a ten dB penalty
imposed on any noise that occurs between 10 PM and 7 AM. Ldn is used to measure
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
30
the cumulative noise impact at residential areas primarily because it takes into account
the increased sensitivity to noise at night, which is when most people are sleeping.
Typical ranges for community noise in various settings are shown in Table 8.
Figure 6: Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
100
90
80
70
60
50
30
40
TRANSIT SOURCES NON-TRANSIT SOURCES
OUTDOOR INDOOR
Rock Drill
Jack Hammer
Concrete Mixer
Air Compressor
Lawn Mower
Lawn Tiller
Air Conditioner
Shop Tools,
in use
Shop Tools,
idling
Food Blender
Clothes Washer
Air Conditioner
Refrigerator
dBA
Rail Transit on Old Steel Structure,
50 mph
Rail Transit Horn
Rail Transit on Modern Concrete
Aerial Structure, 50 mph
Rail Transit At-Grade, 50 mph
City Bus, idling
Rail Transit in Station
ALL AT 50 FT ALL AT 3 FTALL AT 50 FT
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
31
Table 8: Typical Range of Ldn in Populated Areas
Area Ldn, dBA
Downtown City 75–85
“Very Noisy” Urban Residential Areas 65-75
“Quiet” Urban Residential Areas 60-65
Suburban Residential Areas 55-60
Small Town Residential Areas 45-55
Ldn= cumulative noise exposure
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
A few general relationships may be helpful in understanding the decibel scale:
· An increase of one dBA cannot be perceived by the human ear.
· A three dBA increase is normally the smallest change in sound levels that is perceptible to
the human ear.
· A ten dBA increase in noise level corresponds to tenfold increase in noise energy, but a
listener would only judge a ten dBA increase as being twice as loud.
· A 20 dBA increase would result in a dramatic change in how a listener would perceive the
sound.
Noise Criteria
The FTA has established noise criteria to assess potential impacts that various transit projects
have on noise-sensitive land uses (environments particularly sensitive to annoying noises). A
graphical depiction of these noise criteria for three categories of land use defined in Table 9 is
shown on Figure 7.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
32
Table 9: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise
Land Use
Category
Noise
Metric
(dBA)
Description of Land Use Category
1 Outdoor
Leq(h)*
Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose.
This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land
uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National
Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Also included are
recording studios and concert halls.
2 Outdoor
Ldn
Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category
includes homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise
is assumed to be of utmost importance.
3 Outdoor
Leq(h)*
Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This
category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is
important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation
and concentration on reading material. Places for meditation or study
associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds and
recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category. Certain
historical sites and parks are also included.
Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
For Categories 1 and 3, the Leq noise descriptor is used, while Category 2 properties are
assessed utilizing the Ldn descriptor. In most cases, these three categories are the only land
uses that would be negatively impacted by high noise levels because industrial or commercial
areas are generally compatible with high noise levels.
Noise impacts to these three categories as a result of a proposed project are assessed by
comparing the existing and future project-related outdoor noise levels as illustrated in the graph
provided on Figure 7. These potential noise impacts fall into three types: “No Impact,”
“Moderate Impact,” and “Severe Impact”. These terms correlate well with the CEQA impact
terminology (i.e. no impact, less than significant impact and potentially significant impact).
· No Impact - The project, on average, will result in an insignificant increase in the number
of instances where people are “highly annoyed” by new noise.
· Moderate Impact - The change in cumulative noise is noticeable to most people, but may
not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse community reactions.
· Severe Impact - A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the
noise, perhaps resulting in vigorous community reaction
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
33
Figure 7: Allowable Transit Noise Increases
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable level of transit noise also
increases, but the total amount by which that community’s noise can increase without an
impact, is reduced. As shown in Table 10, as existing and allowable combined total noise levels
increase, the allowable change in noise level decreases.
Table 10: Examples Of Noise Impact Criteria For Transit Projects (Ldn or Leq in dBA)
Existing Noise
Levels
Allowable Project
Noise Level
Allowable Combined Total
Noise Level
Allowable Noise Level
Increase
45 51 52 7
50 53 55 5
55 55 58 3
60 57 62 2
65 60 66 1
70 64 71 1
75 65 75 0
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
Table 11 shows several examples of moderate and severe noise impact criteria levels as they
relate to the existing noise level.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
34
Table 11: FTA Noise Impact Criteria
Existing Noise
Exposure
Leq or Ldn (1)
Project Noise Exposure Impact Thresholds,
Ldn or Leq,(1) dBA
Category 1 or 2 Uses Category 3 Uses
Moderate
Impact
Severe
Impact
Moderate
Impact
Severe
Impact
<43 Amb.+10 Amb.+15 Amb.+15 Amb.+20
43 52 59 57 64
44 52 59 57 64
45 52 59 57 64
46 52 59 57 64
47 52 59 57 64
48 53 59 58 64
49 53 59 58 64
50 53 60 58 65
51 54 60 59 65
52 54 60 59 65
53 54 60 59 65
54 55 61 60 66
55 55 61 60 66
56 56 62 61 67
57 56 62 61 67
58 57 62 62 67
59 57 63 62 68
60 58 63 63 68
61 58 64 63 69
62 59 64 64 69
63 60 65 65 70
64 60 66 65 71
65 61 66 66 71
66 61 67 66 72
67 62 67 67 72
68 63 68 68 73
69 64 69 69 74
70 64 69 69 74
71 65 70 70 75
72 65 71 70 76
73 65 72 70 77
74 65 72 70 77
75 65 73 70 78
76 65 74 70 79
77 65 75 70 80
>77 65 75 70 80
Note: (1) Ldn is used for land uses where nighttime sensitivity is a factor; maximum 1-hour Leq
is used for land use involving only daytime activities.
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
35
In addition to FTA criteria, CEQA has defined threshold limits which are related to the exposure
of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (such as the FTA).
General plans and local noise ordinances exist for municipalities along the project alignment.
These statutes define maximum noise limits for community activities and local development
projects. However, these ordinances are typically related to construction noise and nuisance
noise levels. For the definition of CEQA impact thresholds as they relate to the proposed
project, FTA impact criteria described above were used. Further discussion of general plans and
local ordinances is included below in the section on Construction Period Noise Impacts.
E. NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Following is an outline of the approach used to identify potential noise impacts from the
proposed PVL commuter rail extension. In general, the approach follows the Detailed
Assessment guidelines outlined in the FTA Guidance Manual. The steps taken were:
1. Identify representative noise sensitive receptors. Sensitive land uses along the corridor
were identified, first by referencing recent aerial photography. Field visits were then conducted
to confirm land uses and gather additional relevant information. Sensitive receivers were then
grouped together based on their location relative to the tracks, grade crossings, and other
geographic and PVL operational factors that might affect noise levels. Within each grouping, a
representative receptor was included in the noise model (see step 3 below). The representative
locations were developed based on previous studies, additional field review and comments
received during the Draft EA process.
2. Determine existing noise levels. Measurements of existing noise levels were taken at a
number of locations along the corridor as discussed previously. A single noise measurement
site was “assigned” to represent each group of receptors. Maps of these receptor groupings are
shown in Appendix A. One unusual factor along this corridor is that the BNSF freight operations
are the dominant noise source in some sections of the corridor and there can be significant
variations in Ldn depending on the number of trains that passed during the measurement
period, and how many of these trains passed during nighttime hours. Because access to
several sites was prohibited, measured Leq values were in some instances adjusted to produce
Ldn values using FTA procedures.
3. Develop noise prediction models. Equations and Tables contained in the FTA Guidance
Manual were usedModels were developed to predict future noise levels from the proposed
SCRRA/Metrolink PVL operations. The noise predictions were based on the forecasted number
of daily trains and the distribution of these trains throughout the day (early morning, daytime,
and evening), the distance from the tracks, the train speed, and other site-specific conditions
such as acoustic shielding and grade crossings. Specific model inputs and assumptions are
discussed above in the section on “Prediction of Noise from the Project.”
4. Estimate future noise levels at the representative receivers. Using the models described
above, future train-generated noise levels were estimated and compared against the applicable
FTA impact thresholds to identify potential noise impacts. Predicted noise impacts are
discussed below. Two of the key components of the predictions are the planned train schedule
and the train speeds. The proposed train schedule for 2012 is shown below in Table 12. If
impacts were predicted for Category 2 properties, the next closest row of properties would be
assessed for impact. When impacts were predicted at Category 3 sites, no further assessment
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
36
was required since the next closest receptors were located too far away from the noise source
and their lines of sitesight to the alignment would be blocked by intervening buildings. These
two factors eliminated any potential impact at Category 3 locations located further from the
alignment.
Noise from wheel squeal (near the tight radius curve at the proposed “Citrus Connection”) was
assessed separately since the implementation of the PVL project willoperation of the PVL train
corridor would include wayside applicators as part of the design plans, wayside applicators
which wouldwill eliminate significantly reduce noise from wheel squeal for all tight radius curves.
5. Identify noise mitigation. Noise mitigation can be accomplished by several means, including
the construction of noise barriers and the use of building sound insulation. Noise barriers are
very effective in eliminating severe and moderate impacts to affected properties; the technique
is recognized by FTA as effective, and is used by state agencies such as RCTC and Caltrans.
The length of the barrier is important to its effectiveness so that noise generated beyond the
ends of the barrier do not compromise the effectiveness of the barrier at noise-sensitive
locations. A solid, impervious barrier that is sufficiently high to block the direct view of the noise
source would typically reduce community noise levels, at locations within about 200 feet of the
track, by five to 15 dBA. At locations where noise barriers are not feasible and/or cannot totally
eliminate potential impacts, building sound insulation is recommended for individual residences.
Building sound insulation typically involves caulking and sealing gaps in the building envelope
and installation of specially designed acoustic windows and solid-core doors. Depending on the
quality of the original building façade, especially windows and doors, sound insulation
treatments can improve the noise reductions from transit noise by five to 20 dBA.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
37
Table 12: Perris Valley Line - Opening Year (2012) Operations
To Los Angeles 701 703 7X1 7X3 7X5 7X7 91 Line [Perris V, Riverside, Fullerton, Downtown LA] South Perris 3:48 AM 4:48 AM 5:48 AM 6:18 AM 2:10 PM 3:52 PM
Downtown Perris 3:53 AM 4:53 AM 5:53 AM 6:23 AM 2:15 PM 3:57 PM
Moreno Valley/ March
Field 4:07 AM 5:07 AM 6:07 AM 6:37 AM 2:29 PM 4:11 PM
Hunter Park 4:22 AM 5:22 AM 6:22 AM 6:52 AM 2:44 PM 4:26 PM
Riverside - Downtown 4:30 AM 5:30 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 2:52 PM 4:34 PM
Riverside – LA Sierra 4:40 AM 5:40 AM 6:40 AM 7:10 AM 3:02 PM 4:44 PM
North Main Corona 4:48 AM 5:48 AM 6:48 AM 7:18 AM 3:10 PM 4:52 PM
West Corona 4:54 AM 5:54 AM 6:54 AM 7:24 AM 3:16 PM 4:58 PM
Fullerton 5:19 AM 6:19 AM 7:19 AM 7:49 AM 3:41 PM 5:21 PM
Buena Park 5:26 AM 6:26 AM 7:26 AM 7:56 AM 4:07 PM 5:26 PM
Norwalk/Santa Fe
Springs 5:34 AM 6:34 AM 7:34 AM 8:04 AM 4:15 PM 5:34 PM
LA Union Station 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 4:39 PM 6:00 PM
To Perris Valley 700 702 704 706 708 710 91 Line [Perris V, Riverside, Fullerton, Downtown LA] LA Union Station 6:15 AM 11:30 AM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:15 PM
Norwalk/Santa Fe
Springs 6:36 AM 11:51 AM 3:51 PM 4:51 PM 5:51 PM 6:36 PM
Buena Park 6:42 AM 11:57 AM 3:57 PM 4:57 PM 5:57 PM 6:42 PM
Fullerton 6:49 AM 12:04 PM 4:04 PM 5:04 PM 6:04 PM 6:49 PM
West Corona 7:12 AM 12:27 PM 4:27 PM 5:27 PM 6:27 PM 7:12 PM
North Main Corona 7:18 AM 12:33 PM 4:33 PM 5:33 PM 6:33 PM 7:18 PM
Riverside – LA Sierra 7:27 AM 12:42 PM 4:42 PM 5:42 PM 6:42 PM 7:27 PM
Riverside - Downtown 7:45 AM 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:45 PM
Hunter Park 7:51 AM 1:06 PM 5:06 PM 6:06 PM 7:06 PM 7:51 PM
Moreno Valley/ March
Field 8:06 AM 1:21 PM 5:21 PM 6:21 PM 7:21 PM 8:06 PM
Downtown Perris 8:20 AM 1:35 PM 5:35 PM 6:35 PM 7:35 PM 8:20 PM
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
38
F. NOISE MITIGATION
As shown in Table 13, the locations where noise impacts are predicted to occur and at which
mitigation would be needed have been determined through the FTA Detailed Assessment
methodology. Mitigation to reduce noise levels are described below, identified as Noise and
Vibration (NV) Mitigation Measures NV-1 and NV-2.
· NV-1: Noise barriers shall be constructed at the following locations (based on 30%
Design Drawings). A map of the proposed noise barrier locations is provided in
Appendix D.
o NB 1: 10’ high and 530’ long between 264+00 and 269+0030
o NB 2: 13’ high and 560570’ long between Sta. 269+0030 and Sta. 275+00
o NB 3: 9’ high and 680’ long between Sta. 283+00 and Sta. 289+0040
o NB 4: 12’ high and 600’ long between Sta. 289+0040 and Sta. 295+0040
o NB 5: 8’ high and 500530’ long between Sta. 298297+0070 and Sta. 303+00
o NB 6: 8’ high and 800’ long between Sta. 303+00 and Sta. 311+00
o NB 7: 10’ high and 700800’ long between Sta. 322+00 and Sta. 330+00
o NB 8: 11’ high and 320’ long between Sta. 331+00 and Sta. 334+0020
o NB 9: 13’ high and 1,100950’ long between Sta. 324323+0040 and Sta.
333332+0040
o NB 10: 13’ high and 210250’ long between Sta. 333332+0080 and Sta.
335334+0080
o NB 11: 9’ high and 300310’ long between Sta. 336+00 and Sta. 339+0010
o NB 12: 119’ high and 300310’ long between Sta. 339+0010 and Sta. 342+0020
o NB 13: 1013’ high and 400380’ long between Sta. 342+0020 and Sta. 346+00
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
39
Table 13: Proposed Noise Barrier Locations to Reduce Noise Impacts at Residential and
Institutional Land Uses to Less than Significant Levels
Location
Max
Thresh.
Exceed,
dB(1)
Civil Stations*
Length,
ft
Height,
ft(2) Comment Start End
San Jacinto Branch Line
1. Watkins Drive (south of Spruce
Street, east side of alignment) 4 264+00 269+0030 530 10
2. Watkins Drive (south of Spruce
Street, east side of alignment) 3 269+0030 275+00 560570 13
3. Highland Elementary School (north
of W. Blaine Street, east side of
alignment)
<1 283+00 289+0040 680 9 Includes 40’ of barrier segment
perpendicular to track.
4. W. Blaine Street (north of Blaine
Street, east side of alignment) <1 289+0040 295+0040 600 12
5. W. Blaine Street (south of Blaine
Street, east side of alignment) 5 298297+0070 303+00 500530 8
6. W. Blaine Street (south of Blaine
Street, east side of alignment) 3 303+00 311+00 800 8
7. Mt. Vernon Avenue (west of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, north side of
alignment)
3 322+00 330+00 700800 10
8. Crest Community Baptist Church
@ Mt. Vernon Avenue 4 331+00 334+0020 320 11
9. Nisbet Way (west of Mt. Vernon
Avenue, south of alignment) 2 324323+0040 333332+0040 1,100950 13 Includes 50’ of barrier segment
perpendicular to track.
10. Nisbet Way (west of Mt. Vernon
Avenue, south of alignment) 2 333332+0080 335334+0080 210250 13 Includes 50’ of barrier segment
perpendicular to track.
11. East Campus View (East of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, north of alignment) 9 336+00 339+0010 300310 9
For residences at elevations
above the rail elevation, the noise
barrier will be located along the
ROW.should be located at top of
slope. This may block views
across the rail line for some
residences.
12. East Campus View (East of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, north of alignment) 11 339+0010 342+0020 300310 9
For residences at elevations
above the rail elevation, the noise
barrier will be located along the
ROW.Same note as for noise
barrier number 12 above.
13. East Campus View (East of Mt.
Vernon Avenue, north of alignment) 10 342+0020 346+00 400380 13
For residences at elevations
above the rail elevation, the noise
barrier will be located along the
ROW.Same note as for noise
barrier number 12 above.
Notes: (1) Maximum amount that the predicted levels exceed the applicable noise impact threshold.
(2) Noise barrier heights are relative to top of ROW boundary elevation. Exact locations of nNoise barriers
for mitigation may be modified to account for specific field conditions and change based on the PVL final
design features.
* Stationing is based upon the 30% engineering drawings; final stationing will be determined during final
design and linked to final design drawings.
Source: STV Incorporated, 20092010
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
40
· NV-2: Sound insulation for seven residences and St. George’s Episcopal Church (eight
properties total) shall be provided at the following locations:
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine
Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East
Campus View Drive)
o Southwest corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on
Mount Vernon Avenue)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first two homes on
Kentwood Drive)
o Southeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill
Drive)
o St George’s Episcopal Church
Mitigation Summary
Application of the defined mitigation measures would reduce noise levels to below the impact
criteria, so that noise impacts would be less than significant when mitigation is implemented.
For the 2012 opening year, there would be no impacts within downtown Riverside. For
neighborhoods along the SJBL in the UCR area, noise barriers in the range of eight to 13 feet in
height, located along the property lines of the residents and PVL ROW boundaries, would
reduce noise levels to less than the FTA impact criteria for all noise-sensitive locations. Noise
barrier heights were calculated based on the predicted sound level in the area, local terrain and
the amount by which the FTA impact thresholds were exceeded. The barriers were designed so
as to reduce the level of noise that a residence is being exposed to a point where there would
be no noise impact predicted with the inclusion of the barrier.
Based on the topography and known engineering constraints at seven residential locations and
St George’s Episcopal Church (eight properties total), the use of noise barriers will not provide
adequate noise mitigation. Improving the sound insulation of these properties by replacing
windows facing the tracks with new sound rated windows, as well as caulking and sealing gaps
in the building envelope, eliminating operable windows and installing specially designed
acoustic solid-core doors, will reduce noise to below the FTA impact criteria, and to less than
significant levels. In order to be considered cost-effective, a treatment should provide a
minimum of 5 dBA reduction in the interior of the building and provide an interior noise level of
65 dBA or less from transit sources. In homes where noise impact from train horns is identified,
the sound insulation should provide sufficient noise reduction such that horn noise inside the
building is 70 dBA or less.
During subsequent phases of engineering, the mitigation described above is subject to
refinement to reflect any changes in design details. For instance, although this analysis
assumes the most conservative (i.e., greatest potential impact) position for warning bells, the
final location of warning bells at grade crossings is still not final; or a noise barrier in an area
might need to be adjusted in height or length as more detailed calculations are done. If there
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
41
are significant changes in the project design, the determination of final mitigation measure
configuration and placement will be made during final design, when the complete design details
that affect the noise impact analysis are known. The same type of mitigation measures, as
described above, would be used such that impacts are reduced to below the FTA impact criteria
and less than significant levels.
Quiet Zones
Although not recommended here as mitigation, as it is not a mitigation that RCTC has the
authority to put in place, an additional option to reduce noise includes quiet zones. Since the
adoption of the FRA 2005 Train Horn & Quiet Zone Final Rule, public authorities have had the
option to maintain and/or establish quiet zones provided certain supplemental or alternative
safety measures are in place and the crossing accident rate meets FRA standards. RCTC has
previously donated $26,000 to the City of Riverside to study the potential for “quiet zones” at
grade crossings in the city. The current Metrolink guidelines for local agencies that wish to
establish quiet zones include early coordination with Metrolink followed by diagnostic meetings
with the principal stakeholders. In this case the stakeholders would include Metrolink, RCTC,
the City of Riverside, the City of Perris, BNSF and the California Public Utilities Commission.
G. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
The construction noise assessment Site-relatedindicates that construction activities would not
result in any significant noise impacts at any nearby noise-sensitive receptors. The conclusions
of the construction noise assessment are based on the use of the FTA construction noise
criteria and they apply to both day- and night-time construction activities. While no significant
impacts would be predicted to occur, construction activities may result in occasional and
sporadictemporary, short-term increases in noise levels, not unlike in noise-sensitive areas
adjoining the project alignment. Many of these site related construction activities needed to
implement the proposed project arethose typical of those that occur forcommon street and utility
projects. Typical noise emission levels for various pieces of construction equipment are shown
in Table 14. However, given the linear configuration of the construction corridor, only small area
segments would likely experience construction noise at any given time. Once grade crossing
improvements along with the excavation and grading of the track base are completed,
specialized track equipment would move continuously along the alignment constructing the new
track. The export of soils from the project site may result in increases in noise levels along
roadways in the immediate project area. However, because the amount of exported soils from
each location along the PVL alignment is finite, the site vehicular access would change
frequently as construction moves along the alignment. Therefore, any resulting noise increases
would be temporary since no single roadway segment would be affected for more than a few
weeks. According to the FTA Manual, this would not constitute a long period of time for a
construction-related activity and, thus, would not result in any impact. With respect to noise
from the construction of the stations, only the proposed Downtown Perris Station would be
located nearby noise sensitive receptors; however, station construction would only last
approximately two months. Any potential increase in noise levels impacts would be temporary
in nature and would generally only occur between about 6 AM and 7 PM, Monday through
Friday. The exact hours when project construction would be allowed are restricted to the hours
described in the local construction noise policies below for the individual localities. For all
construction activities, standard construction noise control measures would be required to
reduce the likelihood of any temporary noise increases.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
42
As mentioned above, sSome night-time work may also have to occur, such as track
realignment. Because local ordinancescodes typically allow only day-time construction, only
during day-time hours, any project-related night-time construction activitythis would require prior
approval by the locality in which the night-time activity is to take place.the project to obtain from
the municipality written consent for an exemption, or variance to these codes. With respect to
noise from the construction of the stations, only the proposed Downtown Perris Station would be
located nearby noise sensitive receptors. However, station construction would only last
approximately two months.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
43
Table 14: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Item
Noise Level at 50' (dBA)
Air Compressor 81
Asphalt Spreader (paver) 89
Asphalt Truck 88
Backhoe 85
Compactor 80
Concrete Spreader 89
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane (derrick) 88
Dozer 87
Dump Truck 88
Front End Loader 84
Gas-Driven Vibro-compactor 76
Generator 76
Hoist 76
Impact Wrench (steel bolting) 88
Jackhammer (Paving Breaker) 88
Motor Crane 83
Pick-up Truck (light) 72
Pneumatic tools 85
Pump 76
Roller 80
Rock Drill 98
Scraper 88
Shovel 82
Truck (Medium and Heavy) 88
Vibratory Pile Driver 96
Source: USEPA
Although the overall length of construction for the entire PVL project would be approximately 18
months, disturbances at individual receptor locations would not last for more than several
months. As mentioned above, aAny potential construction noise impacts on schools and
churches would be less than significant since project construction noise levels would not
surpass the FTA construction noise criteria levels; however, both sporadic and temporary
increases in construction noise above local construction noise ordinances levels may occur.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
44
Any temporary increases would be based on potential occurrences of atypical events given the
inconsistent and transitory nature of some construction activities and equipment usage.
Consequently, the contractor would be required use standard construction noise control
measures such as sporadic and temporary.temporary construction noise barriers, low-noise
emission equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment to
reduce the likelihood of any increases in construction noise above the local noise ordinance
maximum levels. The longest sustained construction period near sensitive receptorsfor any one
construction activity would likely result from station construction and, as mentioned above,
would last approximately two months. However, because of the relative small scale of a typical
rail station, the use of heavy construction equipment would only occur during a short segment of
that two month period. For mobile construction activities, the delivery of construction materials,
such as the rail, rail ties, ballast, and the specialized track equipment, would be accomplished in
large part by using the existing rail as opposed to being delivered by truck. Also, staging yards
would be located strategically so as to limit the travel time for construction crews. These
processes would serve to limit the exposure radius of traffic related construction noise in
sensitive areas. However, as brief periods of inconvenience due to construction noise could
exist, the public should be informed about any potential for increased noise and, in addition, the
existence of any construction plans in relation to local noise codes.
Local Policies and Regulations
The PVL project would be subject to local policies and regulations relative to construction noise
and local nuisance noise levels. These statutes define maximum noise limits for existing
community activities and future land development projects; however, as they do not contain
explicit noise criteria governing future rail operations, they do not pertain to the assessment of
these future operations. As a result, for the PVL project, local policies and regulations are
applied to potential on-site project construction activities.
Riverside County Ordinance No. 847
Riverside County Ordinance No. 847 establishes countywide standards for regulating noise
(Riverside County, 2007). For example, in residential land uses, the maximum dB level allowed
from 7 AM to 10 PM is 55, while the maximum dB level allowed from 10 PM to 7 AM is 45. With
a few exceptions, no person shall create any sound that causes the exterior sound level on any
other occupied property to exceed the stated sound level standards. For construction-related
activities that exceed these standards, an application for a construction-related exception must
be made to the Director of Building and Safety accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
In this ordinance, “sensitive receptors” are defined as land uses that are identified as sensitive
to noise in the Noise Element of the Riverside County General Plan.
Riverside County Code, Title 15.04.020 (F)
According to the Riverside County Municipal Code, Title 15.04.020 (F), whenever a construction
site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence or residences, no construction activities
may be undertaken between the hours of 6 PM and 6 AM during the months of June through
September and between the hours of 6 PM and 7 AM during the months of October through
May. Exceptions are allowed only with the written consent of the building official.
Operational noise levels are regulated by the Riverside County Department of Industrial
Hygiene to limit the level of noise from industrial and other stationary source operations. Worst-
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
45
case scenario levels for stationary noise sources projected to the property line of an occupied
residential property are to remain below 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7 AM) and are
not to exceed 65 dBA during daytime hours (7 AM to 10 PM). Sensitive receptors, such as rest
homes, schools, hospitals, mental care facilities, places of worship, and libraries, are described
in the Riverside County General Plan. Noise generating uses that result in noise levels greater
than 65 dBA are discouraged near these areas of increased sensitivity.
City of Riverside General Plan
The Noise Element in the City of Riverside General Plan includes policies and plans that protect
existing and planned land uses from significant noise impacts and ways to minimize noise
impacts. Policies N - 4.1 through N - 4.5 specifically address ground transportation-related noise
impacts and noise reduction features that should be considered, including earthen berms and
landscaped walls.
The Noise Element also refers to the City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 7 for regulations
regarding construction noise.
City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 7
The City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 7 sets forth standards and regulations that control
unnecessary, excessive, and/or annoying noise in the City (City of Riverside, 2007). It is
enforced by the Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development Department and
the Riverside Police Department. Based on Table 15, unless a variance has been granted as
provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any
noise which exceeds the following:
1. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, up to five decibels,
for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
2. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, plus five decibels, for
a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
3. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, plus ten decibels, for
a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
4. The exterior noise standard of the applicable land use category, plus fifteen decibels,
for the cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
5. The exterior noise standard for the applicable land use category, plus twenty decibels
or the maximum measured ambient noise level, for any period of time.
If the measured ambient noise level exceeds that permissible within any of the first four
noise limit categories, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five
decibel increments in each category as appropriate to encompass the ambient noise
level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the
maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the
maximum ambient noise level.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
46
Table 15: City of Riverside - Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level
Residential Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
45 dBA
55 dBA
Office/commercial Any time 65 dBA
Industrial Any time 70 dBA
Community support Any time 60 dBA
Public recreation facility Any time 65 dBA
Non-urban Any time 70 dBA
Source: City of Riverside
Section 7.35.010 specifically addresses construction-related activities. Construction work that
exceeds the allowable noise standards in Table 1315 may not occur between the hours of 7 PM
and 7 AM on weekdays, between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or
federal holidays.
City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code
According to the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, section 11.80.020 no person shall maintain,
create, operate or cause to be operated on private property any source of sound in such a
manner as to create any non-impulsive sound which exceeds the limits set forth for the source
land use category (for daytime 60dB residential and 65dB commercial, for nighttime 55dB
residential and 60dB commercial) when measured at a distance of two hundred 200 feet or
more from the real property line of the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on privately
owned property, or from the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on public right-of-way,
public space or other publicly owned property. Any source of sound in violation of this
subsection shall be deemed prima facie to be a noise disturbance.
According to the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, section 11.80.030 no person shall operate or
cause the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or
demolition work between the hours of 8 PM and 7 AM the following day such that the sound
there from creates a noise disturbance, except for emergency work by public service utilities or
for other work approved by the city manager or designee. This section shall not apply to the use
of power tools. With respect to construction, any construction within the city shall only be as
follows: Monday through Friday (except for holidays which occur on weekdays), 6 AM to 8PM;
weekends and holidays (as observed by the city and described in Chapter 2.55 of this code),
7AM to 8PM, unless written approval is obtained from the city building official or city engineer.
(Ord. 759 § 5.5, 2007; Ord. 484 § 3.2 (part), 1995).
City of Perris General Plan
The City of Perris General Plan does not discuss specific noise requirements for railroads, but it
does provide goals, policies, and implementation measures that address future land use
compatibility with noise from rail traffic (City of Perris, 2006). Implementation Measure III.A.1 of
Policy III.A states that the City of Perris will work with BNSF and RCTC to upgrade aging rail
with new continuous welded rail (CWR) and to install noise reduction features in residential
areas.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
47
City of Perris Municipal Code, Chapter 7.34
Chapter 7.34 of the City of Perris Municipal Code declares that excessive noise levels are
detrimental to the health and safety of individuals and are therefore prohibited by the provisions
of Ordinance 1082 codified in this chapter (City of Perris, 2000). The maximum noise level
allowed during the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM is 60 dBA, and 80 dBA is allowed between 7 AM
and 10 PM.
Construction noise is restricted to 80 dBA at residential property lines, and construction is
restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays
except for Columbus Day and Washington’s Birthday.
Construction Noise Assessment
The construction activity that would create the most noise is pile driving associated with the San
Jacinto River bridge replacements which is nearadjacent to the proposedSouth Perris Layover
Facility, around the San Jacinto River. However, as there are no noise sensitive receptors
locatedions within approximately one mile of nearby the proposed Layover Facility and the pile
driving sites,or near the two San Jacinto River bridges that would be replaced, construction-
related noise impacts would not occur. In addition, pile driving would be temporary in nature,
and any site specific pile driving would likely be completed in less than a week.
However, other locations along the alignment could also be potentially impacted by construction
noise. To determine whether construction of the proposed PVL project would result in any noise
impacts to sensitive receptors at these locations, the FTA general assessment procedure for
construction noise was conducted at one selected location in Perris (228 C Street). This location
was chosen because it would be representative of properties affected by typical track laying
construction including activities such as culvert modifications and embankment work as well as
track and road crossings construction. In addition, due to the proposed downtown Perris Station,
it would also be affected by construction noise from station and parking elements, which include
earthwork, utility work and landscaping among others. The FTA general assessment procedure
for noise assumes the following:
· full power operation for a time period of one hour
· free-field conditions and hard surface ground conditions
· noise emission levels are taken from Table 1214
· all pieces of equipment are assumed to operate at the center of the construction site, or
centerline in the case of rail projects.
· the predictions include only the two noisiest pieces of equipment expected to be used
Noise levels are predicted using the following equation for each construction piece:
Leq (equip) = E.L. + 10 Log(U.F) - 20 log(D/50) - 10log(d/50)
where,
Leq (equipment = the Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of
equipment
E.L. = The noise emission level of a particular piece of equipment
U.F. = The usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that a piece of equipment is in
use over a specified time period
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
48
D = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment
G = accounts for topography and ground effects
Predictions are then compared to Table 16 to determine if the levels are below the
recommended FTA construction noise criteria.
Table 16: FTA Construction Noise Criteria
One-hour Leq (dBA)
Land Use Day Night
Residential 90 80
Commercial 100 100
Industrial 100 100
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
As a result, based on the use of the construction noise projection shown, the combined noise
level for two of the noisiest pieces of construction equipment would result in a construction noise
level of 79 dBA at the property line of a residential home. This would be below the FTA
construction noise criteria for both day- and night-time. It would also be below the 80 dB noise
level set by the Section 7.34.060 of the Perris General Plan. Therefore, although the total
project construction period is estimated to last approximately 18 months, because the FTA
construction noise criteria level for both day- and night-time construction would not be
surpassed, noise impacts due to construction activities are not expected and would be less than
significant.noise impacts due to construction noise are not expected.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
49
III. VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
A. INVENTORY OF VIBRATION SENSITIVE SITES
Locations of Vibration Sensitive Receptors
Shown above on Figure 2 is an overview of the PVL alignment with the general locations of
noise and vibration sensitive locations separated into receptor “Areas.” Below is a summary of
the types of sensitive land uses found in each of these receptor “Areas.”
Area A: Consists primarily of commercial and industrial uses along the BNSF alignment from
the Riverside Downtown Station to the Citrus Connection. One small residential neighborhood
exists along the inbound side of the BNSF alignment from Down Street north to where the
alignment crosses Marlborough Street.
Area B: Residential neighborhood exists along the southern portion of Transit Avenue with
several houses abutting the alignment near Citrus Street.
Area C: Residential neighborhood exists north of the UCR campus between Spruce Street and
Mount Vernon Avenue. The majority of the sensitive receptors are single-family residences
north of the SJBL along Kentwood, Highlander, West Campus View, and East Campus View
Drives. In addition there are some multi-family residences along Watkins Drive. Institutional
uses include St. George’s Episcopal Church at Watkins Drive and Spruce Street, Highland
Elementary School, UCR Daycare Center and Crest Community Baptist Church.
Area D: Residential neighborhoods exist west of the PVL alignment and east of the UCR
campus. Some of the streets in this area are Big Springs Road, Quail Road, Swain Road, and
E. Manfield Street. This area also includes Hyatt Elementary School.
Area E: Predominantly low density open land with commercial and office type uses. However,
the landscape of the area is dominated by I-215 which parallels the PVL alignment going into
Perris. The closest residential areas to the PVL are blocked by I-215 in the area of Edgemont.
The March Air Reserve Base exists in the Moreno Valley area. This section also includes some
former March Air Reserve Base housing, although this housing is no longer used for residential
purposes.
Area F: Residences in Perris from San Jacinto Avenue to 10th Street. The area includes
residences and commercial uses both west and east of the PVL alignment in addition to Nan
Sanders Elementary School to the north and St. James Church and School farther south. The
last noise sensitive receptor is an apartment complex on Case Road just east of Perris Boulevard.
Area G: A small number of single- and multi-family residences exist after the alignment turns to
parallel Case Road in the southern section of Perris. The terminus of the PVL would not be
located near any vibration sensitive receptors.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
50
B. MEASUREMENT OF EXISTING VIBRATION CONDITIONS
Vibration sensitive land use was identified by screening GIS data for buildings with residential or
institutional uses nearby the PVL corridor. Field observations were also made to identify and
confirm sensitive land use locations within the PVL corridor and the larger study area.
Vibration Environmental Setting
The proposed PVL project would be located within an existing transit corridor that currently
causes GBV and GBN. The vibration environmental conditions for each segment are described
below:
· The BNSF alignment is a heavily used rail corridor with 80 to 100 trains traveling along it
during a typical 24-hour period. Vibration along the BNSF alignment is dominated by the
existing train activity. Heavy-duty vehicle traffic also contributes to “feelable” vibration in
the area.
· The SJBL alignment is an infrequently used rail corridor with about two freight trains per
day. Vibration along the SJBL is dominated by the existing train activity. In addition,
heavy-duty vehicle traffic along I-215 and other local roads contribute to “feelable”
vibration in the area.
Subsequently, the BNSF corridor (from the existing Riverside Rail Station to Citrus Street)
would be considered a heavily used rail corridor (i.e. more than 12 trains per day, as defined in
the FTA guidance). In addition, based on Figure 10-1 contained in the FTA Guidance Manual,
vibration from existing trains whose existing vibration levels would exceed the FTA impact
criteria. Therefore, based on the expected volume for the proposed PVL relative to the existing
large volume of Amtrak and freight trains, future vibration impacts would not be expected to
occur at vibration-sensitive locations in the area of the BNSF corridor. With respect to the
existing SJBL corridor, train volume is generally limited to two freight trips or fewer per day.
Therefore, the SJBL corridor would be considered an infrequently used rail corridor (i.e., fewer
than five trains per day, as defined in the FTA guidance). As a result, based on the FTA
Guidance Manual, the use of the FTA general vibration curve would be an appropriate method
of assessment.
Existing Vibration Levels
To assess the potential vibration impacts as a result of the PVL project, vibration measurements
were conducted at 12 selected sensitive receptors in 2005 to determine existing vibration levels.
Summary of the 2005 Measurement Program
FTA’s detailed vibration assessment procedure was conducted for the Draft EA analysis, which
was circulated in 20061. The existing vibration conditions in the proposed PVL corridor were
documented in July 2005 through measurements at the locations shown on Figures 6A and 6B.
Vibration measurements were performed at all sites except Sites 7, 9 and 12. There has been
no major development within the PVL project area since 2005, and therefore no significant
increase in traffic, and the volume and type of freight service on the BNSF and SJBL alignments
1 ATS Consulting, 2005.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
51
has remained relatively constant. Since the dominant source for ambient vibration levels was
and still is the existing freight service on these alignments, the 2005 data is representative of
2009 ambient noise levels.
The 12 measurement sites were selected on the basis of several factors, the most important of
which was the site’s potential sensitivity to changes in vibration levels. Each site was either
representative of a unique vibration environment, or of nearby, similarly situated receptors.
Along the BNSF alignment, the primary land uses are industrial and commercial; however,
vibration monitoring was conducted at two pockets of residential properties near the alignment.
As the Citrus Connection and the existing SJBL alignment pass through predominately
residential neighborhoods, most of the sensitive receptors monitored along these segments are
residential in nature. Several non-residential land uses also exist along these segments and
were included in the monitoring program; these sites include schools, churches and senior
centers. Pass-by vibration measurements were taken during existing freight operations
The overall results of the measurements are summarized in Table 17. Monitoring locations are
shown on Figures 4A and 4B.
Table 17: Summary of Vibration Measurements (2005)
Site
No. Description Measure
Type(1)
Dist.
from
Tracks
(ft.)
Avg.
Train
Vib.,
VdB(2)
No. of
Trains (3)
1 103 Sir Dames Dr, Riverside LT 50 82 3
2 441 Transit Avenue, Highgrove LT 50 72 3
3 2294 Kentwood/Spruce, Riverside LT 50 73 8
4 518 W. Campus View, Riverside LT 50 72 8
5 232 E. Campus View, Riverside LT 50 70 2
6 396 E. Big Springs Rd., Riverside LT 50 58 2
7 228 C Street, Perris LT 50 -- 2
8 81W. 8th Street, Perris LT 50 -- 0
9 Church at Spruce & Watkins, Riverside ST 50 -- 0
10 Church at Mt. Vernon Crossing, Riverside ST 50 78 1
11 Hyatt Elementary School/E. Manfield Rd.,
Riverside ST 50 68 1
12 Highland Park off Kentwood, Riverside ST 50 -- 0
Notes:
(1) LT = long term (24 hours or more), ST = short term (30 minutes to one hour).
(2) Average train vibration level when locomotives passed measurement position.
(3) Total number of trains passing measurement position during measurements.
Source: ATS Consulting (2005)
Following is an overview of the existing vibration environment in each major section of the
corridor from the 2005 monitoring program:
· Residential areas north of UCR: Three long-term measurements (at Sites 3, 4 and 5)
and three short-term measurements (at Sites 9, 10, and 12) were performed in this area.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
52
The measured levels of train vibration in this area ranged from 70 to 73 VdB. As discussed
below, much of the track in this area is older, jointed rail, another source of the vibration
from rail operations.
· Residential area east of UCR: There was one long-term measurement (Site 6) and one
short-term measurement (Site 11) in this area. Maximum train vibration levels at Site 6
averaged 58 VdB, significantly lower than the vibration levels measured in the
neighborhoods north of the UCR campus. The measurements indicate that the older jointed
track in the area west of the Mt. Vernon crossing is causing vibration levels to be higher than
along other sections of the SJBL, where newer welded rail is installed.
· Perris: No vibration measurements were taken in this section.
C. PREDICTION OF VIBRATION FROM THE PROJECT
The FTA impact criteria for ground-borne vibration are based on the amount of vibration
generated within living spaces. This means that accurate predictions of ground-borne vibration
require accounting for: (1) the forces generated by the interaction of the wheels and rails, (2) the
effects that the localized soil conditions have on vibration propagation, and (3) how building
structures respond to ground vibration. Assuming that all quantities are given in decibels with a
consistent set of decibel reference quantities, the basic relationship used to predict ground
vibration is:
Lv = FDL + LSTM + BR
where:
Lv = RMS vibration velocity level of interior building elements.
FDL = Force density level, which represents the vibration forces generated by steel wheels
rolling on steel rails. FDL incorporates any effects that the vehicle suspension and track
system have on ground vibration.
LSTM = Line source transfer mobility, which represents how the vibration changes as it
propagates from the tracks through the soil to building foundations.
BR = Building response to incident ground vibration. There is a wide variation in how
building structures respond to ground vibration. General rules of thumb are: heavier, stiffer
buildings tend to respond less; lightweight residential buildings tend to respond more to
ground vibration than commercial or larger multi-unit residential buildings; and vibration is
often amplified on the second floors of residential buildings and in mobile homes.
The basic approach used to develop predictions of GBV for the PVL involved applying a
generalized curve given in the FTA Guidance Manual, also shown in Figure 8.
The prediction of vibration impacts are based on a single train event. Based on the results, the
appropriate vibration criteria are then applied to determine potential impact. The FTA vibration
criteria are based on the frequency of operation (less than 30 events per day or “infrequent
events” as per the FTA Guidance Manual) along the PVL corridor. The FTA Vibration Prediction
Base Curve shown in Figure 8 was used to aid in determining the predicted vibration levels.
The key elements of the vibration projection procedure used for the PVL analysis are:
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
53
1. Distance: In general, vibration levels tend to decrease with increasing distance between
the source and the receiver. The FTA Vibration Prediction Base Curve incorporates this
mathematical association. Further adjustments are then applied to the vibration level
predicted from this curve.
Figure 8: FTA Vibration Prediction Base Curve
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
2. Speed Adjustment: Ground vibration tends to increase with speed at a rate proportional
to 20×log (speed). This means that vibration from a 50 mph SCRRA/Metrolink train is
expected to be 4.4 VdB higher than at 30 mph.
3. Building Response Adjustment: How vibration changes as it propagates from the
ground through a building foundation and structure into living spaces will vary widely
depending on the building construction. Building response adjustment factors
incorporate coupling to foundation, building amplification and floor attenuation. The
buildings that could be adversely affected by vibration from the PVL appear to be
primarily wood frame construction. Experience demonstrates that vibration on the first
floor of this type of building would be about one VdB lower than the exterior ground
vibration. There can be amplification when there is a basement or crawl space under
the first floor, particularly if there are fewer than the normal number of load-bearing
vertical supports. The vibration on the second floors of wood frame buildings tends to be
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
54
substantially more variable than for the first floors. There is some indication from recent
measurements that buildings with flexible floors tend to vibrate more. The amplification
can be at specific resonances of the building and can vary from room to room.
4. Existing Freight Traffic: Though freight activity is present along the existing SJBL, their
inclusion is not required for the FTA vibration impact assessment, as according to the
FTA Guidance Manual, the number of existing daily freight train events is too few to
warrant inclusion. As a result, the FTA vibration assessment for the PVL project would
only be related to future Metrolink trains traveling along the SJBL.
Using the vibration model described above, future train-generated vibration levels were
estimated and compared against the applicable FTA impact thresholds to identify potential
vibration impacts.
Future Rail Vibration Estimates
BNSF Alignment
As previously mentioned, the BNSF alignment is a heavily used rail corridor whose existing
vibration levels would exceed the FTA vibration impact criteria. Since the expected increase in
train trip volume (Infrequent events) for the proposed PVL project would be insignificant in
relation to the existing volume, future vibration impacts would not be expected to occur at
vibration sensitive locations in the area of the BNSF alignment.
SJBL Alignment
As previously mentioned, the SJBL alignment is an infrequently used freight rail corridor.
Therefore further analysis was needed to determine the potential noise impacts of the proposed
PVL project.
Details of the vibration predictions are presented in Tables 18 and 19 for residential land uses in
Riverside and Perris, respectively. Table 20 presents the vibration predictions for institutional
land uses (schools and churches) for the entire SJBL alignment. All vibration levels have been
predicted using the procedures outlined above.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
55
Table 18: Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration,
Category 2 (Residential) Land Uses
RIVERSIDE, San Jacinto Branch Line
Description Dist
(Ft)
Land
Use
No.
Dwell
Units
Track
Side(1)
Speed Impact
Threshold
Predicted
Vibration Impact No.
IB OB VdB VdB Y/N?
Citrus Street 62 SF 3 IB 30 30 80 78 N
Kentwood 1 170 SF 5 IB 35 35 80 69 N
Kentwood 2 140 SF 4 IB 60 60 80 76 N
Kentwood 3 80 SF 14 IB 60 60 80 81 Y 14
Watkins 2 140 MF 6 OB 60 60 80 76 N
Watkins 4 140 MF 7 OB 60 60 80 76 N
Watkins 3 140 MF 10 OB 60 60 80 76 N
Watkins 1 124 MF 9 OB 60 60 80 78 N
Watkins 5 124 MF 4 OB 60 60 80 78 N
Highlander 127 SF 10 IB 30 30 80 72 N
W. Campus View 1 127 SF 13 IB 30 30 80 72 N
W. Campus View 2 117 SF 13 IB 30 30 80 73 N
W. Campus View 3 125 SF 9 IB 30 30 80 72 N
W. Campus View 4 104 SF 5 IB 30 30 80 74 N
Nisbet Way 137 SF 11 OB 30 30 80 71 N
Mt. Vernon 1 110 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 73 N
Mt. Vernon 2 180 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 68 N
E. Campus View 1 80 SF 3 IB 25 25 80 73 N
E. Campus View 2 65 SF 9 IB 25 25 80 75 N
Big Springs 120 SF 4 OB 30 30 80 73 N
Quail and Swain 140 SF 5 OB 30 30 80 70 N
Masters Avenue 170 SF 4 OB 30 30 80 68 N
E. Manfield Street 130 SF 3 OB 30 30 80 72 N
Total, SJBL, Riverside 14
Notes: (1) IB = inbound side of tracks, OB = outbound side of tracks
Source: STV Incorporated, 2009
Table 19: Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration,
Category 2 (Residential) Land Uses
PERRIS, San Jacinto Branch Line
Description Dist
(Ft)
Land
Use
No.
Dwell
Units
Track
Side(1)
Speed Impact
Threshold
Predicted
Vibration Impact No.
IB OB VdB VdB Y/N?
C Street 244 SF 19 OB 46 46 80 67 N
10th Street 120 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 73 N
State Street 80 SF 1 OB 30 30 80 75 N
9th Street 300 SF 5 IB 30 30 80 62 N
Case Road 130 MF 12 OB 30 30 80 72 N
Total, SJBL, Perris 0
Notes: (1) IB = inbound side of tracks, OB = outbound side of tracks
Source: STV Incorporated, 2009
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
56
Table 20: Predicted Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration,
Category 3 (Institutional) Land Uses
Description Dist
(Ft) Land Use Track
Side(1)
Speed Impact
Threshold
Predicted
Vibration Impact
IB OB VdB VdB Y/N?
St. George’s Episcopal
Church 190 Church OB 60 60 83 74 N
UCR Day Care 175 Day Care OB 30 30 83 69 N
Highland Elementary
School 88 School IB 60 60 83 81 N
Crest Community
Baptist Church 163 Church IB 30 30 83 69 N
Hyatt Elementary
School 370 School OB 35 35 83 63 N
Senior Citizens Center 72
Community
Center IB 44 44 83 81 N
St. James School 370 School OB 6046 6046 83 68 N
Notes: (1) IB = inbound side of tracks, OB = outbound side of tracks
Source: STV Incorporated, 2009
Vibration Impacts from Stations and Layover Facility
Trains in the vicinity of stations and the Layover Facility would be traveling at low rates of speed
and therefore are not expected to result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors.
In addition, automobile parking areas would be utilized by rubber-tired vehicles. Rubber-tired
vehicles do not generate vibration impacts because of the nature of tire-pavement interaction
with respect to vibration impacts. No impacts are expected from these areas.
Summary of Results
Utilizing FTA vibration criteria, the results of the PVL vibration study indicate that future
SCRRA/Metrolink rail vibration levels generated under the 2012 operational year would be
generally in ranges below the FTA vibration impact thresholds. However, vibration impacts
would occur along one residential section of the PVL corridor. Affected homes are located in the
UCR area just south of Spruce Street and north of Highland Elementary School along the
eastern side of the PVL alignment. A total of fourteen homes extending approximately 1,200
feet along the alignment would be affected. The distances between the PVL alignment and
existing homes in this section range from 80 to 90 feet.
A discussion of potential measures that would mitigate the predicted impacts is presented
below. However, it should be noted that the exceedance of the vibration impact criteria in the
UCR area were surpassed by only 2 dB. Based on the conservative nature of the assessment, it
could be determined that actual vibration levels would be below the impact criteria.
As shown in Table 17, existing freight train vibration was measured in this UCR area near
Kentwood Drive and Spruce Street. The reported vibration measurement, which incorporated
readings from eight train movements, indicated an average vibration level of only 73 VdB which
is below the FTA infrequent events impact criteria of 80 VdB. Since freight locomotives typically
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
57
create more vibration than commuter train locomotives do under similar operating conditions, it
is likely that for soil conditions in the UCR area, future vibration levels would be the same or less
for SCRRA/Metrolink trains. In addition, the reported freight train vibration level includes the
effect of jointed track with gaps of ¼ inch to ½ inch. According to the FTA Guidance Manual,
jointed track adds 5 VdB to vibration levels. As the PVL alignment would be CWR, vibration
from SCRRA/Metrolink would be even less. As such, performing a site-specific detailed analysis
during final design may show that mitigation measures would not be required.
D. VIBRATION CRITERIA
When evaluating human response, GBV is usually described in terms of root mean square
(RMS) vibration velocity and expressed in inches per second. RMS is defined as the average of
the squared amplitude of the vibration signal. However, because the range of vibration levels is
quite large, decibel notation is often used to compress the range of vibration levels. To avoid
confusion with sound decibels, the abbreviation VdB is used for vibration decibels. The vibration
decibel level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower, though humans usually begin to
perceive vibration effects once the vibration level reaches 65 VdB (FTA, 2006). Beyond 80 VdB,
vibration levels are often considered unacceptable by humans. GBN is measured in dBA. This
report references all vibration levels expressed in decibel notation to 10-6 inches per second.
Figure 9 shows typical vibration levels, sources, and human responses.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
58
Figure 9: Typical Vibration Levels
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006
Like the noise impact criteria, the FTA vibration impact criteria are based on the three land use
categories, although the categories are somewhat different. One important difference is that
outdoor spaces are not included in Category 3 for vibration. This is because human annoyance
from GBV requires the interaction of the ground vibration with a building structure.
Consequently, the criteria apply to indoor spaces only, and there are no vibration impact
thresholds for outdoor spaces such as parks.
Although there has been relatively little research into human and building response to GBV,
there is substantial experience with vibration from rail systems. In general, this collective
experience indicates that:
· The threshold for human perception is approximately 65 VdB. Vibration levels in the
range of 70 to 75 VdB are often noticeable but acceptable. Beyond 80 VdB, vibration
levels are often considered unacceptable.
· Human response to vibration is more closely related to the maximum vibration level than
to the number of vibration causing events. The FTA guidelines do however have
different standards for “frequent” vs. “infrequent” events.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
59
· For human annoyance, there is a relationship between the number of daily events and
the degree of annoyance caused by GBV. FTA guidance includes an eight VdB
difference in the impact threshold between projects that would result in more than 70
events per day and those that would involve fewer than 30 events per day. This higher
threshold is applicable to the PVL project.
Table 21 shows FTA criteria for ground-borne vibration from rail transit systems. For residential
buildings (Category 2), the threshold applicable to this project is 80 VdB. The applicable
threshold for schools and churches (Category 3) is 83 VdB.
Table 21: Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria for General Assessment
Land Use Category
GBV Impact Levels
(VdB re: 1 micro-inch/sec)
GBN Impact Levels
(dB re: 20 micro Pascals/sec)
Frequent
Events 1
Occasional
Events 2
Infrequent
Events 3
Frequent
Events
21
Occasional
Events 32
Infrequent
Events 43
Category 1: Buildings
where vibration would
interfere with interior
operations
65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB N/A 4 N/A 4 N/A 4
Category 2:
Residences and
buildings where
people normally sleep
72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA
Category 3:
Institutional land uses
with primary daytime
use
75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA
1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day.
2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events per day.
3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events per day.
4 N/A means “not applicable.” Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006
These FTA vibration criteria do not specifically account for existing sources of vibration. The
existing environment may currently cause a significant number of perceptible GBV or GBN
events, regardless of the components of a proposed project. Because of this, the FTA
established several separate criteria for existing vibration sources and the methods for
addressing each, descriptions are below:
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
60
· Infrequently-used rail corridor (corridors with fewer than five trains per day). Use the
general vibration criteria (Figure 8).
· Moderately-used rail corridor (corridors with five to twelve trains per day). If existing
vibration exceeds the general vibration criteria and if estimated vibration levels are at
least five VdB less than existing vibration, there would be no impact from the proposed
project. For other situations, use the general vibration criteria.
Heavily-used rail corridor (corridors with more than twelve trains per day). If existing
vibration exceeds the general vibration criteria and if the proposed project would double
the number of vibration events, the project would cause additional impact. If estimated
vibration levels for the proposed project would be three VdB or less than existing
vibration, there would be no impact.
E. VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Following is an outline of the approach used to identify potential vibration impacts from the
proposed PVL commuter rail extension. The approach follows the conservative General
Assessment guidelines outlined in the FTA Guidance Manual. The steps taken were:
1. Identify representative vibration-sensitive receptors. Sensitive land uses along the corridor
were identified, first by referencing recent aerial photography. Field visits were then conducted
to confirm land uses and gather additional relevant information. Sensitive receivers were then
grouped together based on their location relative to the tracks and other geographic and PVL
operational factors that might affect vibration levels. Within each grouping, a representative
receptor was included in the vibration model (see step 3 below). The representative locations
were developed based on previous studies, additional field review and comments received
during the Draft EA process.
2. Determine existing vibration levels. Measurements of existing vibration levels were taken at
a number of locations along the corridor as discussed previously. The FTA Guidance Manual
does not generally account for existing vibration levels in the prediction of potential vibration
impacts. Existing vibration levels were presented into the prediction model for informational
purposes only. Additional vibration data from existing SCRRA/Metrolink trains in Irvine can be
found in Appendix B.
3. Develop vibration prediction models. A vibration model was developed to predict future
vibration levels from the proposed SCRRA/Metrolink PVL operations. The vibration predictions
were based primarily on the forecasted number of daily trains (which based on the FTA
Guidance Manual would be characterized as “infrequent events”), the distance from the tracks,
the train speed and the degree to which existing freight trains are present.
4. Identify vibration mitigation.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
61
F. VIBRATION MITIGATION
Vibration Mitigation - 2012
Train operations from the proposed PVL project will result in vibration impacts in the UCR area
of Riverside from civil stations 263+00 to 275+00. Mitigation measures to reduce vibration to
below a significant impact are listed below:. (It should be noted that either one of the two
methods would be effective at mitigating the impacts to below a level of significance.
· NV-3: Ballast Mats: A ballast mat consists of a rubber (such as shredded rubber tires), cork
or other type of resilient elastomer pad that is placed under the normal ballast, ties, and rail.
The ballast mat shallgenerally must be placed on a concrete or asphalt layer to be most
effective. They will not be as effective if placed directly on the soil or the sub-ballast. Ballast
mats can provide 5 to 12 dB attenuation at frequencies above 25 to 30Hz. Noise
measurements of SCRRA/Metrolink trains at Irvine indicate that peak vibration levels are
within this frequency range (see Appendix B). As a result, this would be an effective
measure to reduce project vibration impacts. Installed ballast mats cost approximately $180
per track foot.
· NV-4: Resiliently Supported Ties (Under-Tie Pads): This treatment consists of resilient
rubber pads placed underneath concrete ties. A resiliently supported tie system, like the one
used in the Channel Tunnel between England and France, consists of concrete ties
supported by rubber pads. The rails are fastened directly to the concrete ties using standard
rail clips. Some measurement data suggest that resiliently supported ties may reduce low-
frequency vibration in the 15 to 40 Hz range, which would make them particularly
appropriate for rail systems with vibration problems in the 20 to 30 Hz range. This type of
treatment would cost approximately the same as ballast mats, $180 per track foot.
Based on the PVL preliminary 30% design plans, implementation by RCTC of either one of the
above described vibration mitigation measures (NV-3 or NV-4) willwould need to be applied to
the PVL alignment track from civil stations 263+00 to 275+00 to eliminate the two VdB impact
predicted in the UCR area of Riverside (affecting a total of 14 homes extending approximately
1,200 feet along the eastern side of the PVL alignment just south of Spruce Street and north of
Highland Elementary School).
Vibration impacts that exceed FTA criteria are considered to be significant and to warrant
mitigation, if reasonable and feasible. As a result, the mitigation measures described above will
be developed at a site-specific detailed level, taking into consideration the vibration frequency,
characteristics and soil conditions. In addition, cost effectiveness criteria will be considered by
RCTC to determine the need for mitigation. As per guidance from the FTA Guidance Manual,
this site-specific assessment will be performed during the final design phase of the project.
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
62
G. CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
2012 – Opening Year
Vibration impacts could occur during construction activities from the operation of equipment at a
site. Site related construction elements would include excavation of the rail ROW, the
construction of grade crossing areas, the laying of track followed by systems and passenger
station construction.
Although the overall length of construction would be approximately 18 months, disturbances at
individual receptor locations would not last for more than several months. Any potential
construction noise vibration impacts on schools and churches would be less than significant;
however, both sporadic and temporary increases in construction noise above local construction
ordinances levels could occur. These increases would be based on potential occurrences of
atypical events given the inconsistent and transitory nature of some construction activities and
equipment usage. Consequently, the contractor would use standard construction vibration
control measures to reduce the likelihood of these occurrences.sporadic and temporary. The
longest sustained period for any one construction activity would likely result from station
construction, and, as mentioned above, would last approximately two months. However,
because of the relative small scale of a typical rail station, the use of heavy construction
equipment would only occur during a short segment of that two month period. The use of pile
drivers would not occur for station construction.
According to the Riverside County Code, Title 15.04.020, whenever a construction site is within
one-quarter of a mile of an occupied residence or residences, no construction activities shall be
undertaken between the hours of 6 PM and 6 AM during the months of June through September
and between the hours of 6 PM and 7 AM during the months of October through May.
According to the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Section 11.80.030, any construction within the
city shall only be as follows: Monday through Friday (except for holidays which occur on
weekdays), 6 AM to 8PM; weekends and holidays (as observed by the city and described in
Chapter 2.55 of this code), 7AM to 8PM, unless written approval is obtained from the city
building official or city engineer. (Ord. 759 § 5.5, 2007; Ord. 484 § 3.2 (part), 1995).
According to Section 7.34.060 of the Perris General Plan, construction is restricted to the hours
of 7 AM to 7 PM. Construction is prohibited on holidays.
According to the preliminary PVL Construction Staging Plan, some nighttime construction is
scheduled to occur specifically for new track layout. Written consent for an exemption, or
variance to these codes will be obtained from the municipality should night work become
necessary.
The construction activity that would create the most vibration is pile driving associated with the
bridge replacements near the South Perris Layover Facility, around the San Jacinto River.
However, there are no sensitive receptor locations nearby the proposed Layover Facility. In
addition, pile driving would be temporary in nature, and any site specific pile driving would likely
be completed in under a week.
As a result, although the total construction period is estimated to last approximately 18 months,
not all activities during that time would be significant sources of vibration which could affect
vibration sensitive receptors. Therefore, because of the temporary and episodic nature of
Perris Valley Line – Noise and Vibration Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
63
potential vibration increases, construction activities would not cause significant GBV or GBN
impacts.
Traffic Technical Report
Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail
Riverside County, California
Prepared for:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Prepared by:
Steven P. Scalici, P.E. Nil Simsek
Senior Associate Transportation Engineer
STV Incorporated
March 2010
Revised May 2011
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
i
TRAFFIC TECHNICAL REPORT
PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 9
C. 2012 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT ............................................ 30
D. 2012 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT ................................................ 4645
E. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................... 7472
F. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS ...................................................................... 8377
G. FUTURE CONDITION ............................................................................................... 8377
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: MANUAL COUNT SUMMARY SHEETS
APPENDIX B: AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNT SUMMARY SHEETS
APPENDIX C: HIGHWAY CAPACITY SOFTWARE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX D: BACKGROUND PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENTS
APPENDIX E: STATION ACCESS MAPS
APPENDIX F: SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSES
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
ii
TRAFFIC TECHNICAL REPORT
PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LIST OF TABLES
# Description Page
Table 1: Proposed Station Locations .......................................................................................... 1
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service ...................................................................................22
Table 3: 2012 Future Levels of Service without the Project ................................................... 4039
Table 4: AM and PM Analysis-Hour Ridership....................................................................... 4645
Table 5: Modal Split of Passengers for the AM Peak Period ................................................. 4746
Table 6: Auto-Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 4746
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project ........................................................ 6462
Table 8: 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 7774
Table 9: Station Parking Lot Capacities……………………………………………………………8477
LIST OF FIGURES
# Description Page
Figure 1: Hunter Park Station Location and Study Intersections ................................................. 3
Figure 2: UC Riverside Station Location and Study Intersections ............................................... 4
Figure 3: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Location and Study Intersections ......................... 5
Figure 4: Ramona Station Location and Study Intersections ...................................................... 6
Figure 5: Downtown Perris Station Location and Study Intersections ......................................... 7
Figure 6: South Perris Station Location and Study Intersections ................................................ 8
Figure 7: Hunter Park Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes .....................................................13
Figure 8: UC Riverside Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................14
Figure 9: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes .............................15
Figure 10: Ramona Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................16
Figure 11: Downtown Perris Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes ...........................................17
Figure 12: South Perris Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................18
Figure 13: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the Project ..............34
Figure 14: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the
Project ...............................................................................................................................35
Figure 15: Downtown Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the Project ......36
Figure 16: South Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the Project .............37
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
iii
Figure 17: Hunter Park Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes – Palmyrita Option 5149
Figure 18: Hunter Park Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes – Columbia Option 5250
Figure 19: Hunter Park Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes – Marlborough Option
...................................................................................................................................... 5351
Figure 20: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes ....... 5452
Figure 21: Downtown Perris Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes ...................... 5553
Figure 22: South Perris Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes .............................. 5654
Figure 23: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project – Palmyrita
Option ........................................................................................................................... 5755
Figure 24: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project – Columbia
Option ........................................................................................................................... 5856
Figure 25: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project –
Marlborough Option ....................................................................................................... 5957
Figure 26: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project
...................................................................................................................................... 6058
Figure 27: Downtown Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project ....... 6159
Figure 28: South Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project .............. 6260
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
1
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to establish a commuter
rail service on the portion of the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) between Riverside and South
Perris as an extension of the Metrolink 91 commuter rail service from Los Angeles. This
proposed service, to be known as the Perris Valley Line (PVL), would operate on existing rail
rights-of-way owned by RCTC, and would include six stations, four of which (Hunter Park,
Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris, and South Perris) would be operational by the
2012 opening year, and the remaining two in the future. The proposed station locations are
listed in Table 1. As described in Table 1 and illustrated on Figure 1, the Hunter Park Station
would be located at one of three proximate sites. The Palmyrita Station option is proposed for
the east side of the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) main track east of Iowa Avenue between
Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues. The Columbia and Marlborough Station options have been
identified along the west side of the main track, with entry and exit from Columbia and
Marlborough Avenues, respectively.
Table 1: Proposed Station Locations
Station Proposed Location
Hunter Park Palmyrita Option - East side of the SJBL main track east of Iowa
Avenue between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues
Columbia Option - West side of the SJBL main track on Columbia
Avenue
Marlborough Option - West side of the SJBL main track on
Marlborough Avenue
UC Riverside Watkins Drive and Valencia Hill Drive
Moreno Valley/March Field Brown Street, between Alessandro Boulevard and Cactus Avenue
Ramona Cajalco Expressway, between Harvill Avenue and I-215 ramps
Downtown Perris C and 4th Streets
South Perris Case Road and southbound I-215 off-ramp
This technical report supports the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the PVL
project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FTA guidelines.
This study analyzes the potential traffic impacts of the proposed commuter rail project in
Riverside County, and addresses issues associated with roadway capacity and level of service.
Study Area
The proposed PVL is approximately 24 miles long, and traverses through the Cities of Riverside
and Perris in Riverside County. Traffic study intersections were identified for each of the six
proposed stations that considered the primary streets serving the general area, the potential
access points to the stations, and key intersections likely to be affected by the assignment of
project-generated trips. A total of 38 intersections was selected for analysis for the six stations,
and are identified by station area location as follows:
Hunter Park Station (see the three proposed station location options along Palmyrita, Columbia,
and Marlborough Avenues on Figure 1)
Iowa Avenue at Center Street
Iowa Avenue at Palmyrita Avenue
Northgate Street at Palmyrita Avenue
Iowa Avenue at Columbia Avenue
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
2
Northgate Street at Columbia Avenue
Northgate Street at Marlborough Avenue
Iowa Avenue at Marlborough Avenue
Rustin Avenue at Marlborough Avenue
UC Riverside Station (see Figure 2)
Iowa Avenue at Spruce Street
Iowa Avenue at Massachusetts Avenue
Iowa Avenue at Blaine Street
Blaine Street at Watkins Drive
Big Springs Road at Watkins Drive
Moreno Valley/March Field Station (see Figure 3)
Alessandro Boulevard at Mission Grove Parkway
Alessandro Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue at southbound I-215 ramps
Ramona Station (see Figure 4)
Cajalco Road at Clark Street
Cajalco Expressway at Harvill Avenue
Ramona Expressway at Webster Avenue
Ramona Expressway at Perris Boulevard
Downtown Perris Station (see Figure 5)
Nuevo Road at Perris Boulevard
San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue
San Jacinto Avenue at Perris Boulevard
San Jacinto Avenue at C Street
San Jacinto Avenue at D Street
SR-74 at Navajo Road
SR-74 at C Street
SR-74 at D Street
SR-74 at Perris Boulevard
6th Street at C Street
6th Street at D Street
7th Street at C Street
7th Street at D Street
7th Street at Perris Boulevard
South Perris Station (see Figure 6)
Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps
SR-74 at northbound I-215 off-ramp
SR-74 at Sherman Road
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
3
Figure 1: Hunter Park Station Location and Study Intersections
N
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
4
Figure 2: UC Riverside Station Location and Study Intersections
N
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
5
Figure 3: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Location and Study Intersections
N
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
6
Figure 4: Ramona Station Location and Study Intersections
N
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
7
Figure 5: Downtown Perris Station Location and Study Intersections
N
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
8
Figure 6: South Perris Station Location and Study Intersections
N
Bonnie Dr
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
9
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway Network
The key travel routes in the vicinity of each station are described below:
Hunter Park Station
Iowa Avenue is a six-lane, north-south arterial that carries traffic between Hunter Industrial
Park neighborhood to the north and Canyon Crest neighborhood to the south in Riverside.
Riverside Transit Agency Route (Rt.) 25 runs along Iowa Avenue within the study area.
Center Street is a four-lane undivided arterial oriented in the east-west direction within the
study area, and ends just west of its intersection with I-215.
Palmyrita Avenue between Iowa and Prospect Avenues is a two-lane undivided roadway
extending in the east-west direction. It is lined with office buildings and warehouses within
the study area.
Columbia Avenue is a four-lane arterial that carries traffic in the east-west direction between
the Hunter Industrial Park and Northside areas in Riverside.
Marlborough Avenue is an east-west collector road that becomes an arterial between
Chicago and Rustin Avenues in Riverside. East of Iowa Avenue, a bike lane is provided
along both sides of the street.
UC Riverside Station
Spruce Street is an undivided east-west arterial roadway providing four lanes west of and
two lanes east of Iowa Avenue. It is lined mostly with residential land uses in t he study
area.
Massachusetts Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway, which extends in the east-west
direction between I-215/SR-60 and Canyon Crest Drive in the study area, and serves the
residential areas in between. A bike lane is provided along its north side west of Iowa
Avenue.
Blaine Street west of Iowa Avenue is a three-lane undivided arterial lined with commercial
uses. It extends in the east-west direction and becomes four lanes through the residential
areas east of Iowa Avenue.
Watkins Drive between Blaine Street and Big Springs Road is two-lane undivided arterial
extending in the northwest-southeast direction. A parking lane is provided along both sides
of the street through the study area.
Big Springs Road is a two-lane east-west local roadway. It provides parking and bike lanes
along both sides, and is served by the Rt. 10 bus within the study area.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Alessandro Boulevard is a six-lane, divided arterial roadway extending in the east-west
direction within the study area, and is served by the Rt. 20 bus.
Cactus Avenue between Meridian Parkway and Old 215 is an undivided east-west arterial
within the limits of the City of Moreno Valley providing access to north and southbound I-
215. It provides four lanes east of Old 215, and narrows to two lanes at its intersection with
southbound I-215 ramps.
Ramona Station
Cajalco Expressway is a two-lane undivided east-west arterial, which becomes a divided
four-lane arterial at Harvill Avenue, and continues as Ramona Expressway east of I-215.
The Rt. 41 bus follows Cajalco/Ramona Expressway within the study area.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
10
Clark Street is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway. It is served by the Rt. 22 bus.
Harvill Avenue is a four-lane undivided arterial that stretches in the north-south direction in
the City of Perris.
Webster Avenue is a two-lane undivided arterial extending in the north-south direction in
Perris. It is lined mostly with empty lots and some residences in the study area.
Perris Boulevard is a north-south, primary arterial that extends from Moreno Valley to
downtown Perris. It is two lanes wide north of and four lanes wide south of Ramona
Expressway, and widens to six lanes between Citrus Avenue and Nuevo Road. Perris
Boulevard is also included in the Downtown Perris Station study area. The Rt. 19, 22, 27,
30, and 74 buses travel along Perris Boulevard in downtown Perris.
Downtown Perris Station
San Jacinto Avenue is a two-lane, secondary arterial oriented in the east-west direction.
State Route (SR)-74, known as 4th Street in downtown Perris, provides regional access to
downtown Perris, and is a four-lane facility oriented in the east-west direction in this area.
The Rt. 19, 22, 27, 30, 74, and 208 buses travel along a section of SR-74 to serve
downtown Perris. SR-74 extends into the South Perris Station study area.
D Street is a two-lane, north-south collector road that extends from 11th Street to I-215 in
downtown Perris. It is served by the Rt. 30 bus. On-street parking is available on the east
and west sides of D Street between 1st and 7th Streets.
C Street is a north-south, local road that extends from 11th Street to San Jacinto Avenue in
downtown Perris.
South Perris Station
Sherman Road is a two-lane, undivided roadway that extends in the north-south direction. It
is mostly lined with empty lots and some residential land uses in the study area.
Bonnie Drive is a short, two-lane roadway segment that connects Case Road with
southbound I-215 on- and off-ramps and SR-74.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
11
Traffic Volumes
Intersection counts, including manual turning movement and vehicle classification, were
conducted at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM periods. Additionally, 24-
hour automatic traffic recorder (ATR) machine counts were collected at the following locations
concurrent with turning movement counts:
Iowa Avenue south of Spring Street
Iowa Avenue south of Marlborough Avenue
Columbia Avenue east of Iowa Avenue
Watkins Drive east of Blaine Street
Alessandro Boulevard east of Mission Grove Parkway
Cactus Avenue west of Old 215
Cajalco Expressway east of Harvill Avenue
Perris Boulevard south of Bowen Road
SR-74 east of D Street
SR-74 east of Trumble Road
The manual and ATR count data were reviewed to ensure that traffic volumes for a
representative day (during clear weather and while schools are in session) are reflected in the
traffic analyses (Appendices A and B contain traffic count information). From the data collected,
the weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours throughout the entire PVL study area typically occur
during the 7:15 to 8:15 AM and 4:30 to 5:30 PM periods, respectively. However, peak PVL
ridership periods within the study area are from 5 to 7 AM and 5 to 7 PM based on ridership
projections (before and after the existing AM and PM peak travel times for area traffic,
respectively, with a little overlap in the PM peak). This is due to the travel times of PVL
passengers to/from stations depending on their desired arrival/departure times in Los Angeles,
with taking approximately one hour 15 minutes to two hours and 20 minutes of train travel time
into account. For analysis purposes, the 6-7 AM and 5-6 PM analysis hours were selected
since the combination of project-generated traffic and background volumes would be highest.
Following is a brief description of traffic volumes on the roadways serving the station areas
during these time periods.
Iowa Avenue carries the highest traffic volumes in the Hunter Park and UC Riverside Station
areas, with approximately 330 to 1,490 vehicles per hour (vph) per direction during the 6-7 AM
and 5-6 PM analysis hours. The remaining roadways in the vicinity of these two stations
process up to 365 vph per direction during the AM analysis hour and 675 vph per direction
during the PM analysis hour, with the exception of Blaine Street, which carries bi-directional
volumes of up to 470 and 1,010 vph during the AM and PM analysis hours, respectively (see
Figures 7 and 8).
The analysis-hour volumes are between 450 and 2,200 vph along eastbound Alessandro
Boulevard and between 810 and 1,815 vph along westbound Alessandro Boulevard (higher
near Mission Grove Parkway) within the study area for the Moreno Valley/March Field Station.
Westbound Cactus Avenue volumes are between 1,360 and 1,875 vph, and eastbound Cactus
Avenue volumes are between 485 to 720 vph at Old 215, and decrease to 500-715 vph and 90-
280 vph respectively at southbound I-215 ramps as a result of entering/exiting vehicles to/from
I-215 in between these two intersections (see Figure 9).
The highest traffic volumes in the vicinity of Ramona Station are carried along Cajalco/Ramona
Expressway with 515 to 1,080 vph per direction during the AM and PM analysis hours. Perris
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
12
Boulevard processes bi-directional traffic volumes ranging from 525 to 595 vph during the
analysis hours. Harvill Avenue carries approximately 440 vph northbound and 220 vph
southbound during both analysis hours. The remaining roadways in the area carry less than 300
vph (see Figure 10).
The traffic volumes within the Downtown Perris Station area are highest along SR-74 and range
from 430 to 1,200 vph eastbound and from 350 to 1,375 vph westbound. Bi-directional traffic
volumes along the remaining roadways in the area are less than 420 vph during the analysis
hours, with the exception of Nuevo Road, which carries up to 1,170 vph eastbound and D Street
and Perris Boulevard, both of which carry up to 830 vph southbound during the PM analysis
hour (see Figure 7). SR-74 also carries the highest traffic volumes in the vicinity of South Perris
Station. The volumes in this area are higher compared to Downtown Perris, and vary between
600 and 1,095 vph in the eastbound direction, and between 820 and 1,145 vph in the
westbound direction (see Figures 11 and 12).
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
13
Figure 7: Hunter Park Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes
NAM / PM
37 / 102
131 / 51
110 / 220
20 / 54
47 / 189
29 / 135461 / 81160 / 11951 / 991 / 165445 / 85074 / 3349 / 227
125 / 261
59 / 127
39 / 74
157 / 175
70 / 8526 / 26350 / 40620 / 3438 / 70256 / 80636 / 737 / 6
65 / 26
13 / 31
22 / 123
10 / 85
162 / 2547 / 8373 / 57272 / 3310 / 9274 / 785128 / 19964 / 172
87 / 100
31 / 114
50 / 174142 / 9766 / 4640 / 86
28 / 20
24 / 36
39 / 108
6 / 38
26 / 109458 / 1,08474 / 1945 / 3528 / 15549 / 79261 / 22148 / 94
29 / 9
0 / 6
6 / 2850 / 2276 / 093 / 45
12 / 11
33 / 85
44 / 216
16 / 10112 / 89 90 / 46
24 / 46
35 / 103
21 / 152
29 / 4087 / 57
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
14
Figure 8: UC Riverside Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes
NAM / PM
189 / 258
221 / 449
59 / 300
45 / 121
229 / 352
57 / 169123 / 167195 / 72655 / 21186 / 204305 / 47940 / 16849 / 113
26 / 63
27 / 89
82 / 24
22 / 17
89 / 32292 / 1,16469 / 12044 / 577 / 4712 / 52474 / 630112 / 113
100 / 487
49 / 272
110 / 120
120 / 165
37 / 14958 / 256241 / 93956 / 29392 / 98421 / 53888 / 896 / 11
66 / 363
18 / 25
149 / 230
19 / 255 / 14856 / 49098 / 206203 / 12372 / 303 7 / 747 / 3711 / 176
3 / 33
10 / 96
27 / 41
11 / 68
3 / 5725 / 692 / 3438 / 9248 / 26310 / 1535 / 2
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
15
Figure 9: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes
NAM / PM
77 / 194
15 / 85
95 / 38
408 / 677122 / 221 / 2164 / 269245 / 25725 / 55
702 / 1,989
29 / 158
55 / 81
1,671 / 1,266
88 / 231
90 / 93164 / 83111 / 18824 / 28107 / 13562 / 12512 / 9
428 / 591
45 / 121
153 / 47
1,205 / 1,827
56 / 1272 / 2911 / 2213 / 3883 / 156
363 / 1,026
7 / 22
40 / 68
769 / 774
1 / 9 55 / 2260 / 43 0 / 1 139 / 143 8 / 38 6 / 37
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
16
Figure 10: Ramona Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes
NAM / PM
43 / 28
706 / 954
51 / 35
9 / 14
1,056 / 883
14 / 945 / 3272 / 64 / 8267 / 19421 / 1312 / 11145 / 193
399 / 746
85 / 128
82 / 76
682 / 483
43 / 72161 / 104282 / 334236 / 178301 / 28546 / 6389 / 15558 / 16
434 / 749
23 / 49
71 / 40
607 / 537
54 / 4837 / 12109 / 70103 / 6544 / 35190 / 6165 / 65104 / 113
79 / 112
13 / 16
116 / 88
87 / 114
15 / 18
82 / 72
578 / 511
114 / 128
250 / 214
513 / 700
72 / 193
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
17
Figure 11: Downtown Perris Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes
NAM / PM
50 / 70
11 / 15
37 / 42
30 / 50
15 / 15
116 / 13614 / 51153 / 19615 / 9024 / 7779 / 32561 / 248130 / 413
179 / 601
47 / 155
34 / 88
245 / 409
91 / 170116 / 261132 / 42557 / 14092 / 217145 / 43061 / 104124 / 164
383 / 626
20 / 56
22 / 51
286 / 478
38 / 8563 / 11895 / 21938 / 9524 / 71111 / 23337 / 99118 / 152
500 / 738
19 / 52
15 / 72
370 / 587
17 / 4364 / 14955 / 19420 / 7047 / 7174 / 14717 / 5013 / 37
419 / 857
165 / 343
6 / 17
127 / 435
379 / 939
13 / 81
14 / 50
23 / 64
22 / 103
15 / 55
6 / 1231 / 100155 / 43611 / 5630 / 54184 / 4541 / 1208 / 301
1 / 17
1 / 6
37 / 49
26 / 66
4 / 18100 / 329191 / 38951 / 1126 / 5283 / 2161 / 370 / 0
0 / 24
0 / 3
6 / 3
19 / 4
100 / 4160 / 00 / 13 / 140 / 00 / 0205 / 278205 / 278
627 / 914
2 / 9
0 / 4
470 / 794
4 / 1175 / 2502 / 18 / 120 / 00 / 02 / 161 / 0
24 / 36
0 / 1
1 / 2
10 / 42
1 / 101 / 11 / 20 / 60 / 01 / 23 / 50 / 0
13 / 12
0 / 0
0 / 5
6 / 21
0 / 60 / 43 / 35 / 191 / 00 / 112 / 11 / 10
8 / 17
3 / 4
2 / 16
2 / 18
1 / 77 / 1498 / 2654 / 70 / 3185 / 2064 / 314 / 23
9 / 17
4 / 7
0 / 0
9 / 25
0 / 103 / 2171 / 2392 / 60 / 8168 / 1601 / 88 / 10
5 / 11
7 / 11
1 / 6
2 / 10
1 / 11 / 1368 / 2523 / 103 / 9179 / 1730 / 1
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
18
Figure 12: South Perris Station Area Existing Traffic Volumes
AM / PM N
5 / 18
592 / 1,032
91 / 86
23 / 50
391 / 292
755 / 528
93 / 126
34 / 46
597 / 1,030
1 / 19
4 / 9
47 / 23
23 / 16
1,028 / 733
76 / 81
23 / 16
4 /7
79 / 213 43 / 4 232 / 191182 / 151 518 / 837
Bonnie Dr
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
19
Analysis Methodology and Results
In accordance with the accepted analysis practices of Riverside County and the Cities of
Riverside and Perris, the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000) procedures were used to
determine the capacities and levels of service for each of the intersections comprising the traffic
study area. For a signalized intersection, levels of service are determined for the intersection
and its individual lane groups and are defined in terms of the average control delays
experienced by all vehicles that arrive in the analysis period, including delays incurred beyond
the analysis period when the intersection or lane group is saturated. For an unsignalized
intersection, levels of service are determined for minor movements only and are defined as the
total elapsed time between a vehicle stopping at the end of the queue and departing from the
stop line.
The delay levels for signalized intersections are detailed below.
LOS A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 10 seconds per vehicle.
This occurs when signal progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive
during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.
LOS B describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle.
This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Again, most
vehicles do not stop at the intersection.
LOS C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle.
These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. The
number of vehicles stopping at an intersection is significant at this level, although many
still pass through without stopping.
LOS D describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle.
At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles that
do not stop declines.
LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally
indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios.
LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is
considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-
saturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may
also occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios with cycle failures. Poor progression and
long cycle lengths may also be contributing to such delays. Often, vehicles do not pass
through the intersection in one signal cycle.
The level-of-service thresholds for unsignalized intersections differ slightly from those for
signalized intersections. Delay levels for unsignalized intersections are detailed below
LOS A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 10 seconds per vehicle.
This generally occurs when little or no delay is experienced at the intersection.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
20
LOS B describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicl e.
This generally occurs when short traffic delays are experienced at the intersection.
LOS C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle.
This generally occurs when average traffic delays are experienced at the intersection.
LOS D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle.
At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, and longer traffic
delays are experienced.
LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 50.0 seconds per vehicle.
At LOS E, there is obvious congestion, and very long traffic delays are experienced at
the intersection.
LOS F describes operations with delay greater than 50.0 seconds per vehicle. At LOS
F, there is heavy congestion, and excessive traffic delays are experienced at the
intersection.
The Cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris, and the County of Riverside, which are the
agencies whose jurisdiction the study area falls under, have adopted the following thresholds for
levels of service.
According to the City of Riverside General Plan:
Maintain LOS D or better on arterial streets and LOS C or better on Local and Collector
streets in residential areas. LOS E may be acceptable as determined on a case-by-case
basis at key locations such as City arterial roadways which are used as a freeway
bypass by regional through traffic and at heavily traveled freeway interchanges.
According to the City of Moreno Valley General Plan:
Maintain LOS C where possible. Peak hour levels of service in the LOS D range may be
acceptable in certain locations including areas of high employment concentration,
north/south roads in the vicinity of SR-60 or other locations in already developed areas
of the City with geometric constraints that prevent LOS C from being achieved.
According to the City of Perris General Plan:
Maintain LOS E along all Local roads (for both segments and intersections) and LOS D
along I-215 and SR-74 (including intersections with local streets and roads).
According to the Riverside County General Plan:
Maintain LOS C along all County maintained roads and conventional state highways. As
an exception, LOS D may be allowed in Community Development areas, only at
intersections of any combination of Secondary Highways, Major Highways, Arterials,
Urban Arterials, Expressways, conventional state highways or freeway ramp
intersections. LOS E may be allowed in designated community centers to the extent that
it would support transit-oriented development and walkable communities.
Each of the study intersections was analyzed in terms of its capacity to accommodate existing
traffic volumes as defined by the resulting levels of service. A summary of the findings is
discussed below and presented in Table 2 (Appendix C contains Highway Capacity Software
(HCS) analysis sheets).
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
21
Hunter Park Station
All movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM
analysis hours, with the exception of Iowa Avenue at Center Street, where the northbound Iowa
Avenue through movement operates at LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
UC Riverside Station
The levels of service for all movements are at LOS C or better during the AM analysis hour.
During the PM analysis hour, the following movements operate at poor levels of service:
Watkins Drive’s northbound left-turn movement at Blaine Street operates at LOS F.
Southbound Watkins Drive’s through/right-turn movement at Big Springs Road operates at
LOS E.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
The intersection operations are at LOS D or better during both analysis hours with the following
exceptions:
At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro Boulevard
and southbound Mission Grove Parkway left-turn movements operate at LOS E during the
PM analysis hour.
Westbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement at Old 215 operates at LOS E during the
PM analysis hour.
Ramona Station
The overall operations at the study intersections are at acceptable levels during the AM and PM
analysis hours. The following individual movements, however, operate at unacceptable levels
of service:
Southbound Clark Street’s left-turn onto Cajalco Expressway functions at LOS F during the
AM analysis hour.
Ramona Expressway’s eastbound left-turn movement onto Webster Avenue functions at
LOS E during the AM analysis hour.
Westbound Ramona Expressway’s through movement at Perris Boulevard functions at LOS
F during the AM analysis hour.
Downtown Perris Station
All movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM
analysis hours, with the exception of D Street’s northbound shared through/left-turn movements
at SR-74, which operates at LOS E during the PM, and southbound C Street’s shared
through/left-turn movements at SR-74, which operates at LOS F, during both the AM and PM
analysis hour.
South Perris Station
All movements at the three study intersections operate at LOS C or better during both analysis
hours with the following exceptions:
Bonnie Drive’s eastbound right-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps operates at LOS
F during the PM analysis hour.
Sherman Road’s northbound left-turn movement at SR-74 operates at LOS F during both
the AM and PM analysis hours, and southbound left/right-turn movement operates at LOS F
during the PM analysis hour.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
22
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
Center Street at Iowa Avenue
Center Street EB LTR 0.42 37.2 D 0.88 42.4 D
WB L 0.23 31.0 C 0.38 32.5 C
T 0.48 33.9 C 0.74 43.4 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.17 30.9 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.29 43.6 D 0.32 31.3 C
T 0.48 35.3 D 1.06 78.0 E
R 0.08 21.6 C 0.13 22.9 C
SB L 0.12 42.0 D 0.37 40.0 D
T 0.51 35.5 D 0.58 29.8 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 25.2 C
Overall Intersection -35.3 D 51.8 D
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.12 11.5 B 0.08 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.05 13.4 B
WB L 0.42 13.7 B 0.82 29.8 C
TR 0.04 11.0 B 0.32 15.0 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.15 31.9 C 0.08 24.6 C
T 0.31 19.7 B 0.74 19.0 B
R 0.20 19.2 B 0.26 14.0 B
SB L 0.40 28.1 C 0.30 26.1 C
T 0.42 19.2 B 0.57 16.2 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection -18.2 B 19.2 B
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.20 41.8 D 0.40 31.9 C
T 0.32 32.0 C 0.16 28.3 C
R 0.15 30.3 C 0.39 30.2 C
WB L 0.17 41.6 D 0.57 34.7 C
T 0.07 29.5 C 0.35 29.6 C
R 0.03 29.3 C 0.12 28.1 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.40 42.0 D 0.66 38.6 D
T 0.43 29.5 C 0.82 31.6 C
R 0.10 26.3 C 0.05 20.1 C
SB L 0.26 40.7 D 0.06 35.2 D
T 0.54 30.9 C 0.82 33.0 C
R 0.08 26.1 C 0.14 22.2 C
Overall Intersection -31.8 C 32.1 C
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.V/C LOS LOSV/C
Hunter Park Station
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
23
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.30 27.3 C 0.40 28.2 C
TR 0.40 30.1 C 0.28 30.6 C
WB L 0.17 26.4 C 0.55 30.3 C
T 0.05 27.5 C 0.27 30.5 C
R 0.17 28.3 C 0.41 31.7 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.14 26.2 C 0.14 32.5 C
T 0.47 16.4 B 0.62 17.8 B
R 0.06 13.7 B 0.02 12.8 B
SB L 0.24 21.9 C 0.17 32.7 C
T 0.40 14.6 B 0.81 22.5 C
R 0.04 12.3 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection -17.6 B 22.2 C
Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.05 7.6 A 0.20 9.2 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.14 11.5 B 0.25 25.4 D
R 0.19 9.3 A 0.15 10.2 B
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.10 8.6 A 0.05 8.7 A
TR 0.13 8.6 A 0.07 8.6 A
WB L 0.13 9.4 A 0.51 13.7 B
T 0.09 8.6 A 0.18 8.7 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.04 8.1 A 0.02 8.5 A
R 0.24 8.4 A 0.14 8.3 A
Overall Intersection -8.6 A 11.2 B
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.19 7.8 A 0.07 7.5 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.10 9.5 A 0.31 10.2 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.7 A 0.17 8.0 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.32 11.7 B 0.26 14.5 B
Signalized
Spruce Street at Iowa Avenue
Spruce Street EB L 0.32 23.2 C 0.34 32.3 C
TR 0.22 24.6 C 0.84 42.8 D
WB L 0.19 28.6 C 0.68 44.0 D
TR 0.40 28.8 C 0.36 31.1 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.29 24.5 C 0.54 42.1 D
T 0.48 21.3 C 0.67 34.2 C
R 0.11 18.7 B 0.12 27.8 C
SB L 0.32 28.8 C 0.82 45.5 D
T 0.35 21.0 C 0.96 49.3 D
R 0.09 19.3 B 0.28 23.5 C
Overall Intersection -23.2 C 41.5 D
V/C LOS V/C LOSINTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
UCR Station
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
24
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Massachusetts Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Massachusetts Avenue EB L 0.17 15.3 B 0.45 20.8 C
TR 0.10 14.9 B 0.33 19.7 B
WB L 0.40 16.8 B 0.17 18.8 B
TR 0.21 15.5 B 0.12 18.5 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.07 20.4 C 0.32 23.9 C
T 0.48 13.4 B 0.42 10.0 A
R 0.05 11.1 B 0.04 8.0 A
SB L 0.25 16.5 B 0.73 38.7 D
TR 0.29 11.0 B 0.76 14.2 B
Overall Intersection -13.5 B 15.2 B
Blaine Street at Iowa Avenue
Blaine Street EB L 0.40 24.5 C 0.75 36.2 D
T 0.28 23.2 C 0.92 53.4 D
R 0.08 21.8 C 0.67 38.2 D
WB L 0.26 32.3 C 0.74 40.7 D
TR 0.42 30.1 C 0.73 33.5 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.35 31.1 C 0.73 41.2 D
T 0.43 27.6 C 0.57 27.7 C
R 0.06 24.9 C 0.20 24.4 C
SB L 0.35 34.8 C 0.58 28.9 C
TR 0.45 28.2 C 0.98 53.4 D
Overall Intersection -27.5 C 41.3 D
Blaine Street at Watkins Drive
Blaine Street EB L 0.06 32.3 C 0.11 38.3 D
TR 0.15 16.9 B 0.65 27.8 C
WB L 0.17 33.0 C 0.29 39.9 D
TR 0.30 18.1 B 0.50 25.6 C
Watkins Drive NB L 0.29 25.9 C 1.00 94.4 F
T 0.43 24.8 C 0.24 23.0 C
SB L 0.05 32.7 C 0.63 39.4 D
T 0.22 27.7 C 0.94 53.7 D
Overall Intersection -22.3 C 43.1 D
Unsignalized
Big Springs Road at Watkins Drive
Big Springs Road EB LTR 0.06 8.4 A 0.77 29.4 D
WB LTR 0.06 8.3 A 0.40 15.5 C
Watkins Drive NB L 0.08 8.6 A 0.07 11.9 B
TR 0.47 11.8 B 0.40 16.0 C
SB L 0.01 8.5 A 0.25 13.2 B
TR 0.20 9.0 A 0.89 45.4 E
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
25
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
Cactus Avenue at Southbound I-215 Ramps
Cactus Avenue EB T 0.30 14.6 B 0.80 43.7 D
R 0.05 13.4 B 0.24 28.4 C
WB L 0.54 4.4 A 0.85 21.6 C
T 0.10 3.5 A 0.03 4.5 A
Southbound I-215 Ramps SB LT 0.69 23.4 C 0.75 36.9 D
R 0.32 16.5 B 0.04 25.3 C
Overall Intersection -10.3 B 28.9 C
Cactus Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue EB L 0.14 12.3 B 0.11 10.6 B
TR 0.32 12.8 B 0.36 11.7 B
WB T 0.77 19.1 B 1.06 58.4 E
R 0.08 11.3 B 0.05 9.7 A
Old 215 NB L 0.12 13.8 B 0.03 18.0 B
TR 0.10 13.7 B 0.04 18.1 B
SB L 0.04 13.3 B 0.10 18.5 B
TR 0.01 13.2 B 0.02 17.9 B
Overall Intersection -16.7 B 44.3 D
Alessandro Boulevard at Old 215
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.30 28.9 C 0.45 35.8 D
T 0.50 19.1 B 0.79 24.9 C
WB L 0.00 27.3 C 0.06 33.4 C
T 0.69 22.0 C 0.64 21.0 C
Old 215 NB L 0.45 32.3 C 0.14 34.9 C
T 0.23 30.2 C 0.10 31.9 C
SB L 0.04 29.2 C 0.25 35.6 D
T 0.02 29.1 C 0.09 31.8 C
Overall Intersection -22.6 C 24.8 C
Alessandro Boulevard at Mission Grove Parkway
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.17 44.2 D 0.34 53.0 D
T 0.32 17.0 B 0.87 27.1 C
R 0.03 14.6 B 0.15 15.0 B
WB L 0.33 45.0 D 0.67 56.9 E
T 0.80 25.1 C 0.56 19.1 B
R 0.07 15.0 B 0.10 14.6 B
Mission Grove Parkway NB L 0.36 45.2 D 0.33 50.7 D
T 0.70 49.9 D 0.35 46.4 D
R 0.42 41.4 D 0.44 47.6 D
SB L 0.53 48.5 D 0.76 69.5 E
TR 0.31 39.9 D 0.30 45.6 D
Overall Intersection -27.7 C 29.8 C
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
26
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Cajalco Expressway at Clark Street
Cajalco Expressway EB L 0.45 26.3 C 0.15 34.1 C
TR 0.65 15.2 B 0.73 14.7 B
WB L 0.42 26.1 C 0.48 37.6 D
TR 0.98 43.0 D 0.55 11.0 B
Clark Street NB L 0.26 18.1 B 0.19 27.4 C
TR 0.81 31.7 C 0.35 28.5 C
SB L 0.96 83.6 F 0.36 28.8 C
TR 0.42 19.0 B 0.28 27.9 C
Overall Intersection -33.4 C 16.7 B
Cajalco Expressway at Harvill Avenue
Cajalco Expressway EB L 0.06 21.6 C 0.08 33.8 C
T 0.78 27.1 C 0.64 26.1 C
R 0.11 18.7 B 0.17 20.9 C
WB L 0.24 22.4 C 0.36 35.5 D
T 0.83 30.4 C 0.55 24.6 C
R 0.10 18.7 B 0.07 20.1 C
Harvill Avenue NB L 0.67 29.4 C 0.58 38.9 D
T 0.26 24.2 C 0.22 32.1 C
R 0.24 24.5 C 0.23 32.5 C
SB L 0.32 24.5 C 0.23 35.5 D
TR 0.25 24.1 C 0.22 32.1 C
Overall Intersection -27.2 C 28.6 C
Ramona Expressway at Webster Avenue
Ramona Expressway EB L 0.40 55.7 E 0.19 52.7 D
T 0.66 32.1 C 0.79 37.5 D
R 0.06 23.5 C 0.04 24.1 C
WB L 0.12 52.8 D 0.07 51.7 D
TR 0.93 47.6 D 0.86 41.4 D
Webster Avenue NB L 0.41 39.8 D 0.44 41.2 D
TR 0.39 39.5 D 0.42 40.9 D
SB LTR 0.48 51.3 D 0.18 49.1 D
Overall Intersection -41.6 D 39.9 D
Ramona Expressway at Perris Boulevard
Ramona Expressway EB L 0.42 48.9 D 0.47 50.4 D
T 0.39 28.2 C 0.57 29.4 C
R 0.10 24.9 C 0.12 23.4 C
WB L 0.10 46.2 D 0.19 47.9 D
T 1.05 85.1 F 0.88 49.2 D
R 0.07 24.5 C 0.07 25.4 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.65 53.3 D 0.38 46.4 D
T 0.51 43.8 D 0.40 40.7 D
R 0.08 39.6 D 0.10 39.2 D
SB L 0.24 47.4 D 0.34 46.1 D
T 0.47 43.4 D 0.57 46.0 D
R 0.31 42.0 D 0.20 41.8 D
Overall Intersection -52.7 D 40.9 D
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Ramona Station
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
27
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
SR-74 at Navajo Road
SR-74 EB L 0.11 26.8 C 0.20 27.7 C
T 0.23 4.7 A 0.43 5.1 A
WB TR 0.34 10.6 B 0.94 29.9 C
Navajo Road SB L 0.23 19.0 B 0.55 25.4 C
R 0.00 17.8 B 0.03 21.8 C
Overall Intersection -9.7 A 20.7 C
SR-74 at D Street
SR-74 EB L 0.43 28.7 C 0.51 29.5 C
TR 0.58 22.9 C 0.78 27.9 C
WB L 0.06 25.8 C 0.14 26.4 C
TR 0.41 21.0 C 0.63 23.8 C
D Street NB LT 0.35 20.7 C 1.00 72.9 E
R 0.02 18.1 B 0.07 18.5 B
SB LT 0.20 19.4 B 0.82 38.5 D
R 0.06 18.4 B 0.14 19.0 B
Overall Intersection -22.3 C 34.2 C
SR-74 at Perris Boulevard
SR-74 EB L 0.52 28.0 C 0.68 38.0 D
TR 0.39 16.7 B 0.52 17.6 B
WB L 0.16 24.8 C 0.50 34.5 C
TR 0.30 16.0 B 0.48 19.7 B
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.09 18.2 B 0.32 21.4 C
T 0.28 19.5 B 0.50 22.7 C
R 0.05 17.9 B 0.14 19.7 B
SB L 0.14 18.6 B 0.48 23.5 C
T 0.22 19.1 B 0.48 22.6 C
R 0.07 18.1 B 0.15 19.7 B
Overall Intersection -18.6 B 21.9 C
San Jacinto Avenue at Perris Boulevard
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.10 29.5 C 0.48 38.5 D
TR 0.24 30.5 C 0.24 25.2 C
WB L 0.05 29.2 C 0.08 35.1 D
T 0.12 29.7 C 0.15 24.4 C
R 0.14 29.9 C 0.24 25.2 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.41 35.3 D 0.31 36.7 D
TR 0.32 11.4 B 0.85 39.6 D
SB L 0.12 32.4 C 0.32 36.8 D
TR 0.24 10.8 B 0.88 41.8 D
Overall Intersection -16.1 B 37.4 D
Downtown Perris Station
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
28
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Nuevo Road at Perris Boulevard
Nuevo Road EB L 0.33 33.8 C 0.60 27.1 C
T 0.28 26.7 C 0.74 28.8 C
R 0.07 25.0 C 0.22 22.0 C
WB L 0.22 32.9 C 0.49 31.5 C
TR 0.34 27.2 C 0.67 29.9 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.35 33.6 C 0.78 40.3 D
TR 0.18 28.0 C 0.48 24.5 C
SB L 0.20 38.5 D 0.57 33.7 C
T 0.22 31.4 C 0.86 38.3 D
R 0.08 15.5 B 0.30 14.8 B
Overall Intersection -29.4 C 30.0 C
Unsignalized
San Jacinto Avenue at C Street
San Jacinto Avenue EB LTR 0.00 7.5 A 0.05 8.6 A
WB LTR 0.18 8.7 A 0.65 16.8 C
C Street NB LTR 0.23 7.7 A 0.40 10.8 B
SB LTR 0.01 7.7 A 0.03 9.3 A
Overall Intersection -8.1 A 14.0 B
San Jacinto Avenue at D Street
San Jacinto Avenue EB LTR 0.40 13.1 B 0.75 28.9 D
WB LTR 0.13 10.4 B 0.38 15.0 B
D Street NB L 0.01 9.4 A 0.01 11.1 B
TR 0.53 15.5 C 0.63 22.4 C
SB L 0.10 10.1 B 0.26 13.6 B
TR 0.51 14.6 B 0.72 25.3 D
Overall Intersection -14.0 B 23.2 C
San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.12 10.2 B 0.18 12.3 B
TR 0.10 8.8 A 0.13 10.6 B
WB LT 0.31 11.9 B 0.35 14.5 B
R 0.06 8.3 A 0.10 10.0 A
Redlands Avenue NB LT 0.24 10.5 B 0.81 30.6 D
R 0.12 8.6 A 0.44 12.4 B
SB L 0.03 9.3 A 0.22 12.1 B
TR 0.34 11.4 B 0.27 11.6 B
Overall Intersection -10.6 B 18.5 C
SR-74 at C Street
SR-74 EB L 0.22 9.5 A 0.36 12.1 B
WB L 0.00 9.4 A 0.02 10.1 B
C Street NB LTR 0.01 10.2 B 0.04 11.3 B
SB LT 0.15 63.8 F 0.50 225.0 F
R 0.13 10.8 B 0.44 15.0 B
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
29
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
6th Street at C Street
6th Street EB LTR 0.00 7.2 A 0.00 7.3 A
WB LTR 0.00 7.2 A 0.00 7.2 A
C Street NB LTR 0.00 8.5 A 0.03 9.4 A
SB LTR 0.01 8.9 A 0.05 9.1 A
6th Street at D Street
6th Street EB LTR 0.04 10.7 B 0.07 13.0 B
WB LTR 0.01 10.7 B 0.06 12.5 B
D Street NB LTR 0.00 7.4 A 0.01 7.9 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.01 7.7 A
7th Street at C Street
7th Street EB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.00 7.3 A
WB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.01 7.3 A
C Street NB LTR 0.01 8.9 A 0.02 8.9 A
SB LTR 0.00 8.8 A 0.02 9.4 A
7th Street at D Street
7th Street EB LTR 0.04 11.0 B 0.13 14.6 B
WB LTR 0.02 11.1 B 0.11 14.9 B
D Street NB LTR 0.00 7.4 A 0.01 7.8 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.00 7.8 A
7th Street at Perris Boulevard
7th Street EB LTR 0.04 11.4 B 0.11 14.3 B
WB LTR 0.01 10.8 B 0.11 12.9 B
Perris Boulevard NB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.00 7.9 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.8 A 0.01 7.7 A
Unsignalized
Bonnie Drive at Southbound I-215 Ramps
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.02 23.4 C 0.04 23.6 C
R 0.24 15.4 C 0.91 66.7 F
Southbound I-215 Ramps NB L 0.32 10.7 B 0.32 12.4 B
SR-74 at Northbound I-215 Off Ramp
SR-74 EB L 0.00 8.3 A 0.02 8.1 A
Northbound I-215 Off-Ramp SB LR 0.42 21.8 C 0.44 23.2 C
South Perris Station
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
30
Notes:
1.
2.V/C is the volume-to-capacity ratio for the Mvt. listed in the first column. Values above 1.0 indicate an excess of demand over capacity.
3.
4.
5.LOS for unsignalized intersections is based upon total average delay per vehicle (sec/veh) for each lane group listed in the Mvt. column as noted in the
2000 HCM -TRB.
"Mvt." refers to the specific intersection approach lane(s) and how the lane(s) operate and/or specific pavement striping. TR is a combined through- right
turn lane(s), R or L refers to exclusive right- or left-turn movement lane(s), and LTR is a mixed lane(s) that allows for all movement types. It is possible
that lane uses change in different time periods. For example, a very heavy right-turn volume may exceed a single lane capacity, thus forcing drivers to use
(or "share") an adjacent lane for additional travel capacity in the AM, but as flows decrease later in the day, a shared lane may not be needed. DefL is a
defacto left-turn lane automatically input by the HCS software when the volume of left turns is high enough to create a "natural" turn lane to accommodate
the demand; through movements would then use the adjacent travel lane.
Level of service (LOS) for signalized intersections is based upon average control delay per vehicle (sec/veh) for each lane group listed in the Mvt. Column
as noted in the 2000 HCM - TRB.
The delay calculations for signalized intersections represent the average control delay experienced by all vehicles that arrive in the analysis period,
including delays incurred beyond the analysis period when the lane group is saturated.
Table 2: 2008 Existing Levels of Service (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
SR-74 at Sherman Road
SR-74 EB L 0.07 11.7 B 0.06 9.8 A
WB L 0.09 9.5 A 0.15 12.1 B
Sherman Road NB L 0.42 92.9 F 0.44 143.2 F
R 0.17 11.7 B 0.31 15.9 C
SB LR 0.25 22.7 C 0.32 51.1 F
LOSINTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C
C. 2012 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT
The analysis of the 2012 future traffic conditions without the proposed project serves as the
baseline against which opening year impacts of the project are compared. Because only four of
the six proposed stations would be operational by the opening year (Hunter Park, Moreno
Valley/March Field, Downtown and South Perris Stations), these analyses only concern study
locations in the vicinity of those four stations. The future conditions with the project include the
traffic volume increases expected due to an overall growth in traffic through and within the study
area, and major approved land developments and roadway system changes scheduled to be
occupied or implemented by the 2012 opening year for the PVL.
A generally applied background growth rate of two percent per year, resulting in an overall
growth of approximately eight percent by 2012, was assumed for the Hunter Park and Moreno
Valley/March Field station areas per the guidelines of the Cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley.
For Downtown and South Perris stations, which are within the City of Perris, an annual
background growth rate of three percent (approximately 13 percent over four years) was used,
per City guidelines.
No major developments are planned in the area surrounding the Hunter Park Station by 2012.1
However, two three major improvement projects involving railroad grade separations at
Columbia and Iowa Avenues and 3rd Street are planned to be completed in 2009 and 2011prior
to 2013, respectively. The grade separation of Columbia Avenue and the BNSF railroad tracks
1 According to the City of Riverside, the Hunter Business Park development is not fully built out.
However, this development is not expected to be a significant generator of traffic due to its designated
industrial/warehouse land use and the size of the remaining parcels.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
31
would raise Columbia Avenue over the BNSF railroad between La Cadena Drive and Iowa
Avenue. Similarly, the Iowa Avenue grade-separation project would raise Iowa Avenue over the
BNSF tracks between Palmyrita Avenue and Spring Street. These projects are not expected to
affect the traffic volumes in the area, and would neither increase nor reduce roadway capacity.
A number of approved development projects were identified by the City of Moreno Valley within the
Moreno Valley/March Field Station area:
1. Centerpointe Industrial and Business Park project is located northeast of Cactus Avenue
and Graham Street, and will be a 162-acre business park.
2. Meridian Business Park (formerly known as March Business Center) project is located
southwest of I-215 and Alessandro Boulevard on a 1,290-acre site. The project land uses
consist primarily of industrial park, warehousing, research and development, and
associated business support uses. It is planned to be constructed in three phases, two of
which would be completed by 2012.
3. Gateway Center is an industrial/business park project on a 25-acre site on Day Street south
of Alessandro Boulevard.
4. Cactus/Commerce Commercial Center is a 16,000-square-foot commercial/retail
development on Cactus Avenue between Day and Elsworth Streets.
The trip generation and assignment for these projects were taken from the Cactus Avenue
and Commerce Center Drive Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study (Urban Crossroads,
2008).
5. March Lifecare CampusVillage is a development project including a mix of healthcare and
ancillary uses, including hospitals, general and specialty medical offices, medical retail,
research and education, a wellness center, senior center, independent/assisted-living
facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and related support facilities. The project will be
developed in five planning areas, of which the first two are expected to be developed by
2011, and include a 50-bed hospital, 660 units of institutional residential, 190,000 square
feet of medical office, 200,000 square feet of research and education, and 210,000 square
feet of retail land uses. The remaining planning areas will be developed over the next 20 to
25 years. Therefore, the trip generation and vehicle assignments associated with only the
first two planning areas for this project were incorporated into the 2012 future traffic
volumes without the project. Vehicle trip generation and assignments for this development
project were obtained from the March Lifecare Campus Specific Plan Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (Applied Planning Inc., 2009).
6. approximately 30 acres of medical office/research and education/institutional residential
land uses and a 60-bed hospital.
St. South o
The trip generation and assignment for these projects were taken from the Cactus Avenue and
Commerce Center Drive Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study (Urban Crossroads, 2008).
As previously noted, the AM analysis hour for the PVL is earlier than the AM peak hour
analyzed for these development projects. It was determined that the trip distribution for the 6-7
AM time period (PVL AM analysis hour) corresponds to 35 percent of the typical AM peak hour
traffic volumes based on the Southern California Association of Governments Year 2000 Post-
Census Regional Travel Survey. Therefore, AM peak hour trip generation for the above projects
was reduced by 65 percent.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
32
In addition to the development projects, a major roadway improvement project to widen Cactus
Avenue and to reconfigure its intersection with southbound I-215 ramps (March Joint Powers
Authority Cactus Avenue Extension/Railroad Bridge Widening project) is planned to be
completed by 2012 within the Moreno Valley/March Field study area. Upon the completion of this
project Cactus Avenue would provide two east and westbound through lanes, one westbound left-
turn lane, and one eastbound right-turn lane. In addition, southbound through and left-turn
movements from the I-215 off-ramp onto Cactus Avenue would be no longer allowed.
Two approved projects are to be completed in the Downtown Perris Station study area by 2012:
1. The Venue at Perris development project is located on the northeast corner of I-215 and
Redlands Avenue. It will include a movie theater, home improvement superstore,
discount superstore, and other retail space. The trip generation for this project was
developed based on rates for Land Use 862 (“Home Improvement Superstore”), 813
(“Free-Standing Discount Superstore”), 820 (“Shopping Center”), and 444 (“Movie
Theater with Matinee”) from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation, 7th Edition. Traffic was assigned based on existing travel patterns.
2. Perris Marketplace project is a 520,000-square-foot retail center located on the west side
of Perris Boulevard, north of Nuevo Road. It includes a discount superstore with a gas
station, a home improvement store, restaurants, and specialty retail space. Vehicle trip
generation and assignments for this project were obtained from the Perris Marketplace
Traffic Study (LSA Associates, Inc., 2006). This study recommends reconfiguration of the
Nuevo Road/Perris Boulevard intersection to mitigate the impacts of the project as follows:
Provide two left-turn, two through, one through/right-turn, and one right-turn lane for
eastbound Nuevo Road
Provide one left-turn, three through, and one right-turn lane for northbound Perris
Boulevard
Provide two left-turn, three through, and two right-turn lanes for southbound Perris
Boulevard
Westbound Nuevo Road approach remains the same as existing conditions.
It is assumed that these mitigation measures were in place by 2009.
Roadway system changes by 2012 within the Downtown Perris Station area include the
signalization of the C Street/SR-74 intersection, which is currently stop-controlled, and the
widening and restriping of the and D and C Street/ intersections at San Jacinto Avenue.
intersections, which are currently stop-controlled.
Two approved projects were identified in the South Perris Station study area:
1. Towne Center project is a 470,000-square-foot retail center located in the southeastern
portion of the City of Perris, on the southeast corner of I-215 and Ethanac Road. It
would be anchored by a 220,000-square-foot big-box store, and would also include
specialty retail space, restaurants, and a hotel. The development is expected to be
opened in 2009.2 The trip generation and assignment for this project were obtained from
the Towne Center Traffic Impact Study (Albert A. Webb Associates, 2007).
2 This development was not completed at the time of the traffic counts in the South Perris Station study
area in 2008.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
33
2. Perris Crossing (formerly known as Ethanac Road Retail Center) development is a
625,000-square-foot retail center located on the north side of Ethanac Road, west of
Case Road. The retail center would include approximately 600,000 square feet of retail
and restaurant uses, a service station, and 24,000 square feet of office uses. The
Ethanac Road Retail Center Traffic Study (LSA Associates, Inc., 2005) was used in
determining the trip generation and assignment for this development.
Although this project is within the South Perris Station area, no project-generated trips
were added to the study intersections as project traffic to/from I-215 and SR-74 would be
able to access these roadways via Ethanac Road without traversing through the study
intersections. However, ten percent of in and outbound trips traveling to/from the north
via Case Road were assigned to intersections in the Downtown Perris area.
The trip generation for the four projects within the Downtown and South Perris Station areas
was included only in the PM analysis hour traffic volumes, as they all consist of
retail/commercial land uses, which would not generate traffic as early as the PVL AM analysis
hour.
2012 Future traffic volumes without the project are presented in Figures 13 through 16
(Appendix D contains background project trip assignments).
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
34
Figure 13: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the Project
NAM / PM
40 / 110
141 / 55
119 / 239
21 / 59
51 / 205
32 / 146499 / 87865 / 12855 / 1098 / 179481 / 92080 / 3653 / 245
136 / 283
64 / 137
42 / 80
170 / 189
76 / 9228 / 28379 / 43921 / 3741 / 75277 / 87239 / 798 / 7
71 / 28
14 / 34
23 / 133
11 / 92
175 / 2757 / 9404 / 61978 / 3611 / 10297 / 850138 / 21569 / 186
94 / 108
33 / 124
54 / 188154 / 10571 / 5043 / 94
31 / 21
26 / 39
42 / 117
6 / 41
28 / 118496 / 1,17380 / 2049 / 3830 / 16595 / 85866 / 24160 / 102
32 / 9
0 / 7
7 / 3054 / 2467 / 0100 / 49
13 / 12
36 / 92
48 / 233
17 / 11121 / 9798 / 50
26 / 50
38 / 112
22 / 165
32 / 4494 / 61
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
35
Figure 14: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the Project[NS1]
Centerpoint
Business Park
NAM / PM
152 / 881
40 / 350
331 / 292
558 / 1,474132 / 2427 / 60
887 / 2,270
31 / 171
59 / 88
1,841 / 1,726
95 / 250
98 / 101178 / 90120 / 20426 / 30116 / 14667 / 13523 / 29
526 / 1,049
76 / 423
174 / 137
1,540 / 2,778
144 /8994 /6445 / 17119 / 7890 / 168
413 / 1,137
8 / 86
43 / 73
837 / 878
1 / 10
60 / 133 65 / 47 0 / 1 9 / 42 6 / 40 150 / 155Meridian
Business Park
Gateway Center
Cactus / Commerce
Commercial Center
March Lifecare
Campus
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
36
Figure 15: Downtown Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the Project
NAM / PM
56 / 78
12 / 86
41 / 47
34 / 239
16 / 91
130 / 51016 / 57172 / 24017 / 27127 / 8789 / 38669 / 606147 / 956
202 / 676
53 / 174
38 / 172
276 / 460
102 / 191130 / 789148 / 57164 / 231104 / 244163 / 57569 / 117140 / 218
431 / 826
23 / 108
25 / 67
321 / 538
43 / 9671 / 132106 / 29142 / 12627/ 126125 / 35642 / 130132 / 171
563 / 1,006
22 / 58
17 / 86
417 / 702
19 / 4972 / 16862 / 21822 / 9552 / 7984 / 16519 / 6415 / 42
471 / 1,039
186 / 416
7 / 19
143 / 497
427 / 1,075
14 / 91
16 / 56
26 / 72
25 / 116
17 / 62
7 / 1335 / 113175 / 49012 / 6433 / 61207 / 5111 / 1234 / 338
1 / 19
1 / 7
41 / 55
29 / 75
4 / 21113 / 370215 / 43858 / 1267 / 6318 / 2431 / 410 / 0
0 / 27
0 / 3
7 / 3
21 / 4
113 / 4680 / 00 / 13 / 160 / 00 / 0231 / 313231 / 313
706 / 1,029
2 / 10
0 / 4
529 / 894
4 / 1385 / 2822 / 19 / 130 / 00 / 02 / 181 / 0
27 / 40
0 / 1
1 / 2
11 / 47
1 / 111 / 11 / 20 / 70 / 01 / 23 / 60 / 0
15 / 13
0 / 0
0 / 6
7 / 23
0 / 70 / 43 / 36 / 211 / 00 / 122 / 11 / 11
9 / 19
3 / 4
2 / 18
2 / 20
1 / 88 / 16110 / 3894 / 80 / 3208 /3574 / 316 / 26
10 / 19
4 / 8
0 / 0
10 / 28
0 / 113 / 2380 / 2692 / 70 / 9189 / 1891 / 99 / 11
6 / 12
8 / 12
1 / 7
2 / 11
1 / 11 / 1477 / 2843 / 113 / 10202 / 2030 / 1Perris Marketplace
Venue at
Perris
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
37
Figure 16: South Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes without the Project
N
Towne Center
AM / PM Perris Crossing
6 / 21
666 / 1,162
102 / 97
26 / 57
440 / 329
849 / 594
105 / 142
39 / 51
672 / 1,159
1 / 22
6 / 24
53 / 26
26 / 17
1,157 / 825
85 / 91
27 / 34
4 /8
89 / 240 48 / 4 262 / 215 205 / 170 583 / 942
Bonnie Dr
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
38
2012 Future traffic levels of service without the project were determined based on the projected
increase in traffic volumes and changes in roadway geometrics (see Table 3). A summary of
the findings is discussed below.
Hunter Park Station
All movements at the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service, with the exception of Iowa Avenue’s northbound through movement at Center Street,
which would worsen from LOS E (existing) to F (future without the project) during the PM
analysis hour, resulting in the overall intersection level of service to deteriorate from LOS D to E.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
All movements at the intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and Old 215 would continue to
operate at acceptable levels. Several movements at the remaining three intersections,
however, would worsen including:
At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro and
southbound Mission Grove Parkway’s left-turn movements would incur additional delay
within LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
At the intersection of Cactus Avenue and southbound I-215 ramps, westbound Cactus
Avenue’s left-turn movement and the overall intersection would deteriorate from LOS C
(existing) to F (future without the PVL project) during the PM analysis hour.
Westbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement would worsen from LOS E to F at Old 215,
and the overall intersection level of service would deteriorate from LOS D to F during the PM
analysis hour.
Downtown Perris Station
The levels of service for all movements would remain within acceptable limits during the AM
analysis hour. However, several movements would deteriorate to poor levels of service during
the PM analysis hour, including:
At Nuevo Road and Perris Boulevard, eastbound Nuevo Road’s left-turn movement would
deteriorate from LOS C (existing) to F (future without the project); southbound Perris
Boulevard’s left-turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C to E. The overall intersection
level of service would deteriorate from LOS C to E.
At SR-74 and D Street, eastbound SR-74’s through/right-turn movements would deteriorate
from LOS C to E. Northbound D Street’s through/left-turn movements would worsen from
LOS E to F, and southbound left-turn movement would deteriorate from LOS D to F. The
overall intersection operations would also deteriorate from LOS C to F.
At the intersection of SR-74 and Perris Boulevard, Perris Boulevard’s eastsouthbound left-
turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C to F.
Westbound San Jacinto Avenue approach at C Street would worsen from LOS C to E.
At San Jacinto Avenue and D Street, San Jacinto Avenue’s eastbound left-turn and D
Street’s southbound through movements would deteriorate from LOS D to F, and the overall
intersection level of service would deteriorate from LOS C to E.
At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, San Jacinto Avenue’s westbound through/left-turn
movements would deteriorate from LOS B to F. Northbound Redlands Avenue’s
through/left-turn and right-turn movements would deteriorate from LOS D and B to LOS F,
respectively. Southbound Redlands Avenue’s left-turn movement would deteriorate from
LOS B to F.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
39
South Perris Station
Most movements would continue to operate within acceptable levels of service. However, the
movements that currently operate at LOS F would worsen by incurring significance increases in
delay (i.e., delay increases of more than two seconds), and SR-74 at southbound Sherman
Road would deteriorate from LOS C to E during the PM analysis hour.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
40
Table 3: 2012 Future Levels of Service without the Project
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
Center Street at Iowa Avenue
Center Street EB LTR 0.46 37.6 D 0.92 45.8 D
WB L 0.25 31.2 C 0.43 32.3 C
T 0.52 34.5 C 0.83 52.8 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.20 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.31 43.9 D 0.38 32.0 C
T 0.52 35.8 D 1.21 133.3 F
R 0.09 31.7 C 0.14 23.1 C
SB L 0.12 42.1 D 0.39 38.7 D
T 0.55 36.2 D 0.60 28.7 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 23.8 C
Overall Intersection -35.8 D 73.3 E
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.13 11.6 B 0.09 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.06 13.4 B
WB L 0.46 14.1 B 0.89 38.6 D
TR 0.04 11.0 B 0.36 15.2 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 32.0 C 0.09 24.7 C
T 0.33 19.9 B 0.80 21.0 C
R 0.22 19.3 B 0.28 14.1 B
SB L 0.43 28.4 C 0.32 26.3 C
T 0.45 19.4 B 0.62 16.8 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection -18.5 B 21.5 C
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.22 42.0 D 0.43 32.2 C
T 0.34 32.2 C 0.18 28.4 C
R 0.16 30.4 C 0.43 30.6 C
WB L 0.19 41.8 D 0.62 36.2 D
T 0.07 29.6 C 0.38 29.8 C
R 0.04 29.3 C 0.14 28.2 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.44 42.4 D 0.71 41.5 D
T 0.47 29.9 C 0.89 36.4 D
R 0.11 26.4 C 0.05 20.1 C
SB L 0.28 40.9 D 0.07 35.3 D
T 0.58 31.7 C 0.88 37.7 D
R 0.09 26.2 C 0.15 22.3 C
Overall Intersection -32.3 C 35.4 D
LOS
Hunter Park Station
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
41
Table 3: 2012 Future Levels of Service without the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.32 27.5 C 0.45 28.6 C
TR 0.43 30.4 C 0.30 30.8 C
WB L 0.19 26.5 C 0.60 31.7 C
T 0.05 27.5 C 0.29 30.7 C
R 0.19 28.3 C 0.44 32.1 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 26.3 C 0.15 32.6 C
T 0.51 16.7 B 0.67 18.7 B
R 0.06 13.7 B 0.02 12.8 B
SB L 0.26 22.0 C 0.18 32.8 C
T 0.43 14.8 B 0.87 26.0 C
R 0.04 12.4 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection -17.8 B 24.3 C
Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.06 7.6 A 0.23 9.4 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.15 11.9 B 0.31 30.3 D
R 0.20 9.4 A 0.17 10.4 B
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.11 8.8 A 0.05 8.8 A
TR 0.14 8.8 A 0.08 8.7 A
WB L 0.14 9.6 A 0.56 14.8 B
T 0.10 8.7 A 0.20 8.9 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.04 8.2 A 0.02 8.6 A
R 0.26 8.6 A 0.15 8.5 A
Overall Intersection -8.8 A 11.8 B
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.20 7.8 A 0.08 7.5 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.12 9.8 A 0.34 10.4 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.8 A 0.18 8.1 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.36 12.3 B 0.31 16.0 C
Signalized
Cactus Avenue at Southbound I-215 Ramps
Cactus Avenue EB T 0.18 12.9 B 0.79 21.5 C
WB L 0.94 35.1 D 1.73 349.1 F
T 0.13 0.0 A 0.08 0.0 A
Overall Intersection -20.7 C 200.3 F
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
[NS2]
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
42
Table 3: 2012 Future Levels of Service without the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Cactus Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue EB L 0.27 13.8 B 0.36 14.1 B
TR 0.41 13.4 B 0.71 16.2 B
WB T 0.98 38.3 D 1.48 237.4 F
R 0.11 11.4 B 0.16 10.4 B
Old 215 NB L 0.31 15.3 B 0.25 19.8 B
TR 0.13 13.9 B 0.09 18.5 B
SB L 0.06 13.5 B 0.21 19.4 B
TR 0.09 13.6 B 0.30 20.2 C
Overall Intersection -28.1 C 145.6 F
Alessandro Boulevard at Old 215
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.33 29.1 C 0.51 38.4 D
T 0.57 19.9 B 0.92 35.7 D
WB L 0.00 27.3 C 0.06 35.5 D
T 0.75 23.6 C 0.76 26.0 C
Old 215 NB L 0.49 32.8 C 0.63 40.9 D
T 0.25 30.3 C 0.11 33.9 C
SB L 0.04 29.2 C 0.19 33.8 C
T 0.03 29.2 C 0.11 33.9 C
Overall Intersection -23.6 C 32.4 C
Alessandro Boulevard at Mission Grove Parkway
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.18 44.3 D 0.38 53.4 D
T 0.40 17.9 B 0.99 41.7 D
R 0.03 14.6 B 0.16 15.1 B
WB L 0.36 45.2 D 0.72 59.5 E
T 0.88 28.7 C 0.76 23.1 C
R 0.08 15.0 B 0.11 14.7 B
Mission Grove Parkway NB L 0.39 45.5 D 0.35 50.9 D
T 0.76 54.4 D 0.38 46.8 D
R 0.46 41.8 D 0.48 48.1 D
SB L 0.56 50.1 D 0.83 78.2 E
TR 0.34 40.2 D 0.32 45.9 D
Overall Intersection -29.7 C 37.2 D
Signalized
SR-74 at Navajo Road
SR-74 EB L 0.13 26.9 C 0.22 30.5 C
T 0.26 4.8 A 0.51 5.2 A
WB TR 0.38 10.9 B 1.01 42.9 D
Navajo Road SB L 0.26 19.2 B 0.71 21.5 C
R 0.01 17.9 B 0.03 24.2 C
Overall Intersection -9.9 A 27.8 C
Downtown Perris Station
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
[NS3]
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
43
Table 3: 2012 Future Levels of Service without the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
SR-74 at C Street
SR-74 EB L 0.61 21.2 C 0.90 45.7 D
TR 0.49 9.6 A 0.76 16.2 B
WB L 0.04 24.2 C 0.09 23.9 C
TR 0.79 25.4 C 0.92 32.6 C
C Street NB L 0.00 24.0 C 0.00 23.5 C
TR 0.01 19.7 B 0.07 19.5 B
SB L 0.08 24.4 C 0.09 23.9 C
TR 0.32 21.4 C 0.79 35.1 D
Overall Intersection -17.6 B 27.5 C
SR-74 at D Street
SR-74 EB L 0.48 29.2 C 0.57 31.0 C
TR 0.65 24.2 C 1.06 71.9 E
WB L 0.07 25.9 C 0.16 26.5 C
TR 0.46 21.5 C 0.76 27.0 C
D Street NB LT 0.40 21.2 C 1.30 183.1 F
R 0.02 18.1 B 0.09 18.6 B
SB LT 0.23 19.7 B 1.32 194.2 F
R 0.07 18.5 B 0.17 19.2 B
Overall Intersection -23.1 C 82.8 F
SR-74 at Perris Boulevard
SR-74 EB L 0.59 29.9 C 0.77 42.1 D
TR 0.44 17.1 B 0.70 20.6 C
WB L 0.18 25.0 C 0.56 36.4 D
TR 0.33 16.3 B 0.59 22.4 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.11 18.3 B 0.76 39.0 D
T 0.32 19.7 B 0.76 30.2 C
R 0.06 18.0 B 0.19 20.0 C
SB L 0.15 18.7 B 1.24 186.8 F
T 0.25 19.2 B 0.63 25.6 C
R 0.08 18.1 B 0.17 19.9 B
Overall Intersection -19.1 B 33.6 C
San Jacinto Avenue at Perris Boulevard
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.11 29.6 C 0.47 38.1 D
TR 0.27 30.7 C 0.29 27.0 C
WB L 0.06 29.3 C 0.08 34.8 C
T 0.14 29.8 C 0.18 26.1 C
R 0.17 30.1 C 0.28 27.0 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.45 35.8 D 0.45 41.6 D
TR 0.36 11.7 B 0.90 44.1 D
SB L 0.14 32.6 C 0.47 41.8 D
TR 0.28 11.0 B 0.93 48.2 D
Overall Intersection -16.3 B 41.7 D
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
44
Table 3: 2012 Future Levels of Service without the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Nuevo Road at Perris Boulevard
Nuevo Road EB L 0.37 34.2 C 1.39 214.1 F
T 0.31 27.0 C 0.83 32.9 C
R 0.08 25.1 C 0.25 22.3 C
WB L 0.25 33.2 C 0.55 32.4 C
TR 0.25 26.4 C 0.47 26.5 C
R 0.05 24.9 C 0.30 25.7 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.40 34.0 C 0.88 52.2 D
T 0.17 27.9 C 0.56 25.3 C
R 0.09 27.4 C 0.18 22.5 C
SB L 0.22 38.7 D 0.95 66.0 E
T 0.18 31.0 C 0.81 32.6 C
R 0.05 15.3 B 0.52 16.7 B
Overall Intersection -29.3 C 66.1 E
Unsignalized
San Jacinto Avenue at C Street
San Jacinto Avenue EB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.06 9.1 A
WB LTR 0.20 9.0 A 0.77 23.2 C
C Street NB L 0.00 7.6 A 0.00 8.8 A
TR 0.30 8.7 A 0.52 13.9 B
SB LTR 0.01 7.9 A 0.04 9.9 A
Overall Intersection -8.8 A 18.8 C
San Jacinto Avenue at D Street
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.53 17.9 C 0.94 59.2 F
T 0.00 9.2 A 0.05 11.1 B
R 0.00 8.3 A 0.02 9.8 A
WB L 0.01 10.9 B 0.07 12.7 B
TR 0.16 11.3 B 0.30 14.7 B
D Street NB L 0.01 9.7 A 0.02 11.4 B
TR 0.63 19.3 C 0.73 29.3 D
SB L 0.12 10.5 B 0.31 14.8 B
T 0.00 9.2 A 1.02 74.8 F
R 0.00 8.3 A 0.76 29.0 D
Overall Intersection -15.4 C 47.7 E
San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.14 10.7 B 0.26 16.5 C
TR 0.11 9.3 A 0.41 18.8 C
WB LT 0.36 13.0 B 1.67 333.9 F
R 0.07 8.6 A 0.58 21.6 C
Redlands Avenue NB LT 0.28 11.3 B 1.34 193.1 F
R 0.14 9.0 A 1.56 284.2 F
SB L 0.04 9.5 A 0.87 51.3 F
TR 0.40 12.6 B 0.44 18.2 C
Overall Intersection -11.4 B 189.9 F
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
[NS4]
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
45
Table 3: 2012 Future Levels of Service without the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
6th Street at C Street
6th Street EB LTR 0.00 7.2 A 0.00 7.3 A
WB LTR 0.00 7.2 A 0.00 7.2 A
C Street NB LTR 0.00 8.5 A 0.03 9.4 A
SB LTR 0.02 8.9 A 0.05 9.2 A
6th Street at D Street
6th Street EB LTR 0.05 10.9 B 0.09 14.0 B
WB LTR 0.01 11.0 B 0.07 13.4 B
D Street NB LTR 0.00 7.4 A 0.01 7.9 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.01 7.8 A
7th Street at C Street
7th Street EB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.00 7.3 A
WB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.01 7.3 A
C Street NB LTR 0.01 8.9 A 0.02 8.9 A
SB LTR 0.00 8.9 A 0.02 9.5 A
7th Street at D Street
7th Street EB LTR 0.05 11.4 B 0.16 16.5 C
WB LTR 0.02 11.4 B 0.14 16.7 C
D Street NB LTR 0.00 7.4 A 0.01 7.9 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.01 8.0 A
7th Street at Perris Boulevard
7th Street EB LTR 0.05 11.8 B 0.20 21.3 C
WB LTR 0.01 11.1 B 0.19 17.8 C
Perris Boulevard NB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.00 8.3 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.9 A 0.01 8.2 A
Unsignalized
Bonnie Drive at Southbound I-215 Ramps
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.03 27.8 D 0.06 28.4 D
R 0.30 17.5 C 1.20 159.4 F
Southbound I-215 Ramps NB L 0.38 11.7 B 0.40 14.3 B
SR-74 at Northbound I-215 Off Ramp
SR-74 EB L 0.01 8.5 A 0.02 8.2 A
Northbound I-215 Off-Ramp SB LR 0.54 28.9 D 0.59 32.9 D
SR-74 at Sherman Road
SR-74 EB L 0.09 12.8 B 0.07 10.4 B
WB L 0.11 10.0 A 0.19 13.4 B
Sherman Road NB L 0.71 192.7 F 1.48 563.9 F
R 0.21 12.5 B 0.39 18.6 C
SB LR 0.46 43.4 E 1.40 431.7 F
Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
South Perris Station
INTERSECTION & APPROACH
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
46
D. 2012 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT
Project Trip Generation and Modal Split
The PVL is expected to carry 3,705 passengers during each of the AM and PM peak periods in
2012 based on ridership projections. There would be four trains scheduled in the peak direction
of travel (to Los Angeles in the morning, to Perris in the afternoon) during these periods, of
which one would depart from South and Downtown Perris stations and two would depart from
Moreno Valley/March Field and Hunter Park stations during the AM analysis hour (6 – 7 AM),
and one would arrive at all stations during the PM analysis hour (5 – 6 PM). It was determined
that approximately 50 percent of the AM peak period (5 - 7 AM) inbound (northbound) riders
would travel on the two analysis-hour trains (leaving South Perris at 5:48 and 6:18 AM) based
on existing ridership data on SCRRA/Metrolink Inland Empire-Orange County, San Bernardino,
and Riverside lines. About 35 percent of the outbound (southbound) riders during the PM peak
period (5 - 7 PM) would travel on the analysis-hour train. No outbound trains would arrive in the
study area during the AM analysis hour, and no inbound trains would depart the area during the
PM analysis hour. Table 4 shows the number of boarding and alighting passengers per station
during the AM and PM analysis hours.
Table 4: AM and PM Analysis-Hour Ridership
Station AM PM
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings
Hunter Park 241 110 83 182
Moreno Valley/March Field 205 93 70 154
Downtown Perris 134 29 45 207
South Perris 221 0 0 340
Total 801 232 198 884
Passengers would arrive at and depart from the stations by a number of travel modes, including
private autos, transit buses, and walking. Auto trips would consist of drop-offs/pick-ups and
park-and-ride drivers. The modal split of passengers was derived from the PVL ridership model,
which included separate modal splits for passengers traveling to and from the area. However,
the same modal split was applied to passengers traveling from the area during the AM and
returning to the area during the PM peak period. Similarly, passengers arriving in the area
during the AM and leaving during the PM exhibited the same modal splits. For example, for
Hunter Park Station, it was assumed that 61 percent of boarding passengers and one percent of
alighting passengers would travel to/from the station by auto during the AM peak period,.
During the PM peak period, 61 percent of alighting passengers and one percent of boarding
passengers would travel by auto. The project modal splits are summarized in Table 5.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
47
Table 5: Modal Split of Passengers for the AM Peak Period 3
Station
Percentage of Passengers
Walk Bus Park-and-Ride Drop-off/Pick-up
Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting
Hunter Park 4 57 9 42 61 1 26 0
Moreno Valley
/ March Field 0 0 19 99 63 1 18 0
Downtown
Perris 20 40 10 52 56 8 14 0
South Perris 3 0 4 56 79 44 14 0
Using these modal splits, 300 drop-offs/pick-ups and 529 park-and-ride trips would be
generated by the project within the overall study area during the AM analysis hour, and 302
drop-offs/pick-ups and 530 park-and-ride trips would be generated during the PM analysis hour.
Drop-offs/pick-ups were assumed to make a complete in-and-out cycle within the analysis
hours, i.e., arrive full and depart empty within the AM analysis hour, and arrive empty and
depart full in the PM analysis hour. Table 6 shows the auto trips by station during the AM and
PM analysis hours.
Table 6: Auto-Trip Generation
Station
AM PM
Park-and-Ride Drop-off/Pick-up Bus Park-and-Ride Drop-off/Pick-up Bus In Out In Out In Out In Out
Hunter Park 146 2 63 63 2 1 111 47 47 2
Moreno Valley /
March Field 129 1 37 37 4 1 30 28 28 4
Downtown
Perris 75 2 19 19 5 4 115 29 29 5
South Perris 174 0 31 31 3 0 268 47 47 3
Total 524 5 150 150 14 6 524 151 151 14
3 PM modal splits are reversed.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
48
Project Vehicle Assignment
The distribution of auto trips to the stations was developed from the station access maps based
on the ridership model as follows:
Hunter Park Station
As discussed in Chapter 2.0 in the EIR, the Hunter Park Station would be located at one of
three proximate sites. The Palmyrita Station option is proposed to be located on the east side
of the SJBL main track east of Iowa Avenue between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues. The
proposed station access road for this option would connect Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues,
and allow entry/exit to the station from both avenues. The Columbia Station option would be
along the west side of the main track with only one entry/exit point from Columbia Avenue. The
Marlborough Station option would also be located on the west side of the main track, with a
single entry/exit point from Marlborough Avenue.
The project vehicle assignment for all three alternative locations for the Hunter Park Station
would be the same in terms of approach routing to the station: Approximately 55 percent of
drop-offs/pick-ups and 60 percent of park-and-ride passengers would come from areas north of
the station. The majority of these passengers would approach the station from southbound
Iowa Avenue (35 percent), with the remaining traveling southbound on Northgate Street or
eastbound on Columbia Avenue. About 20 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups and park-and-ride
passengers would come from the south via northbound Iowa Avenue. The remaining
passengers would approach from the east along Palmyrita Avenue.
Vehicle assignments at the study intersections, particularly individual movements, would differ
among the three alternative station locations due to the varying location of the proposed station
access road, and are presented on Figures 17 through 19.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Almost all of the passengers would come from east of the station. Of the drop -offs/pick-ups, 30
percent would approach the station from westbound Alessandro Boulevard, 35 percent would
approach from westbound Cactus Avenue, 15 percent would approach from southbound I-215,
and 20 percent would approach from northbound I-215. Park-and-ride passengers would travel
westbound on Alessandro Boulevard (35 percent) and Cactus Avenue (25 percent), southbound
on I-215 (20 percent) and Old 215 (five percent), or northbound on I-215 (15 percent).
Downtown Perris Station
Approximately 40 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups and 30 percent of park-and-ride passengers
would approach the station from the north via southbound Perris Boulevard, 35 percent of park -
and-ride passengers and 25 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups would approach from the west via
eastbound SR-74, and ten percent of each would approach from the east via westbound SR-74
and from the south via D Street. The remaining would approach from the northwest via A
Street.
South Perris Station
The majority of the passengers would come from areas south of the station via I-215 (50
percent of park-and-ride passengers and 30 percent of drop-offs/pick-ups) or by following
Murrieta and Goetz Roads to Case Road (15 percent of park-and-ride passengers and 25
percent of drop-offs/pick-ups). The remaining would come from the east via SR-74.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
49
The assignment of vehicle trips generated by the PVL project during the AM and PM analysis
hours are presented on Figures 17 through 22 (Appendix E includes station access maps).
Overall, the increases in traffic would less than significant in relation to the existing load and
capacity of the roadways at most locations (less than five percent increase); however, traffic
increases would result in significant impacts in terms of added congestion at a few intersections.
Railroad Crossings
In addition to impacts at key intersections that would experience increases in traffic volumes as
a result of project-generated trips, the PVL could also result in impacts at railroad crossings by
creating additional delays to vehicles that would be stopped during periods of train movements.4
However, these additional delays would not be considered significant considering that the
project would operate with twelve trains per day and only one train during the peak traffic hours
in 2012, and that the wait time of vehicular traffic (30 seconds for typical operations) would not
be any more disruptive to traffic operations than a single red phase of a typical traffic signal
cycle.
As noted in Chapter 2.0 in the EIR, the project would make improvements at fifteenseveral
existing grade crossings including the installation of new signals at several of them. These
signals would be placed to improve safety and meet jurisdictional requirements, and would
remain inactive (i.e., display a steady green signal for vehicular traffic) unless a train is detected.
Therefore, no significant delays would be expected due to the installation of the crossing
signals.
Further, two existing grade railroad crossings, Poarch Road in Riverside and 6th Street in
downtown Perris, are planned to be permanently closed as part of the PVL project, the existing
grade railroad crossing at Poarch Road in Riverside is planned to be closed to the public with
access by emergency vehicles only (with a locked gate).5 Poarch Road is an unimproved dirt
road that provides alternate access to a small number of residences and terminates
approximately half a mile north of the railroad crossing. It connects with Morton Road via
Gernert Road to the south, and provides access to an apartment complex and connection to
Box Springs Road. The railroad crossing is directly across from the northbound I-215 on-ramp,
and thus, is mostly used by drivers wanting to bypass the traffic on Box Springs Road to access
northbound I-215. The closure of the Poarch Road crossing to the public is not expected to
significantly affect the traffic volumes in the area, but may present an inconvenience to some
residents.
In addition, as part of the PVL project. the existing grade railroad crossing at 6th Street in
downtown Perris is planned to be closed to vehicles but would still be accessible by pedestrians
to cross. The closure of 6th Street to vehicular traffic would result in the diversion of east and
westbound traffic (up to 35 vph per direction during the AM and PM analysis hours) to 7th Street,
4 During field observations in the UCR neighborhood, significant congestion was not observed that would
be attributable to passing trains at railroad grade crossings. Given this observation, it is not likely that
such effects would occur here or at other grade crossings.
5 In downtown Perris, as part of the Perris Multimodal Transit Center project, the crossings at 2nd and 5th
Streets were closed in 2008. The impacts of the these closures on travel patterns are already
incorporated into the existing traffic network and analyses as the closures were in effect at the time the
traffic data collection program was conducted.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
50
the closest railroad crossing to remain open. The changes in traffic volumes due to this
diversion would be less than significant, and are reflected in the 2012 analyses with the project.
The total 2012 traffic volumes with the project during the AM and PM analysis hours are
presented on Figures 2223 through 28.
In addition, the northern end of Commercial Street would be closed to the public (with locked
gates) where it intersects with D Street and Perris Boulevard, which would allo w access to
emergency vehicles only. This closure is necessary due to potential safety issues at the tracks
as the turning movements involve an acute angle and can present the motorist with limited sight
distance. In terms of traffic volumes, a count of vehicle movements taken in mid-November
2010 indicated that less than five vehicles travel through this intersection in any one hour during
the day, and most hours show no vehicles at all using it. Although this closure would affect few
vehicles, 9th Street, which is currently a dirt road, would be paved to accommodate local
property access. As there would be little inconvenience to the current low volumes along
Commercial Street, and motorists can access Commercial Street via Perris Boulevard less than
one-quarter mile south of D Street, the closure of Commercial Street would not be a significant
impact.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
51
Figure 17: Hunter Park Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes – Palmyrita Option
NAM / PM
48 / 13
17 / 36
11 / 30 3 / 2 42 / 10 73 / 16
1 / 1
22 / 55 1/ 1 23 / 56
2 / 11 / 173 / 166 / 22
4 / 7
20 / 628 / 5 14 / 3242 / 10 90 / 23 28 / 67 4 / 74 / 7
73 / 16
48 / 11
25 / 57 10 / 29
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
52
Figure 18: Hunter Park Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes – Columbia Option
NAM / PM
48 / 13
17 / 36
13 / 31 1 / 1 42 / 10 23 / 5673 / 16 73 / 16
1 /1
22 / 55 1/ 1 74 / 1723 / 566 / 2228 / 5 13 / 3142 / 10 163 / 39 53 / 124 14 / 3648 /11
14 / 36
48 / 11
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
53
Figure 19: Hunter Park Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes – Marlborough Option
N
48 / 13 16 / 37 74 / 17 23 / 56 73 / 16
1 /1
22 / 55 1/1 74 / 1723 / 566 / 2228 / 5 1 / 142 / 10 121 / 2913 / 31
1 / 0
39 / 93
163 / 39 53 / 124 14 / 3648 /11
48 / 11 14 / 36 48 / 11
14 /36
14 / 3648 /11AM / PM
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
54
Figure 20: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes
NAM / PM
23 / 35
7 / 9
106/ 21
4 / 1
1 / 2
1 / 11 / 1
5 / 11
29 / 64 / 029 / 5
0 / 17 / 913 / 18
48 / 10
25 / 533 / 57 / 10
15 / 3
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
55
Figure 21: Downtown Perris Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
56
Figure 22: South Perris Station Area Project-Generated Traffic Volumes
NAM / PM
15 / 110
98 / 16
71 / 213 / 6
13 / 96
62 / 18
0 / 4
2 / 10
7 / 2
2 / 1
10 / 148
18 / 115 3 / 1 169 / 37 28 / 264
8 / 55 36 / 12
172 / 38
Bonnie Dr
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
57
Figure 23: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project – Palmyrita Option
NAM / PM
40 / 110
189 / 68
119 / 239
21 / 59
68/ 241
43 / 177 502 / 880 65 / 12855 / 1098/ 179 481/ 920 122 / 46 53 / 245
136 / 283
137 / 154
42 / 80
170 / 189
77 / 9328 / 28379 / 439 21 / 3741 / 75299 / 92840 / 80 8 / 7
71 / 28
14 / 34
46 / 189
11 / 92
177 / 2767 / 9405 / 620151 / 5211 / 10297 / 850138 / 215 76 / 207
98 / 116
33 / 124
74 / 194182 / 109 71 / 50 43 / 94
31 / 21
26 / 39
42 / 117
6 / 41
28 / 118510/ 1,20580 / 20 49 / 38 30 / 16637 / 868 66 / 24 160 / 102
32 / 9
0 / 7
7 / 30 54 / 246 7 / 0 90 / 23
114 / 61
0 / 0
65 / 103 28 / 67 4 / 7104 / 56
13 / 12
36 / 92
48 / 233 17 / 11 121 / 97 163 / 294
73 / 16
208 / 293
48 / 11
25 / 57 10 / 2998 / 50
26 / 50
38 / 112
22 / 165
32 / 44 94 / 61
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
58
Figure 24: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project – Columbia Option
NAM / PM
40 / 110
189 / 68
119 / 239
44 / 115
68 / 241
45 / 178 500 / 879 65 / 128128 / 2798 / 179 481 / 920 122 / 46 53 / 245
136 / 283
137 / 154
42 / 80
170 / 189
77 / 9328 / 28379 / 439 21 / 3741 / 75299 / 92840 / 80 8 / 7
71 / 28
14 / 34
23 / 133
11 / 92
175 / 2757 / 9478 / 63778 / 3611 / 10320 / 906138 / 215 69 / 186
94 / 108
39 / 145
54 / 188154 / 105 99 / 54 43 / 94
31 / 21
26 / 39
42 / 117
6 / 41
28 / 118509 / 1,20480 / 20 49 / 38 30 / 16637 / 868 66 / 24 160 / 102
32 / 9
0 / 7
7 / 30 54 / 246 7 / 0 163 / 39
114 / 61
48 / 11
53 / 103 53 / 124 14 /36114 / 85
13 / 12
84 / 103
48 / 233 17 / 11 121 / 97 98 / 50
26 / 50
38 / 112
22 / 165
32 / 44 94 / 61
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
59
Figure 25: Hunter Park Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project – Marlborough Option
NAM / PM
40 / 110
141 / 55
167 / 251
21 / 59
51 / 205
32 / 146 573 / 896 65 / 12855 /10114 / 216 504 / 976 80 / 36 53 / 245
136 / 283
137 / 154
42 / 80
170 / 189
77 / 9328 / 28379 / 439 21 / 3741 / 75299 / 92840 / 80 8 / 7
71 / 28
14 / 34
23 / 133
11 / 92
175 / 2757 / 9478 / 63778 / 3611 / 10320 / 906138 / 215 69 / 186
94 / 108
39 / 146
54 / 188154 / 105 100 / 54 43 / 94
31 / 21
26 / 39
80 / 210
7 / 41
41 / 149497 / 1,174201 / 50 49 / 38 30 / 16595 / 858 108 / 34 174 / 138
32 / 9
0 / 7
7 / 30 102 / 257 7 / 0 163 / 39
124 / 101
48 / 11
70 / 155 53 / 124 14 /36100 / 49
13 / 12
36 / 92
96 / 244 17 / 11 136 / 132 112 / 86
26 / 50
86 / 122
22 / 165
32 / 44 94 / 61
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
60
Figure 26: Moreno Valley/March Field Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project
NAM / PM
176 / 916
47 / 359
437 / 313
558 / 1,474147 / 2629 / 40
539 / 1,067
76 / 423
174 / 137
1,588 / 2,789
169 / 9494 / 6478 / 17619 / 7827 / 60
890 / 2,270
31 / 171
59 / 88
1,842 / 1,727
96 / 251
98 / 101178 / 90121 / 20526 / 30116 / 14667 / 13590 / 168
420 / 1,148
8 / 86
43 / 73
866 / 884
30 / 15 60 / 13365 / 487 / 10150 / 155 12 / 42 6 / 40 [NS5]
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
61
Figure 27: Downtown Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
62
Figure 28: South Perris Station Area 2012 Future Traffic Volumes with the Project
NAM / PM
9 / 27
681 / 1,271
102 / 97
124 / 73
511 / 350
849 / 594
105 / 142
39 / 55
685 / 1,255
3 / 32
6 / 24
55 / 27
26 / 17
1,220 / 843
85 / 91
34 / 36
15 / 156
107 / 355 51 / 5 431 / 252 205 / 170 583 / 942 28 /264
8 / 55 36 /12 94 /248
172 /38 309 /219
Bonnie Dr
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
63
Significant Impact Criteria
The identification of potential significant traffic impacts was based on the guidelines for the City
and County guidelines. A deterioration from LOS A, B, C, or D conditions without the project to
LOS E or F conditions with the project is considered a significant impact. For LOS E or F
conditions without the project, an increase of two or more seconds of delay as a result of the
project is also considered significant.
The level-of-service analyses for the 2012 Future Conditions with the Project indicated that the
majority of the study intersections would continue to operate at the same levels of service as the
2012 conditions without the PVL. However, significant traffic impacts would be expected at a
number of study area intersections as a result of the increase in traffic volumes (due to new
vehicular trips generated by the project) (see Table 7).
Hunter Park Station
No impacts would be expected at the study intersections in the vicinity of the Hunter Park
Station for any of the three alternative station locations.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Westbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement at Old 215 would experience a significant
impact by incurring just over two seconds of delay within LOS F during the PM analysis hour
(Mitigation Measure TT-1).
Downtown Perris Station
Significant impacts would be expected at two study intersections during the PM analysis hour:
At the intersection of SR-74 (4th Street) and D Street, north and southbound D Street’s
through/left-turn movements would incur approximately ten and 20 seconds of additional
delay within LOS F, respectively (Mitigation Measure TT-2).
At San Jacinto Avenue and Redlands Avenue, westbound San Jacinto Avenue’s
through/left-turn movements and northbound Redlands Avenue would incur four to eight
seconds of additional delay within LOS F (TT-3).
South Perris Station
Significant impacts would be expected at all three study intersections:
Eastbound Bonnie Drive’s left-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps would deteriorate
from LOS D to F during the AM and PM analysis hours, and the right-turn movement would
worsen within LOS F by incurring approximately 240 seconds of additional delay during the
PM analysis hour (Mitigation Measure TT-43).
SR-74 at northbound I-215 off-ramp would deteriorate from LOS D to E during the AM and
PM analysis hours (TT-5).
Northbound Sherman Road’s left-turn movement onto SR-74 would incur approximately 110
and 290 seconds of additional delay within LOS F during the respective AM and PM
analysis hours. Southbound Sherman Road would deteriorate from LOS E to F during the
AM, and worsen within LOS F by incurring 160 seconds of additional delay during the PM
analysis hours (TT-6).
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
64
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
Center Street at Iowa Avenue
Center Street EB LTR 0.63 40.7 D 0.95 51.1 D
WB L 0.25 31.2 C 0.43 32.3 C
T 0.52 34.5 C 0.83 52.8 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.20 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.31 43.9 D 0.38 32.0 C
T 0.56 36.6 D 1.21 134.7 F
R 0.10 31.7 C 0.15 23.1 C
SB L 0.12 42.1 D 0.39 38.7 D
T 0.55 36.2 D 0.60 28.7 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 23.8 C
Overall Intersection -36.7 D 76.3 E
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.13 11.6 B 0.09 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.06 13.4 B
WB L 0.46 14.2 B 0.90 39.4 D
TR 0.07 11.2 B 0.44 15.8 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 32.0 C 0.09 24.7 C
T 0.33 19.9 B 0.80 21.0 C
R 0.11 18.6 B 0.26 13.9 B
SB L 0.84 52.8 D 0.46 27.8 C
T 0.46 19.5 B 0.62 16.8 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection -21.8 C 21.6 C
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.22 42.0 D 0.43 32.2 C
T 0.46 33.6 C 0.22 28.7 C
R 0.16 30.4 C 0.43 30.6 C
WB L 0.26 42.4 D 0.75 43.3 D
T 0.10 29.8 C 0.45 30.4 C
R 0.04 29.3 C 0.14 28.2 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.44 42.4 D 0.71 41.5 D
T 0.47 29.9 C 0.89 36.4 D
R 0.22 27.5 C 0.08 20.4 C
SB L 0.28 40.9 D 0.07 35.3 D
T 0.59 31.8 C 0.89 37.8 D
R 0.08 26.1 C 0.11 22.0 C
Overall Intersection -32.4 C 36.0 D
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Hunter Park Station - Palmyrita Option
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
65
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.32 27.5 C 0.45 28.6 C
TR 0.43 30.4 C 0.30 30.8 C
WB L 0.19 26.5 C 0.60 31.7 C
T 0.05 27.5 C 0.29 30.7 C
R 0.19 28.3 C 0.44 32.1 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 26.3 C 0.15 32.6 C
T 0.54 17.1 B 0.68 18.8 B
R 0.06 13.7 B 0.02 12.8 B
SB L 0.26 22.0 C 0.18 32.8 C
T 0.44 14.9 B 0.90 28.0 C
R 0.04 12.4 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection -18.0 B 25.2 C
Palmyrita Avenue at Station Access Road
Palmyrita Avenue EB TR 0.27 5.9 A 0.37 6.5 A
WB LT 0.34 6.3 A 0.36 6.4 A
Station Access Road NB L 0.12 19.9 B 0.28 20.9 C
R 0.04 19.5 B 0.14 20.0 C
Overall Intersection -7.5 A 8.8 A
Columbia Avenue at Station Access Road
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.20 5.6 A 0.06 5.0 A
T 0.17 5.5 A 0.08 5.1 A
WB TR 0.10 5.1 A 0.13 5.3 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.02 19.3 B 0.04 19.4 B
R 0.10 19.8 B 0.26 20.8 C
Overall Intersection -7.0 A 10.0 A
Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.06 7.7 A 0.24 9.4 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.16 12.4 B 0.33 32.8 D
R 0.24 9.7 A 0.17 10.4 B
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.12 8.8 A 0.06 8.9 A
TR 0.15 8.8 A 0.08 8.8 A
WB L 0.14 9.6 A 0.56 14.9 B
T 0.10 8.7 A 0.20 8.9 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.04 8.2 A 0.02 8.6 A
R 0.26 8.7 A 0.15 8.5 A
Overall Intersection -8.8 A 11.8 B
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
66
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.20 7.8 A 0.08 7.5 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.12 9.8 A 0.34 10.4 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.8 A 0.18 8.1 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.36 12.3 B 0.31 16.0 C
Signalized
Center Street at Iowa Avenue
Center Street EB LTR 0.63 40.7 D 0.95 51.1 D
WB L 0.25 31.2 C 0.43 32.3 C
T 0.52 34.5 C 0.83 52.8 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.20 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.31 43.9 D 0.38 32.0 C
T 0.56 36.6 D 1.21 134.7 F
R 0.10 31.7 C 0.15 23.1 C
SB L 0.12 42.1 D 0.39 38.7 D
T 0.55 36.2 D 0.60 28.7 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 23.8 C
Overall Intersection -36.7 D 76.3 E
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.13 11.6 B 0.09 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.06 13.4 B
WB L 0.46 14.1 B 0.89 38.6 D
TR 0.03 11.0 B 0.30 14.8 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 32.0 C 0.09 24.7 C
T 0.36 20.1 C 0.86 23.5 C
R 0.11 18.6 B 0.26 13.9 B
SB L 0.43 28.4 C 0.32 26.3 C
T 0.54 20.3 C 0.64 17.1 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection -18.9 B 22.6 C
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.22 42.0 D 0.43 32.2 C
T 0.46 33.6 C 0.22 28.7 C
R 0.16 30.4 C 0.43 30.6 C
WB L 0.27 42.5 D 0.75 43.5 D
T 0.10 29.8 C 0.45 30.4 C
R 0.12 30.0 C 0.39 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.44 42.4 D 0.71 41.5 D
T 0.47 29.9 C 0.89 36.4 D
R 0.22 27.5 C 0.08 20.4 C
SB L 0.66 49.2 D 0.18 36.0 D
T 0.58 31.7 C 0.89 37.8 D
R 0.08 26.1 C 0.11 22.0 C
Overall Intersection -33.4 C 35.9 D
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Hunter Park Station - Columbia Option
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
67
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.32 27.5 C 0.45 28.6 C
TR 0.43 30.4 C 0.30 30.8 C
WB L 0.19 26.5 C 0.60 31.7 C
T 0.05 27.5 C 0.29 30.7 C
R 0.19 28.3 C 0.44 32.1 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 26.3 C 0.15 32.6 C
T 0.54 17.1 B 0.68 18.8 B
R 0.06 13.7 B 0.02 12.8 B
SB L 0.26 22.0 C 0.18 32.8 C
T 0.44 14.9 B 0.90 27.9 C
R 0.04 12.4 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection -18.0 B 25.2 C
Columbia Avenue at Station Access Road
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.38 6.7 A 0.09 5.2 A
T 0.17 5.5 A 0.08 5.1 A
WB TR 0.16 5.4 A 0.15 5.3 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.07 19.6 B 0.19 20.3 C
R 0.22 20.5 C 0.53 23.1 C
Overall Intersection -8.3 A 13.5 B
Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.06 7.6 A 0.22 9.4 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.21 12.4 B 0.32 29.8 D
R 0.20 9.5 A 0.17 10.5 B
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.13 9.1 A 0.09 9.1 A
TR 0.16 9.1 A 0.12 9.1 A
WB L 0.15 9.7 A 0.56 15.1 C
T 0.24 9.9 A 0.23 9.2 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.05 8.5 A 0.02 8.7 A
R 0.28 9.1 A 0.16 8.7 A
Overall Intersection -9.3 A 11.9 B
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.20 7.8 A 0.08 7.5 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.12 9.8 A 0.34 10.4 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.8 A 0.18 8.1 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.36 12.3 B 0.31 16.0 C
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
68
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
Center Street at Iowa Avenue
Center Street EB LTR 0.63 40.7 D 0.95 51.1 D
WB L 0.25 31.2 C 0.43 32.3 C
T 0.52 34.5 C 0.83 52.8 D
R 0.07 29.6 C 0.20 30.4 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.31 43.9 D 0.38 32.0 C
T 0.56 36.6 D 1.21 134.7 F
R 0.10 31.7 C 0.15 23.1 C
SB L 0.12 42.1 D 0.39 38.7 D
T 0.55 36.2 D 0.60 28.7 C
R 0.05 31.3 C 0.05 23.8 C
Overall Intersection -36.7 D 76.3 E
Palmyrita Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Palmyrita Avenue EB LT 0.13 11.6 B 0.09 13.6 B
R 0.02 10.9 B 0.06 13.4 B
WB L 0.46 14.1 B 0.89 38.6 D
TR 0.03 11.0 B 0.30 14.8 B
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 32.0 C 0.09 24.7 C
T 0.36 20.1 C 0.86 23.5 C
R 0.11 18.6 B 0.26 13.9 B
SB L 0.43 28.4 C 0.32 26.3 C
T 0.54 20.3 C 0.64 17.1 B
R 0.01 16.5 B 0.01 12.5 B
Overall Intersection -18.9 B 22.6 C
Columbia Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.22 42.0 D 0.44 32.8 C
T 0.34 32.2 C 0.18 28.9 C
R 0.29 31.7 C 0.48 31.7 C
WB L 0.19 41.8 D 0.63 37.1 D
T 0.07 29.6 C 0.39 30.3 C
R 0.04 29.3 C 0.14 28.7 C
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.50 43.2 D 0.81 49.3 D
T 0.49 30.2 C 0.92 39.6 D
R 0.11 26.4 C 0.05 19.9 B
SB L 0.28 40.9 D 0.07 35.8 D
T 0.67 33.6 C 0.91 41.3 D
R 0.08 26.1 C 0.11 22.4 C
Overall Intersection -33.1 C 38.6 D
Hunter Park Station - Marlborough Option
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
69
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Marlborough Avenue at Iowa Avenue
Marlborough Avenue EB L 0.32 27.5 C 0.45 28.6 C
TR 0.43 30.4 C 0.30 30.8 C
WB L 0.27 27.1 C 0.75 39.9 D
T 0.06 27.6 C 0.29 30.7 C
R 0.52 31.8 C 0.80 52.8 D
Iowa Avenue NB L 0.16 26.3 C 0.15 32.6 C
T 0.51 16.7 B 0.67 18.7 B
R 0.15 14.2 B 0.04 12.9 B
SB L 0.65 27.7 C 0.45 35.3 D
T 0.43 14.8 B 0.87 26.1 C
R 0.04 12.4 B 0.03 12.8 B
Overall Intersection -19.3 B 26.3 C
Columbia Avenue at Station Access Road
Columbia Avenue EB L 0.40 6.8 A 0.10 5.2 A
T 0.19 5.5 A 0.14 5.3 A
WB TR 0.19 5.5 A 0.21 5.6 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.07 19.6 B 0.19 20.3 C
R 0.22 20.5 C 0.53 23.1 C
Overall Intersection -8.2 A 12.1 B
Unsignalized
Palmyrita Avenue at Northgate Street
Palmyrita Avenue EB L 0.06 7.6 A 0.22 9.4 A
Northgate Street SB L 0.22 12.5 B 0.32 29.8 D
R 0.20 9.5 A 0.17 10.5 B
Columbia Avenue at Northgate Street
Columbia Avenue EB T 0.12 9.1 A 0.05 9.0 A
TR 0.15 9.1 A 0.08 8.9 A
WB L 0.30 11.2 B 0.60 16.2 C
T 0.10 8.8 A 0.21 9.1 A
Northgate Street NB L 0.05 8.5 A 0.02 8.6 A
R 0.31 9.4 A 0.21 9.0 A
Overall Intersection -9.7 A 12.5 B
Marlborough Avenue at Northgate Street
Marlborough Avenue EB LT 0.22 7.9 A 0.11 7.6 A
Northgate Street SB LR 0.20 9.9 A 0.35 10.5 B
Marlborough Avenue at Rustin Avenue
Marlborough Avenue WB L 0.03 7.9 A 0.19 8.3 A
Rustin Avenue NB LR 0.38 13.1 B 0.34 17.9 C
Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOSINTERSECTION & APPROACH
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
70
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
Cactus Avenue at Southbound I-215 Ramps
Cactus Avenue EB T 0.21 13.0 B 0.82 22.8 C
WB L 0.94 35.1 D 1.73 349.1 F
T 0.18 0.0 A 0.09 0.0 A
Overall Intersection -18.7 B 196.9 F
Cactus Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue EB L 0.34 14.9 B 0.49 17.1 B
TR 0.41 13.5 B 0.72 16.4 B
WB T 1.01 46.0 D 1.48 239.9 F
R 0.11 11.4 B 0.16 10.4 B
Old 215 NB L 0.38 16.0 B 0.26 20.0 B
TR 0.13 13.9 B 0.09 18.5 B
SB L 0.06 13.5 B 0.21 19.4 B
TR 0.16 14.1 B 0.31 20.3 C
Overall Intersection -32.2 C 146.3 F
Alessandro Boulevard at Old 215
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.33 29.1 C 0.51 38.4 D
T 0.58 20.1 C 0.93 36.9 D
WB L 0.14 28.1 C 0.10 35.7 D
T 0.77 24.4 C 0.77 26.1 C
Old 215 NB L 0.49 32.8 C 0.63 40.9 D
T 0.25 30.3 C 0.12 33.9 C
SB L 0.04 29.2 C 0.19 33.8 C
T 0.03 29.2 C 0.11 33.9 C
Overall Intersection -24.1 C 33.0 C
Alessandro Boulevard at Mission Grove Parkway
Alessandro Boulevard EB L 0.18 44.3 D 0.38 53.4 D
T 0.40 17.9 B 0.99 41.7 D
R 0.03 14.6 B 0.16 15.1 B
WB L 0.36 45.2 D 0.72 59.6 E
T 0.88 28.8 C 0.76 23.1 C
R 0.08 15.0 B 0.11 14.7 B
Mission Grove Parkway NB L 0.39 45.5 D 0.35 50.9 D
T 0.76 54.4 D 0.38 46.8 D
R 0.46 41.9 D 0.49 48.2 D
SB L 0.56 50.1 D 0.83 78.2 E
TR 0.34 40.2 D 0.32 45.9 D
Overall Intersection -29.7 C 37.2 D
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
[NS6]
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
71
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Signalized
SR-74 at Navajo Road
SR-74 EB L 0.13 26.9 C 0.23 30.5 C
T 0.28 4.8 A 0.52 5.3 A
WB TR 0.39 10.9 B 1.04 52.5 D
Navajo Road SB L 0.27 19.3 B 0.71 31.6 C
R 0.01 17.9 B 0.03 24.2 C
Overall Intersection -9.8 A 32.8 C
SR-74 at C Street
SR-74 EB L 0.61 21.3 C 0.92 50.4 D
TR 0.51 9.8 A 0.76 16.2 B
WB L 0.04 24.2 C 0.09 23.9 C
TR 0.80 25.9 C 0.97 41.5 D
C Street NB L 0.00 24.0 C 0.00 23.5 C
TR 0.07 20.0 B 0.12 19.8 B
SB L 0.08 24.4 C 0.09 23.9 C
TR 0.32 21.5 C 0.80 35.4 D
Overall Intersection -17.8 B 31.5 C
SR-74 at D Street
SR-74 EB L 0.62 32.6 C 0.62 32.5 C
TR 0.65 24.2 C 1.06 71.9 E
WB L 0.07 25.9 C 0.16 26.5 C
TR 0.46 21.5 C 0.75 26.9 C
D Street NB LT 0.43 21.5 C 1.32 192.7 F
R 0.02 18.1 B 0.09 18.6 B
SB LT 0.26 19.9 B 1.37 216.9 F
R 0.08 18.5 B 0.16 19.1 B
Overall Intersection -23.6 C 86.8 F
SR-74 at Perris Boulevard
SR-74 EB L 0.60 30.2 C 0.84 49.7 D
TR 0.44 17.1 B 0.70 20.6 C
WB L 0.18 25.0 C 0.56 36.4 D
TR 0.35 16.4 B 0.59 22.5 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.11 18.3 B 0.76 39.0 D
T 0.32 19.7 B 0.76 30.2 C
R 0.06 18.0 B 0.19 20.0 C
SB L 0.15 18.7 B 1.24 186.8 F
T 0.25 19.2 B 0.63 25.6 C
R 0.08 18.1 B 0.17 19.9 B
Overall Intersection -19.1 B 34.2 C
V/CINTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS LOS
Downtown Perris Station
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
72
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
San Jacinto Avenue at D Street
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.65 27.4 C 0.88 45.0 D
T 0.00 13.8 B 0.03 15.4 B
R 0.01 13.9 B 0.01 15.3 B
WB L 0.36 31.5 C 0.41 37.2 D
TR 0.29 26.0 C 0.64 37.5 D
D Street NB L 0.06 29.0 C 0.11 34.6 C
TR 0.67 23.8 C 0.85 40.7 D
SB L 0.52 33.7 C 0.61 37.0 D
T 0.45 19.6 B 0.67 22.4 C
R 0.19 17.7 B 0.47 18.6 B
Overall Intersection -24.2 C 32.7 C
San Jacinto Avenue at Perris Boulevard
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.18 30.0 C 0.71 48.4 D
TR 0.27 30.7 C 0.29 27.0 C
WB L 0.06 29.3 C 0.08 34.8 C
T 0.14 29.8 C 0.18 26.1 C
R 0.17 30.1 C 0.28 27.0 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.45 35.8 D 0.45 41.6 D
TR 0.36 11.7 B 0.90 44.1 D
SB L 0.14 32.6 C 0.47 41.8 D
TR 0.32 11.4 B 0.95 52.7 D
Overall Intersection -16.3 B 44.1 D
Nuevo Road at Perris Boulevard
Nuevo Road EB L 0.37 34.2 C 1.39 214.1 F
T 0.31 27.0 C 0.83 32.9 C
R 0.08 25.1 C 0.25 22.3 C
WB L 0.30 33.6 C 0.57 32.9 C
TR 0.25 26.4 C 0.47 26.5 C
R 0.05 24.9 C 0.31 25.8 C
Perris Boulevard NB L 0.40 34.0 C 0.88 52.2 D
T 0.17 28.0 C 0.57 25.5 C
R 0.10 27.5 C 0.28 23.3 C
SB L 0.22 38.7 D 0.95 66.0 E
T 0.19 31.1 C 0.82 32.8 C
R 0.05 15.3 B 0.52 16.7 B
Overall Intersection -29.4 C 65.7 E
Unsignalized
San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.14 10.8 B 0.26 16.5 C
TR 0.12 9.3 A 0.41 18.8 C
WB LT 0.37 13.3 B 1.68 338.3 F
R 0.07 8.6 A 0.58 21.6 C
Redlands Avenue NB LT 0.29 11.4 B 1.36 200.0 F
R 0.15 9.1 A 1.58 292.8 F
SB L 0.04 9.6 A 0.87 51.3 F
TR 0.41 12.8 B 0.44 18.2 C
Overall Intersection -11.6 B 194.7 F
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
73
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
San Jacinto Avenue at C Street
San Jacinto Avenue EB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.00 7.2 A
WB LT 0.08 7.5 A 0.33 8.4 A
C Street NB L 0.00 10.7 B 0.00 30.4 D
TR 0.24 9.4 A 0.23 8.0 A
SB LTR 0.01 14.2 B 0.15 33.8 D
6th Street at C Street
6th Street EB LTR 0.01 7.2 A 0.01 7.2 A
C Street NB LT 0.00 8.8 A 0.03 9.3 A
SB TR 0.02 9.4 A 0.05 9.3 A
6th Street at D Street
6th Street WB LR 0.01 10.6 B 0.06 11.3 B
D Street SB LT 0.00 7.8 A 0.01 7.8 A
7th Street at C Street
7th Street EB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.00 7.4 A
WB LTR 0.00 7.3 A 0.02 7.3 A
C Street NB LTR 0.01 8.7 A 0.02 8.8 A
SB LTR 0.03 9.1 A 0.08 10.3 B
7th Street at D Street
7th Street EB LTR 0.08 11.5 B 0.24 17.8 C
WB LTR 0.02 11.7 B 0.16 18.5 C
D Street NB LTR 0.00 7.5 A 0.03 8.0 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.8 A 0.01 7.9 A
7th Street at Perris Boulevard
7th Street EB LTR 0.07 11.8 B 0.27 22.8 C
WB LTR 0.01 11.2 B 0.19 18.0 C
Perris Boulevard NB LTR 0.00 7.7 A 0.00 8.3 A
SB LTR 0.00 7.9 A 0.01 8.2 A
Signalized
Relocated Mapes Road at Station Access Road
Relocated Mapes Road EB L 0.13 5.8 A 0.03 7.6 A
T 0.08 5.5 A 0.20 8.4 A
WB TR 0.33 6.6 A 0.18 8.3 A
Station Access Road SB L 0.14 17.6 B 0.92 38.8 D
R 0.04 17.1 B 0.19 14.4 B
Overall Intersection -7.3 A 21.4 C
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
South Perris Station
[NS7]
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
74
Table 7: 2012 Future Levels of Service with the Project (continued)
Control Control
Delay Delay
Unsignalized
Bonnie Drive at Southbound I-215 Ramps
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.30 78.5 F 1.51 320.2 F
R 0.36 18.7 C 1.78 397.2 F
Southbound I-215 Ramps NB L 0.63 15.9 C 0.47 15.5 C
SR-74 at Northbound I-215 Off Ramp
SR-74 EB L 0.01 8.7 A 0.03 8.3 A
Northbound I-215 Off-Ramp SB LR 0.80 43.9 E 0.69 42.5 E
SR-74 at Sherman Road
SR-74 EB L 0.09 13.4 B 0.08 10.5 B
WB L 0.11 10.1 B 0.21 14.5 B
Sherman Road NB L 1.02 304.4 F 2.00 854.1 F
R 0.21 12.6 B 0.42 20.6 C
SB LR 0.53 52.3 F 1.71 592.9 F
INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Station Parking
In general, auto-trip generation listed in Table 6 indicates the parking demand during the AM
and PM peak ridership hours, which in general, represents about half of the daily total demand
that would park at each PVL station. Thus, doubling the high auto park-and-ride volumes in this
table to account for the parking demand during the non-peak periods would yield a daily
demand of between approximately 230 and 540 spaces. The station designs would provide
between approximately 440 and 880 spaces to satisfy station auto demands, as follows:
Hunter Park – approximately 480 spaces provided; demand for approximately 300 spaces
(63% utilization)
Moreno Valley/March Field – approximately 445 spaces provided; demand for approximately
260 spaces (59%)
Downtown Perris – approximately 441 spaces provided; demand for approximately 230
spaces (52%)
South Perris – approximately 880 spaces provided; demand for approximately 540 spaces
(61%)
E. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant traffic impacts would be expected at six study intersections in total, Cactus Avenue at
Old 215, SR-74 at D Street, San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue, Bonnie Drive at
southbound I-215 ramps, SR-74 at northbound I-215 off-ramp, and SR-74 at Sherman Road.
However, these impacts could be mitigated as follows:
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
75
TT-1: Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for Moreno Valley/March Field Station)
Reduce north/southbound Old 215’s maximum green time to 15 seconds during the PM (5-6
PM) analysis hour. This will reduce delays for westbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement
from 244240 and to 119116 seconds and improve the overall intersection LOS from F with
152146 seconds of delay to E with 7672 seconds of delay, while maintaining LOS C for Old 215.
TT-2: SR-74 (4th Street) at D Street (for Downtown Perris Station)
Reduce the maximum green time for the east/westbound SR-74 left-turn phase to 14 seconds
during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour. Restripe north/southbound D Street approaches to
provide one left-turn and one through/right-turn shared lane. The levels of service for north and
southbound D Street’s through/left-turn movements and the overall intersection will be improved
beyond future levels of service without the project during the PM analysis hour with this
mitigation measure.
TT-3: San Jacinto Avenue at Redlands Avenue (for Downtown Perris Station)
Install a new traffic signal (see Appendix F for signal warrant analysis). Westbound San Jacinto
Avenue and northbound Redlands Avenue through/left-turn movements and southbound
Redlands Avenue left-turn movement would be improved from LOS F to D during the PM
analysis hour by this measure.
TT-34: Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps (for South Perris Station)
Install a new traffic signal (see Appendix F for signal warrant analysis). This will improve
eastbound Bonnie Drive’s right-turn movement from LOS F to B during the PM (5-6 PM)
analysis hour and left-turn movement from LOS F to C during the AM (6-7 AM) and PM analysis
hours.
TT-5: SR-74 at I-215 Off-Ramp (for South Perris Station)
Install a new traffic signal (see Appendix F for signal warrant analysis). This would reduce the
delays on I-215 off-ramp from 44 to 32 seconds during the AM, from 43 to 21 seconds during
the PM, and improve the LOS from E to C during both analysis hours.
TT-6: SR-74 at Sherman Road (for South Perris Station)
Install a new traffic signal (see Appendix F for signal warrant analysis). All movements would
operate within LOS C during both the AM and PM analysis hours with this mitigation measure.
Provision of traffic signals at the four unsignalized locations (listed above) is not warranted
solely based on the traffic volume increases as a result of the proposed Perris Valley Line. The
future traffic volumes without the proposed project would also require signalization at all four
locations.
RCTC shall design prepare civil engineering drawings for the above-proposed
improvements, and execute agreements with the affected jurisdictions to provide funding for the
installation of the signals or to install the signals in conjunction with the development of the
project. With these mitigation measures in place, the significant impacts of the proposed project
at the three above-mentioned intersections will be eliminated (out of the six locations where
significant impacts are expected, as shown in Table 8). At the remaining three locations where
significant impacts are expected (San Jacinto at Redlands Avenues, SR-74 at northbound I-215
off-ramp, and SR-74 at Sherman Road), traffic signals are planned to be installed by other
projects (unrelated to the PVL) as part of the future conditions without the project. Therefore, no
mitigation measures will need to be implemented by the proposed PVL project at these
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
76
intersections. However, in the event that the signalization of these three locations by other
projects (unrelated to the PVL) does not occur prior to the 2012 opening year of the PVL, the
installation of traffic signals at these additional locations will be incorporated as PVL project
featuresthe above mentioned intersections would be eliminated. Comparison of future levels of
service with and without the project, and with mitigation, is provided in Table 8.
TT-4: RCTC shall develop a traffic management plan in consultation with local jurisdictions to
minimize impacts to existing traffic levels of service. At a minimum, the traffic management plan
will address: detours; coordination with other construction projects (if applicable); length and
timing of any street closures; length and timing of any grade crossing closures; coordination with
police and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes; temporary access
routes and signage if any commercial properties are affected; and contact information for RCTC
and its contractors. With this measure in place, traffic will operate at acceptable levels.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
77
Table 8: 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures1
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project Mitigation
Measures
Significance After
Mitigation V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
PM Peak
TP-1:
Reduce
north/southbound
Old 215's
maximum green
time to 15
seconds.
Less than
significant.
Cactus Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue EB L 036 14.1 B 0.49 17.1 B L 0.41 8.6 A
TR 0.69 15.8 B 0.70 16.0 B TR 0.57 7.4 A
WB T 1.49 241.5 F 1.49 244.0 F T 1.23 119.0 F
R 0.07 9.8 A 0.07 9.8 A R 0.06 4.7 A
Old 215 NB L 0.25 19.8 B 0.26 20.0 B L 0.47 25.6 C
TR 0.09 18.5 B 0.09 18.5 B TR 0.15 22.5 C
SB L 0,21 19.4 B 0.21 19.4 B L 0.34 24.1 C
TR 0.30 20.2 C 0.31 20.3 C TR 0.52 25.5 C
Overall Intersection - 151.4 F 152.1 F 75.5 E
Downtown Perris Station
PM Peak
TP-2:
Restripe north/
southbound D
Street to provide
one left -turn and
one shared
through/ right-turn
lane.
Less than
significant.
SR-74 at D Street
SR-74 EB L 0.57 31.0 C 0.62 32.5 C L 0,62 325 C
TR 1.06 71.9 E 1.06 71.9 E TR 1.06 71.9 E
WB L 0.16 26.5 C 0.16 26.5 C L 0.16 26.5 C
TR 0.76 27.0 C 0.75 26.9 C TR 0.75 26.9 C
D Street NB LT 1.30 183.1 F 1.32 192.7 F L 0.55 24.5 C
R 0.09 18.6 B 0.09 18.6 B TR 0.58 23.6 C
SB LT 1.32 194.2 F 1.37 216.9 F L 0.46 22.6 C
R 0.17 19.2 B 0.16 19.1 B TR 0.60 24.1 C
Overall Intersection - 82.8 F 86.8 F - 42.8 B
TP-3:
Install new tra ffic
signal.
Less than
significant.
San Jacinto Avenue at
Redlands Avenue Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.26 16.5 C 0.26 16.5 C L 0.68 40.3 D
TR 0.41 18.8 C 0.41 18.8 C TR 0.56 30.2 C
WB LT 1.67 333.9 F 1.68 338.3 F L 0.94 44.0 D
R 0.58 21.6 C 0.58 21.6 C TR 0.57 18.2 B
1 As presented herein, a few individual turning movements would continue to operate below acceptable levels of service with mit igation measures. However, these would not be
considered impacts of the project per impact criteria, as the future conditions without the project would already be at unacceptable levels.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
78
Table 8: 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures (continued)
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project
Mitigation Measures Significance After
Mitigation V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
Downtown Perris Station (Continued)
Redlands Avenue NB LT 134 193.1 F 1.36 200.0 F L 0.66 36.7 D
R 1.56 284.2 F 1.58 292.8 F T 0.90 40.6 D
- - - - - - - R 0.66 6.6 A
SB L 0.87 51.3 F 0.87 51.3 F L 0.92 39.8 D
TR 0.44 18.2 C 0.44 18.2 C TR 0.32 16.0 B
Overall Intersection - 189.9 F 194.7 F - 27.9 C
South Perris Station
AM Peak
Bonnie Drive at Southbound
I-215 Ramps Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
TP-4:
Install new traffic
signal.
Less than
significant.
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.03 27.8 D 0.30 78.5 F - 0.07 25.9 C
R 0.30 17.5 C 0.36 18.7 C - 0.54 30.5 C
NB L 0.38 11.7 B 0.63 15.9 C - 0.91 36.5 D
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.20 3.6 A
Southbound I-215 SB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.89 32.0 C
Ramps R N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.08 13.2 B
Overall Intersection N/A - N/A - - 28.4 C
Less than
significant.
SR-74 at Northbound I-215
Off-Ramp Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
TP-5:
Install new traffic
signal.
SR-74 EB L 0.01 8.5 A 0.01 8.7 A - 0.02 4.5 A
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.52 11.9 B
WB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.31 10.3 B
Northbound I-215 Off-
Ramp SB LR 0.54 28.9 D 0.80 43.9 E - 0.77 32.2 C
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 14.9 B
SR-74 at Sherman Road
Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
TP-6:
Install new traffic
signal.
Less than
significant.
SR-74 EB L 0.09 12.8 B 0.09 13.4 B - 0.19 8.6 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.53 11.9 B
WB L 0.11 10.0 A 0.11 10.1 B - 0.24 5.7 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.83 17.9 B
Sherman Road NB L 0.71 192.7 F 1.02 304.4 F - 0.11 18.9 B
R 0.21 12.5 B 0.21 12.6 B - 0.35 20.5 C
SB LR 0.46 43.4 E 0.53 52.3 F - 0.19 19.4 B
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 15.6 B
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
79
Table 8: 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures (continued)
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project
Mitigation Measures Significance After
Mitigation V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
South Perris Station (Continued)
PM Peak
TP-4:
Install new traffic
signal.
Less than
significant.
Bonnie Drive at
Southbound I-215
Ramps
Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.06 28.4 D 1.51 320.2 F - 0.52 22.2 C
R 1.20 159.4 F 1.78 397.2 F - 0.68 17.2 B
Southbound I-215
Ramps NB L 0.40 14.3 B 0.47 15.5 C - 0.86 35.3 D
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.17 4.3 A
SB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 1.00 40.8 D
R N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.01 7.1 A
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 30.2 C
TP-5:
Install new traffic
signal.
Less than
significant.
SR-74 at Northbound I-215
Off-Ramp Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
SR-74 EB L 0.02 8.2 A 0.03 8.3 A - 0.05 4.5 A
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.82 17.7 B
WB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.27 10.0 A
Northbound I-215 Off-
Ramp SB LR 0.59 32.9 D 0.69 42.5 E - 0.46 21.4 C
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 16.2 B
TP-6:
Install new traffic
signal.
Less than
significant.
SR-74 at Sherman Road Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
SR-74 EB L 0.07 10.4 B 0.08 10.5 B - 0.18 6.0 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.82 17.8 B
WB L 0.19 13.4 B 0.21 14.5 B - 0.41 10.1 B
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.60 12.8 B
Sherman Road NB L 1.48 563.9 F 2.00 854.1 F - 0.12 18.9 B
R 0.39 18.6 C 0.42 20.6 C - 0.46 21.6 C
SB LR 1.40 431.7 F 1.71 529.9 F - 0.19 19.2 B
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 15.8 B
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
80
Table 8: 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures1
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH
Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project Mitigation
Measures Notes V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
PM Peak
TT-1:
Reduce
north/southbound
Old 215's
maximum green
time to 15
seconds.
Less than
significant after
mitigation.
Cactus Avenue at Old 215
Cactus Avenue EB L 0.36 14.1 B 0.49 17.1 B L 0.41 8.6 A
TR 0.71 16.2 B 0.72 16.4 B TR 0.59 7.6 A
WB T 1.48 237.4 F 1.48 239.9 F T 1.22 115.7 F
R 0.16 10.4 B 0.16 10.4 B R 0.13 4.9 A
Old 215 NB L 0.25 19.8 B 0.26 20.0 B L 0.47 25.6 C
TR 0.09 18.5 B 0.09 18.5 B TR 0.15 22.5 C
SB L 0.21 19.4 B 0.21 19.4 B L 0.34 24.1 C
TR 0.30 20.2 C 0.31 20.3 C TR 0.52 25.5 C
Overall Intersection - 145.6 F 146.3 F 71.8 E
Downtown Perris Station
PM Peak
TT-2:
Reduce the
maximum green
time for the
east/westbound
SR-74 left-turn
phase to 14
seconds.
Less than
significant after
mitigation.
SR-74 at D Street
SR-74 EB L 0.57 31.0 C 0.62 32.5 C L 0.66 34.3 C
TR 1.06 71.9 E 1.06 71.9 E TR 1.05 67.0 E
WB L 0.16 26.5 C 0.16 26.5 C L 0.17 26.9 C
TR 0.76 27.0 C 0.75 26.9 C TR 0.74 26.0 C
D Street NB LT 1.30 183.1 F 1.32 192.7 F LT 1.29 176.5 F
R 0.09 18.6 B 0.09 18.6 B R 0.09 18.2 B
SB LT 1.32 194.2 F 1.37 216.9 F LT 1.32 193.7 F
R 0.17 19.2 B 0.16 19.1 B R 0.16 18.7 B
Overall Intersection - 82.8 F 86.8 F - - 80.2 F
San Jacinto Avenue at
Redlands Avenue Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
San Jacinto Avenue EB L 0.26 16.5 C 0.26 16.5 C L 0.68 40.3 D
Installation of
a new traffic
signal to be
completed by
a private
developer as
part of an
unrelated
development
TR 0.41 18.8 C 0.41 18.8 C TR 0.56 30.2 C
WB LT 1.67 333.9 F 1.68 338.3 F L 0.94 44.0 D
R 0.58 21.6 C 0.58 21.6 C TR 0.57 18.2 B
Redlands Avenue NB LT 1.34 193.1 F 1.36 200.0 F L 0.66 36.7 D
R 1.56 284.2 F 1.58 292.8 F T 0.90 40.6 D
- - - - - - - R 0.66 6.6 A
SB L 0.87 51.3 F 0.87 51.3 F L 0.92 39.8 D
TR 0.44 18.2 C 0.44 18.2 C TR 0.32 16.0 B
Overall Intersection - 189.9 F 194.7 F - 27.9 C
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
81
Table 8: 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures (continued)
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH
Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project Mitigation
Measures Notes V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
South Perris Station
AM Peak
Bonnie Drive at Southbound I -
215 Ramps Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized TT-3:
Install new
traffic signal.
Less than
significant
after
mitigation.
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.03 27.8 D 0.30 78.5 F L 0.07 25.9 C
R 0.30 17.5 C 0.36 18.7 C R 0.54 30.5 C
Southbound I-215 NB L 0.38 11.7 B 0.63 15.9 C L 0.91 36.5 D
Ramps T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.20 3.6 A
SB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.89 32.0 C
R N/A N/A - N/A N/A - R 0.08 13.2 B
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 28.4 C
SR-74 at Northbound I -215 Off-
Ramp Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
Installation of a
new traffic
signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part
of another
program. The
signal will be in
operation for the
2012 opening
year.
SR-74 EB L 0.01 8.5 A 0.01 8.7 A L 0.02 4.5 A
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.52 11.9 B
WB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.31 10.3 B
Northbound I-215
Off-Ramp SB LR 0.54 28.9 D 0.80 43.9 E LR 0.77 32.2 C
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 14.9
B
SR-74 at Sherman Road Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized
Installation of a
new traffic
signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part
of another
program. The
signal will be in
operation for the
2012 opening
year.
SR-74 EB L 0.09 12.8 B 0.09 13.4 B L 0.19 8.6 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.53 11.9 B
WB L 0.11 10.0 A 0.11 10.1 B L 0.24 5.7 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.83 17.9 B
Sherman Road NB L 0.71 192.7 F 1.02 304.4 F L 0.11 18.9 B
R 0.21 12.5 B 0.21 12.6 B R 0.35 20.5 C
SB LR 0.46 43.4 E 0.53 52.3 F LR 0.19 19.4 B
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 15.6 B
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
82
Table 8: 2012 Future Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures (continued)
INTERSECTION &
APPROACH
Mvt.
Without Project With Project
Mvt.
Mitigated With Project Mitigation
Measures Notes V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS V/C Control
Delay LOS
South Perris Station (Continued)
PM Peak
Bonnie Drive at
Southbound I -215
Ramps
Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized TT-3:
Install new
traffic
signal.
Less than
significant
after
mitigation
Bonnie Drive EB L 0.06 28.4 D 1.51 320.2 F L 0.52 22.2 C
R 1.20 159.4 F 1.78 397.2 F R 0.68 17.2 B
Southbound I-215
Ramps NB L 0.40 14.3 B 0.47 15.5 C L 0.86 35.3 D
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.17 4.3 A
SB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 1.00 40.8 D
R N/A N/A - N/A N/A - R 0.01 7.1 A
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 30.2 C
SR-74 at Northbound I -215 Off-
Ramp Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Installation of a
new traffic
signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part
of another
program. The
signal will be in
operation for the
2012 opening
year.
SR-74 EB L 0.02 8.2 A 0.03 8.3 A L 0.05 4.5 A
T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.82 17.7 B
WB T N/A N/A - N/A N/A - T 0.27 10.0 A
Northbound I-215
Off-Ramp SB LR 0.59 32.9 D 0.69 42.5 E LR 0.46 21.4 C
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 16.2 B
SR-74 at Sherman Road Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Installation of a
new traffic
signal to be
completed by
Caltrans as part
of another
program. The
signal will be in
operation for the
2012 opening
year.
SR-74 EB L 0.07 10.4 B 0.08 10.5 B L 0.18 6.0 A
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.82 17.8 B
WB L 0.19 13.4 B 0.21 14.5 B L 0.41 10.1 B
TR N/A N/A - N/A N/A - TR 0.60 12.8 B
Sherman Road NB L 1.48 563.9 F 2.00 854.1 F L 0.12 18.9 B
R 0.39 18.6 C 0.42 20.6 C R 0.46 21.6 C
SB LR 1.40 431.7 F 1.71 529.9 F LR 0.19 19.2 B
Overall Intersection - N/A - N/A - - 15.8 B
Notes : As presented herein, a few individual turning movements would continue to operate below acceptable levels o f service with mitigation measures. However, these would not be
considered impacts of the project per impact criteria, as the future conditions without the project would already be at unacc eptable levels.
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
83
F. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS
The construction activities for the proposed PVL would result in an increase of auto and truck
trips generated by construction crews and the delivery/removal of materials to and from the
construction sites. It should be noted that the delivery of construction materials and equipment,
such as the rail, rail ties, ballast, and specialized track equipment, would be accomplished using
the existing rail, as opposed to being delivered by truck. The volume of construction traffic
would be expected to be modest (less than 50 vehicles per hour) given that no significant
excavation is expected, and most construction-related materials deliveries would likely occur
during non-peak hours so as to limit congestion along adjacent roads. In addition, traffic
diversions would occur during partial and complete roadway and grade crossing closures. As a
result, the construction activities could potentially create short-termtemporary significant traffic
impacts although, due to their temporary nature, such impacts may be tolerated and the
thresholds of significance during construction periods may be redefined by reviewing agencies
(Mitigation Measure TT-74). RCTC will develop a traffic management plan in consultation with
local jurisdictions to determine detours, length and timing of any closures, temporary access
routes, and signage that will contain measures proven to improve traffic levels of service andto
mitigate significantthese potential impacts to acceptable levels. RCTC will be responsible for
the development and enforcement of this measure.
In terms of estimated truck volumes, the cut/fill estimates were examined to identify volumes of
earth that would potentially be moved off site. A conservative approach estimated truck
volumes using an average number of tons of material in a cubic yard of earth (1.35 tons/cubic
yards) and the typical weight capacity of a dump truck (15 tons/truck). Also, a single work shift
was included, though two work shifts per day would be more likely. The estimate yields 30
empty trucks in and 30 filled truck trips out. Again, using a single work shift, this would indicate
on average four “ins” and four “outs” each hour, which is a low figure not likely to generate any
significant traffic impact. Moreover, the cut/fill estimates were calculated for the entire corridor,
so it is unlikely that any volume of truck trips would be concentrated in any particular area or
through any one intersection.
G. FUTURE CONDITION
In the future, it would be expected that the PVL would experience an increase in ridership to a
total of 7,054 passengers during each of the AM and PM peak periods based on ridership
projections.6 RCTC also expects to identify additional funding to support the completion of the
PVL full build out. Thus, when ridership increases and additional funding is identified, RCTC
would construct two additional stations in the future, Ramona Station and UC Riverside Station,
in addition to the four stations that would be completed by the opening year of 2012 (Hunter
Park, Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris and South Perris stations).
The proposed UCR Station would be located north of Watkins Drive between Blaine Street and
Mount Vernon Avenue. This station would not include a parking area. The proposed Ramona
Station would be located south of Cajalco Expressway and east of Harvill Avenue; this station
would have an associated parking area with a capacity of approximately 500 vehicles. It is also
expected that the parking lots of the four opening year stations would be enlarged to
accommodate projected increases in ridership, as summarized in Table 9 below.
6 Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2009
Perris Valley Line - Traffic Technical Report Riverside County Transportation Commission
84
Table 9: Station Parking Lot Capacities
Station 2012 Opening Year Future Condition
Hunter Park 480 570
UC Riverside 0 0
Moreno Valley/March Field 445 660
Ramona 0 500
Downtown Perris 440 740
South Perris 880 1,390
As the new stations and parking lot expansions are promulgated by RCTC as a result of
increased ridership and the availability of funding, RCTC will prepare supplemental analyses for
the purpose of identifying impacts and appropriate mitigation. The opening year stations would
not be expanded, and additional stations would not be built unless RCTC identifies a need for
and then, additional sources of funding. Therefore, when these conditions are met, RCTC will
commit to preparation of new reviews under CEQA, and developing mitigation appropriate to
future conditions. In this manner, RCTC can be responsive, and committed to undertaking its
fair proportion of traffic mitigation measures related to the PVL.
DRAFT
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report December 22, 2009
REVISED HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Project Location:
The project is located in western Riverside County, extending 24 miles between the
Cities of Riverside and Perris.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle maps:
Riverside East, San Bernardino South, Steele Peak, and Perris
Prepared for:
County of Riverside
Environmental Programs Department
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92502
On Behalf of:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
Prepared by:
KLEINFELDER
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 320-2000
December 22, 2009
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page i of ii December 22, 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................1-1
1.2 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................1-8
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................1-9
1.5 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................1-9
1.6 PROJECT AREA SOILS ...................................................................................1-10
2.0 MSHCP SETTING .........................................................................................................2-1
2.1 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE MSHCP ...................................................2-2
2.2 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA WITHIN MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS ..........2-2
2.3 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO MSHCP CORES AND LINKAGES ...................2-4
2.4 OTHER MSHCP FEATURES ............................................................................2-7
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATAB ASE REVIEW ...................................................................3-1
3.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES ................................................................3-1
3.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES ...........................................................3-4
3.3 STEPHENS’ KANGAROO RAT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ..................3-7
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE .........................................................................................4-1
4.1 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................4-1
4.2 HABITAT COMMUNITIES .................................................................................4-1
5.0 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES ...................................5-1
5.2 POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ..............................5-3
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................6-1
7.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................7-1
TABLES
Table 1.2-1 Project USGS 7.5-Minute Topographical Quadrangle Maps Information .......................1-7
Table 1.2-2 Proposed Station and Connection Sites .........................................................................1-7
Table 1.6-1 PVL Corridor Soil Mapping Units ..................................................................................1-12
Table 2.2-1 MSHCP Conservation Criteria for PVL Project Applicable Criteria Cells .......................2-3
Table 2.3-1 PVL Project Applicable MSHCP Cores and Linkages ....................................................2-6
Table 3.1-1 Listed Sensitive Plant Species .........................................................................3-2
Table 3.2-1 Listed Special Status Wildlife Species ............................................................................3-4
FIGURES
Figure 1.2-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ..............................................................................................1-2
Figure 1.2-2 San Bernardino South USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle...............................................................1-3
Figure 1.2-3 Riverside East USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle ...........................................................................1-4
Figure 1.2-4 Steele Peak USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle ...............................................................................1-5
Figure 1.2-5 Perris USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle .........................................................................................1-6
APPENDIX
A Project APN List (In Progress: working with Epic Land Solutions to Finalize)
DRAFT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page ii of ii December 22, 2009
APNs Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
I-215 Interstate 215
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
MP Mile Post
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MSL Mean Sea Level
NEPS Narrow Endemic Plant Species
PVL Perris Valley Line
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
ROW Right-of-Way
SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority
SJBL San Jacinto Branch Line
SKR Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat
SKRHCP Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
SR State Route
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page 1-1 December 22, 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to extend commuter rail
service from the existing Riverside Downtown Station approximately 24 miles to south of the
City of Perris in western Riverside County, California. This new rail extension, known as the
Perris Valley Line (PVL), will be operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(SCRRA), the operators of the SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail system in southern California.
The PVL would utilize the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad mainline to the
San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL).To connect the BNSF and the SJBL a new connection, called
the Citrus Connection, will be created to streamline operations using a curved segment of new
connecting rail on parcels to be acquired in the City of Riverside.
Four stations would be provided at Hunter Park (one of three proximate sites), Moreno
Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris and South Perris. A Layover Facility for overnight storage
and light maintenance of trains would also be provided near the South Perris station.
Replacement and rehabilitation of existing rail and railroad ties would be undertaken along with
installation of a second track along a nine-mile segment of existing track parallel to Interstate
215 (I-215)and the existing freight track between Mile Post (MP) 7.9 and 16.9. There would be
replacement of two bridges, one over the San Jacinto River (MP 20.70) and the other at the San
Jacinto River Overflow Channel (MP 20.80). Along the SJBL corridor, there would be culvert
extension or replacement at approximately designated locations.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
This Habitat Assessment was prepared to assess the potential presence of biological and
natural resources along the proposed Perris Valley Line (PVL) project in Riverside County,
California. The information in this report will be used to assist in the evaluation of potential
project impacts to biological resources. Additionally, the proposed project falls within the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation
Area.Under the MSHCP, Habitat Assessments are required to be prepared for activities
proposed within the Conservation Area to assess whether special status species and/or habitats
covered under the MSHCP have the potential to occur within the project area.This Habitat
Assessment will also be used as a basis for completion of the Determination of Biologically
Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report and the MSHCP Consistency
Determination, as required under the MSHCP regulations.
1.2 STUDY AREA
The PVL project is located in western Riverside County, California. The project proposes to
extend commuter rail service into the I-215 corridor between the Cities of Riverside, Moreno
Valley, and Perris as shown in Figure 1.2-1.The study area can be found in four of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps: Riverside East, San
Bernardino South, Steele Peak, and Perris and are shown in Figure 1.2-2,Figure 1.2-3, Figure
1.2-4, and Figure 1.2-5.The township, range, and sections for the 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle maps information are listed in Table 1.2-1.
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
PERRIS
ROMOLAND
UC RIVERSIDE
MARCH
AIR
RESERVE
BASE
·|}þ74
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ60
·|}þ91
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
HIGHGROVE
SAN JACINTO RIVERLAKE
PERRIS
NUEVO RDIOWA AVEA STRAMONA EXY
RIDER STDAY STOLEANDER AVE
VAN BUREN BLV
ALESSANDRO BLV
H
A
R
L
E
Y
J
O
H
N
R
DWASHINGTON ST14TH ST
3RD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTER AVECOLUMBIA AVE
IRONWOOD AVE
PERRIS BLVPIGEON PASS RDSAN JACINTO AVE
CACTUS AVE
WOOD RDMAPES RD
HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
1.2-1
92666
9/15/09
JP
RM
92666vicHAR_EIR.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP
10120.5
Miles
±
Basemap Source: STV Incorporated
10-3-08
Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
South Perris and
Layover Facility
Downtown Perris
Moreno Valley/
March Field
CALIFORNIA
PROJECT
AREA
"
www.kleinfelder.com
LEGEND
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PVL ALIGNMENT
CONNECTING TRACK
!R
!R
Hunter Park
HUNTER PARK AREA
COLUMBIA
(WEST SIDE)
MARLBOROUGH
(WEST SIDE)
PALMYRITA
(EAST SIDE)
Citrus Connection
NOTE: ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED SITES WILL BE SELECTED
!R
Citrus Connection
Hunter ParkINTERSTATE 215INTERSTATE 10
1.2-2
92666
9/15/09
JP
RM
92666quad1EIR.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURESAN BERNARDINO SOUTH
USGS 7.5' QUADRANGLE
±
www.kleinfelder.com
LEGEND
PROPOSED STATION
PVL ALIGNMENT
!R0 6,000 12,000
Feet
RIVERSIDE EAST
HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
!R
!R Riverside
Downtown
(Existing)
Moreno Valley/March Field
HIGHWAY 60
I
NTERSTATE 215I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
2
1
5
/
H
I
G
H
WA
Y
6
0HIGHWAY 90I-215HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
1.2-3
92666
12/21/09
JP
CC
92666quad2EIR.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURERIVERSIDE EAST
USGS 7.5' QUADRANGLE
±
www.kleinfelder.com
LEGEND
EXISTING STATION
PROPOSED STATION
PVL ALIGNMENT
!R
!R
0 6,000 12,000
Feet
SAN BERNARDINO SOUTH
STEELE PEAK
1.2-4
92666
9/18/09
JP
RM
92666quad3EIR.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGURESTEELE PEAK
USGS 7.5' QUADRANGLE
±
www.kleinfelder.com
LEGEND
PVL ALIGNMENT
0 6,000 12,000
Feet
STEELE PEAK
PERRISHABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
!R
!R Downtown Perris
South Perris
Layover
Facility
IN
T
E
R
S
TA
T
E 215
LAKE PERRIS
HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
1.2-5
92666
9/18/09
JP
RM
92666quad4EIR.MXD
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of
sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the
use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product
nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse
of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
FIGUREPERRIS
USGS 7.5' QUADRANGLE
±
www.kleinfelder.com
LEGEND
PROPOSED STATION
PVL ALIGNMENT
!R0 6,000 12,000
FeetSTEELE PEAK
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page 1-7 December 22, 2009
Table 1.2-1
Project USGS 7.5-minute Topographical Quadrangle Maps Information
Quadrangle Map Township and
Range Section
Riverside East
T3S-R4W
T2S-R4W
T2S-R5W
3, 4, 10, 14, 15, 23, 26
18, 19, 20,21, 28, 33
13, 23, 24, 26
San Bernardino South T2S-R4W 7, 18
Steel Peak T3S-R4W 26, 35, 36
Perris
T4S-R3W
T4S-R4W
T5S-R3W
18, 19, 30, 31, 32
12, 13
4, 5, 9
The study area consists of approximately 527 acres that include the existing right-of-way (ROW)
for the BNSF and SJBL alignments, four stations and associated parking lots, and a layover
facility. Detailed information regarding the project features, location, current ownership and land
use, and project mile post (MP) locations are provided in Table 1.2-2. The MPs for the PVL
project along the SJBL, as shown in Figure 1.2-6. A list of the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs) can be found in Appendix A.
Table 1-1
Proposed Station and Connection Sites
Project Feature Location Current Ownership and
Land Use MP
BNSF mainline
From the Existing Riverside Downtown station,
adjacent to Vine Street, to the Citrus
Connection, immediately south of Villa Street
Owned by BNSF, currently
used for rail operations 10.4 to 8.9 BNSF
Citrus Connection
Bounded by Citrus Street (south), Villa Street
(north), BNSF (southwest) and SJBL
(southeast) mainlines; in the City of Riverside
Privately owned vacant
parcels
8.9 and 0.4 BNSF
and SJBL,
respectively
SJBL mainline
Bounded by the Citrus Connection at Villa
Street to the intersection of Case Road and
Mapes Road prior to the ramp for I-215
Owned by RCTC, currently
used for freight operations 0.4 to 22.0 SJBL
Hunter Park Station
sites: Palmyrita,
Columbia, and
Marlborough
Bounded by Palmyrita Avenue, Columbia
Avenue, SJBL, Northgate Street for Palmyrita
site; bounded by SJBL and Columbia Avenue
for Columbia site; bounded by SJBL and
Marlborough Avenue for Marlborough site
Palmyrita is privately owned
parcel with abandoned
warehouse facility
Columbia currently has citrus
trees and Marlborough is
vacant.
1.2 SJBL
Moreno Valley/ March
Field Station
Bounded by Alessandro Boulevard, Meridian
Parkway, Cactus Avenue, and SJBL
Owned by the March Joint
Power Authority, to be
donated to RCTC, currently
vacant
8.6 SJBL
Downtown Perris
Station
Bounded by San Jacinto Avenue, 1st Street,
2nd Street, 3rd Street, 4th Street, C Street, D
Street, and SJBL
RCTC owned but site
partially developed by the
Perris Intermodal Center
development
18.2 SJBL
South Perris Station
and Layover Facility
Bounded by Murrieta Road,Bonnie Drive, and
Mapes,east of Case Road, prior to the ramp
for I-215
One parcel owned by RCTC
numerous others one
privately owned, vacant
parcels
20.9 SJBL
South Perris
21.6 SJBL
Layover Facility
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page 1-8 December 22, 2009
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 2012 opening year of the PVL is proposing the construction of four stations, the Citrus
Connection, a Layover Facility, and short stub-ended side tracks to be built now as part of the
Maintenance-of-way Facility that will be eventually built. Each of the stations would be
constructed at-grade, with 680-feet long side platforms. In addition to the platform, there will be
a track-side canopy structure, ticket kiosks, schedule information, a shelter comprised of mast -
supported roof planes (sloped to facilitate drainage), and decorative fencing to direct riders to
the appropriate areas for either boarding or disembarking from trains. All parking areas would
be at-grade. Each station and facility is described below in greater detail.
Citrus Connection will connect the BNSF to the SJBL, a new approximately 2,000-foot long
track will be constructed north of Springbrook Wash. It is located near the Highgrove area at
Citrus Street.
Hunter Park Station will be located at one of three proximate sites.The Palmyrita Station
option is proposed for the east side of the SJBL main track at Iowa Avenue between
Palmyrita and Columbia Streets. The Columbia and Marlborough Station options have been
identified along the west side of the main track, with entry and exit from Columbia and
Marlborough Streets, respectively. Any of these station options can accommodate parking
for approximately 480 vehicles. Selection of the Palmyrita Station option also will require a
new main track to be constructed east of the existing SJBL between Citrus Street and
Marlborough Avenue to accommodate the station.
Moreno Valley/March Field Station will be located south of Alessandro Boulevard on property
owned by the March Joint Powers Authority and donated to RCTC for the purpose of
constructing the station and parking lot. The associated parking area will have a capacity of
approximately 445 vehicles.
Downtown Perris Station is to be located between C and Fourth Streets at the existing Perris
Multimodal Transit Facility. The only improvements to be undertaken by RCTC will include
the expansion of the existing parking capacity by approximately 441 spaces and track
realignment within the ROW to allow for proper spacing between the platform and the train.
The Perris Multimodal Transit Facility currently includes eight bus bays and five canopies.
South Perris Station will be located north of I-215 near the intersection of the SJBL ROW and
State Route 74 (SR-74). Parking at this station will be provided for approximately 880
vehicles.
Layover Facility will be located south of the South Perris Station and north of I-215. The
Layover Facility will accommodate four 8-car trains arriving from Riverside in the afternoon.
Trains will be stored overnight on the four storage tracks (approximately 800 feet in length),
and will receive service, cleaning, and operational testing prior to morning departures. The
Layover Facility will include an employee support building with modular offices, storage,
parking, and a crew restroom and break room. The employee support building will be raised
by six feet to remain out of the 100-year floodplain.
Culvert Replacement and Extension: There are approximately 53 drainage culverts along the
SJBL that were evaluated in an Existing Conditions Report (JL Patterson & Associates, Inc.,
2008). Within this evaluation, it was identified that 30 drainage culverts will be replaced or
extended as part of the project. Of the 30 identified for replacement, eight are treated wood
box culverts and will be replaced with reinforced concrete boxes.
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page 1-9 December 22, 2009
Bridge Replacements: There are two bridges along the PVL corridor that require
replacement, one at the San Jacinto River (MP 20.7) and a second at the San Jacinto River
Overflow Channel (MP 20.8). The current San Jacinto River single track bridge is an open
deck pile wooden trestle of 142 feet in length. The replacement bridge will be a pre-stressed
concrete box girder superstructure with new abutments that will be precast concrete on steel
piles. The San Jacinto Overflow Channel single track bridge (MP 20.8) is an open-deck pile
wooden trestle. The existing structure is approximately 56 feet long. The replacement bridge
will consist of precast pre-stressed concrete slabs with new abutments that will be precast
concrete on steel piles.
Grade Crossings: As required by the California Public Utilities Commission, modifications will
be made to several grade crossings to ensure public safety and facilitate safe train
movements. These modifications include improvements to several grade crossings, as well
as the closure of other grade crossings.The proposed improvements include flashing
warning devices and gates, raised center medians, striping, signage and pavement markings,
crossing safety lighting, and pedestrian safety improvements.
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project study area is approximately 527 acres and includes approximately 24 miles of rail
alignment between the Cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris. The project features will
include four proposed station sites, a layover facility, a maintenance-of-way facility (within the
SJBL ROW ), replacement of two bridges, and the Citrus Connection. The climate is relatively
arid due to the rain shadow caused by the Santa Ana Mountains located west of the area. The
climate in the County of Riverside is characterized by mild winters, hot and dry summers, and
low average annual rainfall. The annual total precipitation has ranged from 2.15 inches to 7.35
feet in Riverside for seasons 2005 to 2009 (Weather Currents, 2009).
Topographically, the project area can generally be characterized as gently ascending from
approximately 960 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northern end and rises to an
approximate elevation of 1200 feet MSL near the University of Calif ornia Riverside area. The
elevation then increases to approximately 1500 feet MSL at Box Springs and continues to gently
rise to approximately 1540 feet MSL. Topography remains generally level for the remaining
project area with a gentle descent in elevation to 1415 MSL near the terminus in south Perris.
The existing railroad was built in the late 1880s and railroad related activities have occurred
within the ROW since that time. Areas adjacent to the railroad right-of-way vary greatly, and
range from relatively undisturbed parkland to developed residential areas, commercial and
agricultural land uses. This chapter provides a description of the factors effecting habitat
distribution and availability.
1.5 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The general drainage pattern within the study area of western Riverside County and its relation
to the existing rail alignment is as follows. As the PVL alignment leaves the Citrus Connection
and travels south, it forms the boundary between Islander Park and Box Springs Mountain and
enters Box Springs Canyon. The general drainage is flowing east to west, out of Box Springs
Mountains under the alignment onto lower ground towards the west. In Box Springs Canyon the
general flow is along the canyon, parallel to the alignment. The alignment then exits Box
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page 1-10 December 22, 2009
Springs Canyon and travels south into Perris Valley. In this area the alignment topography is
relatively flat and runs along a set of hills on the western side of the valley. The drainage flows
out of the hills from west to east across the alignment, then southwest towards the San Jacinto
River. The San Jacinto River flows from the San Jacinto Mountains in the east, crosses under
the alignment at the south end of Perris Valley and continues to flow down Railroad Canyon,
into Canyon Lake,and on to Lake Elsinore.
1.5.1 San Jacinto River
The San Jacinto River originates in the San Jacinto Mountains and passes through the cities of
San Jacinto, Perris, Canyon Lake, and Lake Elsinore and eventually to the Santa Ana River.
The river is an important regional resource that provides water supply, wildlife habitat, drainage
and recreation to the region. Flood control structures on the river consist of levees in the City of
San Jacinto built by the Army Corps of Engineers in the early 1960s. In the 30-mile reach of the
river between the City of San Jacinto and Lake Elsinore, only minor channelization exists. The
river is characterized by expansive overflow areas, including Mystic Lake, in the upper
watershed.
The San Jacinto River watershed upstream of the existing railroad bridges on the SJBL (MP
20.70 and 20.80) covers approximately 518 square miles (AECOM, 2009). Flow rates in the
project area are significantly influenced by upstream detention provided by Mystic Lake and the
wide flat topography that makes up the Perris Valley. The Perris Valley is extremely flat causing
flood waters to move slowly and spread out over a broad area. The expanse of flooding in Perris
Valley is further affected by the sudden constriction presented at the entrance to the upper end
of Railroad Canyon located southwest of the City of Perris. The restriction of flow and flat
topography of the valley causes a ponding situation and flood waters backup for a distance of
over seven miles upstream.
Runoff in the upper valley flows to Mystic Lake, a natural sump formed by local subsidence.
During large storms when water from the upper San Jacinto River overflows into the depression
a lake forms. The lake is relatively shallow and has a large surface area. When full, Mystic Lake
has been observed to maintain a substantial amount of volume with little or no transport back to
the San Jacinto River. During torrential rainfall events or periods of extended rain, the storage
capacity of the lake is exceeded resulting in outlflow to the San Jacinto River.
1.6 PROJECT AREA SOILS
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), provide
soil survey mapping units characterizing the types and distribution of soils within the PVL
corridor. This information was taken from the Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California
(NRCS, 1971). Detailed soil descriptions were developed from the soil survey publications
(NRCS, 1971 and National Cooperative Soil Survey, 2008) and from the Official Soil
Descriptions (NRCS, 2008). Specific site soils and their characteristics are shown in Table 1.6-
1.
1.6.1 BNSF Alignment
According to the Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area California, there were five soil mapping
units present within the BNSF Alignment. Four out of the five soils mapped in this area were
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page 1-11 December 22, 2009
characterized as sandy loams including the Arlington fine (AoC), Buren fine (BuC2), Greenfield
(GyC2), and Hanford Coarse (HcC). Each of the sandy loam soils were described as having 2 to
8 percent slopes, and eroded. Terrace escarpments (TeG)were also mapped within the BNSF
alignment. Terrace escarpments are typically described with 30 to 75 percent slopes, and highly
susceptible to water erosion.
1.6.2 SJBL Alignment
There are 38 soil mapping units present within the SJBL corridor. The majority of the soil types
(approximately 80 percent) are classified as sandy loams, which generally have slow to
moderately slow runoff and exhibit slight erosion potential; however, some hydric soils have
formed in local areas due to soil saturation. There are two soil mapping units with a high
susceptibility to erosion, Cieneba rocky sandy loam (CkF2) and Terrace escarpments (TeG).
One soil series, Willow silty clay (Wf, Wg, Wm, and Wn), found within a one mile radius of the
San Jacinto River crossing has a high shrink-swell potential.
1.6.3 Citrus Connection
Two soil mapping units are present within the Citrus Connection of the PVL corridor, (HcC)
Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam and (TeG) Terrace Escarpments. HcC (2 to 8 percent slope) is
prime farmland with slow runoff and slight erosion potential, while TeG (30 to 75 percent slope)
presents severe water erosion potential.
1.6.4 Hunter Park Station
There were five soil mapping units present within the Hunter Park Station, which includes the
sites at Palmyrita, Marlborough, and Columbia, all loams: Arlington fine sandy loam (AoC),
Buren fine sandy loam (BuC2), Cieneba rocky sandy loam (CkF2), Greenfield sandy loam
(GyC2), and Hanford coarse sandy loam (HcC). Three soils (AoC, BuC2, and CkF2) present
moderate or moderate to severe erosion potential. All types are two to eight percent slopes,
except for CkF2, which is 15 to 30 percent slope and present only at the Marlborough station
option site.
1.6.5 March Field / Moreno Valley Station
There were four soil mapping units present on the March Field / Moreno Valley Station site, all
loams: Cieneba rocky sandy loam (CkF2), which presents a moderate to severe erosion
potential, and Monserate sandy loams (MmB, MmC2, and MmD2), for which erosion potential is
slight. Slopes range from 15 to 30 percent with the Cieneba rocky sandy loam, and are 15
percent or less in the Monserate sandy loams.
1.6.6 South Perris Station
There are three soil mapping units present on the South Perris Station site are all Willows silty
clays (Wg, Wm, and Wn). While water erosion potential is slight, these poorly to very poorly
drained soils have high shrink-swell potential.
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report Page 1-12 December 22, 2009
1.6.7 Layover Facility
There were two soil mapping units present on the Layover Facility site, both loams, are Exeter
very fine sandy loam (EwB) and Madera fine sandy loam (MaA). Both present slight to
moderate erosion potential. EwB exhibits very slow to moderate runoff, and MaA, which
exhibits slow to moderate runoff, is an NRCS classified hydric soil.
Table 1.6-1
PVL Corridor Soil Mapping Units
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
AnC Arlington fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
AoC Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes (H)
BuC2 Buren fine sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes (H)*
ChF2 Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded
CkF2 Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes eroded (H,M)
Dv Domino silt loam, saline-alkali, hydric
Dw Domino silt loam, strongly saline-alkali, hydric
EnA Exeter sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EnC2 Exeter sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
EpA Exeter sandy loam, deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EpC2 Exeter sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (D)
EwB Exeter very fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes (H) *
FbF2 Fallbrook fine sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded
FkD2 Fallbrook fine sandy loam, shallow, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
GyA Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (H)
GyD2 Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
HcC Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (C)
HcD2 Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
HgA Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
MaA Madera fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, hydric (L)
MmB Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes (M)
MmC2 Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (M)
MmD2 Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (M)
MmE3 Monserate sandy loam, 15 to 25 slopes, severely eroded
MnD2 Monserate sandy loam,shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
PaA Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PaC2 Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
RaA Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
RaB2 Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
RaB3 Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded
RaD2 Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
RtF Rockland
TeG Terrace escarpments (C)
Wf Willows silty clay
Wg Willows silty clay, saline-alkali (S)
Wm Willows silty clay, deep, saline-alkali (S)
Wn Willows silty clay, deep, strongly saline-alkali (S)
Notes:
All soils are found throughout the corridor along the SJBL alignment, except where
indicated by an asterisk; such soils are found only at the indicated locations; Hunter
Park Station options (H), Downtown Perris Station (D), March Field/Moreno Valley
Station (M), South Perris Station (S), Layover Facility (L), and the Citrus Connection
(C).
Source: Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area California (NRCS, 2008)
DRAFT
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 2-1 December 22, 2009
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in
Western Riverside County. The MSCHP is one of several large, multi-jurisdictional habitat-
planning efforts in southern California with the overall goal of maintaining biological and
ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region. The MSHCP was created to allow
Riverside County and its Cities to better control local land-use decisions and maintain a strong
economic climate in the region while addressing the requirements of the state and federal
Endangered Species Acts.
The MSHCP Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles); it
includes all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto
Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the Cities of
Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley,
Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. It covers multiple species and
multiple habitats within a diverse landscape, from urban centers to undeveloped foothills and
montane forests, all under multiple jurisdictions. It extends across many Bioregions as well,
including the Santa Ana Mountains, Riverside Lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills, San Jacinto
Mountains, Agua Tibia Mountains, Desert Transition, and San Bernardino Mountains. It seeks to
provide a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve
biological diversity and maintain the region's quality of life.
The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of
2001. The MSHCP is used to allow the participating jurisdictions to authorize "Take" of plant
and wildlife species identified within the MSHCP area. The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) have authority to
regulate the take of Threatened, Endangered, and rare Species. Under the MSHCP, the
USFWS and CDFG will grant "Take Authorization" for otherwise lawful actions --such as public
and private development that may incidentally Take or harm individual species or their Habitat
outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area --in exchange for the assembly and management of
a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area.
The MSHCP is an element of Riverside County Integrated Plan to conserve open space, nature
preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species
and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County.
Area Plan boundaries were selected to provide the broad organizational framework for the
criteria within a defined area. According to the MSHCP the Area Plan boundaries are based on
the following three criteria: identification of (1) planning species, (2) biological issues and
consideration, and (3) reserve configuration and management issues. For each Area Plan,
several wildlife and plant species known to occur within the Area Plan were selected as
planning species. Listed species and species with specific habitat requirements were generally
selected as planning species. Biological issues and considerations, such as maintenance of key
habitat blocks (cores) and/or connections between habitat blocks (linkages), were also identified
for each Area Plan. Reserve configuration issues pertain to the cores and linkages within that
boundary.
DRAFT
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 2-2 December 22, 2009
The MSHCP requires that a project applicant relate the project to the MSHCP Conservation
Area description and applicable cores and linkages, and identify the specific Area Plan(s) and
Subunit(s) as well as the specific planning species, biological issues and considerations that
may apply to the proposed project. The MSHCP further stipulates that the specific criteria for
the identified cell(s) or cell group(s) the project is located in should be reviewed.
2.1 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE MSHCP
The study area resides in the Riverside Lowlands Bioregion. This Bioregion is characterized by
the Riversidian sage scrub and annual grassland vegetation along with high levels of
disturbance with habitat fragmentation and urbanization. The Riverside Lowlands Bioregion
accounts for 55% of the MSHCP area. The Riverside Lowlands Bioregion supports more
existing development and agriculture than the other Bioregions, accounting for approximately
50% of the total vegetation community, yet the other natural vegetation types account for a
substantial acreage of the Bioregion (MSHCP, 2003).
Upon review of the MSHCP Area Plans, the PVL project appears to transect multiple Area Plans
to include the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan, Highgrove Area Plan, March Area Plan,
Mead Valley Area Plan, and the Harvest Valley / Winchester Area Plan.
Portions of Area Plans contain Area Plan Subunits that have targeted conservation acreages
established based on planning species, biological issues and considerations, and criteria.
Several Area Plan Subunits also appear to apply to the PVL project. Within the Cities of
Riverside and Norco Area Plan, the Sycamore Canyon West, Subunit 2 is located adjacent to
the PVL alignment. Within the Highgrove Area plan the PVL project bisects the Sycamore
Canyon/Box Springs Central, Subunit 1. Lastly, within the Mead Valley Area Plan, the PVL
alignment intersects the San Jacinto River Lower, Subunit 4.
2.2 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA WITHIN MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS
Criteria Cells are units within a Criteria Area generally 160 acres in size that have specific
conservation objectives to meet. The study area borders and bisects a total of five Criteria Cells
in two of the five Area Plans, the Highgrove Area Plan and the Mead Valley Area Plan . Criteria
Cells within the Highgrove Area Plan, Sycamore Canyon/Box Springs Central Subunit 1
includes 545, 635 and 721; and within the Mead Valley Area Plan, San Jacinto River Lower
Subunit 4 are cells 3276 and 3378.Table 2.2-1 summarizes the conservation criteria for each
Criteria Cell in the study area and the PVL project’s relationship to the Cell.
DRAFT
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 2-3 December 22, 2009
Table 2.2-1
MSHCP Conservation Criteria for PVL Project Applicable Criteria Cells
Cell
Number Conservation Criteria PVL Study Area Relationship
Highgrove Area Plan: Sycamore Canyon/Box Springs Central Subunit 1
545 Conservation within Cell# 545 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage
7. Conservation within this Cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved
within this Cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation to
the south in Cell# 635. Conservation within Cell# 545 will range from 15%-25% of the
southeastern portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically bisected
the cell. The PVL project does not propose to alter the
existing rail footprint in this area; therefore the project
does not conflict with the conservation objectives of
the cell.
635 Conservation within Cell# 635 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage
7. Conservation within this Cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved
within Cell# 635 will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation
to the south in Cell# 721 and to the north in Cell# 545. Conservation within this Cell will
range from 25%-35% of the central portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically bisected
the cell. The PVL project does not propose to alter the
existing rail footprint in this area; therefore the project
does not conflict with the conservation objectives of
the cell.
721 Conservation within Cell# 721 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage
7. Conservation within this Cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat and riparian scrub,
woodlands and forests. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to coastal sage
scrub habitat proposed for conservation to the north in Cell# 635 and to the west in Cell#
719 in the City of Riverside. Conservation within Cell# 721will range from 35%-45% of the
northeastern and central portions of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically bisected
the cell. The PVL project does not propose to alter the
existing rail footprint in this area; therefore the project
does not conflict with the conservation objectives of
the cell.
Mead Valley Area Plan: San Jacinto River Lower Subunit 4
3276 Conservation within Cell# 3276 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained
Linkage 19. Conservation within Cell# 3276 will focus on assembly of grassland habitat
associated with the San Jacinto River. Areas conserved within Cell# 3276 will be connected
to grassland habitat and agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell# 3277 to the
east and to agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell# 3378 to the south.
Conservation within Cell# 3276 will range from 45%-55% of the Cell focusing in the
southern portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically
intersected this cell. The project proposes track
upgrades in this cell area and the replacement of two
bridges over the San Jacinto River and Overflow
Channel. The track upgrades proposed do not change
the footprint of the existing track, and the bridges are
proposed as replacements of existing structures;
therefore the project does not conflict with the
conservation objectives of the cell.
3378 Conservation within Cell# 3378 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained
Linkage 19. Conservation within Cell# 3378 will focus on assembly of agricultural land
associated with the San Jacinto River. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to
agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell# 3377 to the west, to grassland habitat
proposed for conservation in Cell# 3276 to the north, and to agricultural land proposed for
conservation in Cell# 3277 to the northeast. Conservation within Cell# 3378 will range from
30%-40% of the Cell focusing in the northwestern portion of the Cell.
The existing railroad tracks have historically
intersected this cell. The project proposes track
upgrades in this cell area and the replacement of two
bridges over the San Jacinto River and Overflow
Channel. The track upgrades proposed do not change
the footprint of the existing track, and the bridges are
proposed as replacements of existing structures;
therefore the project does not conflict with the
conservation objectives of the cell.
DRAFT
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 2-4 December 22, 2009
2.3 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO MSHCP CORES AND LINKAGES
The MSHCP defines a Core as being a block of habitat of appropriate size, configuration, and
vegetation characteristics to generally support one or more covered species. A Linkage is
defined as a connection between Core areas with adequate size, configuration and vegetation
characteristics to generally provide for "Live-In" habitat and/or provide for genetic flow for
identified planning species. Live-In habitat contains the necessary components to support key
life history requirements of a species; e.g., year-round habitat for permanent residents or
breeding Habitat for migrant species.
The MSHCP identified Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A within the study area 1,400 feet
east of the SJBL line between Marlborough and Spruce Streets. Proposed Constrained Linkage
7 and 8 are within the study area crossing the I-215 and SJBL line at Poarch Road and located
1,000 feet east of SJBL line at Big Springs Road, respectively. The MSHCP also identified
Existing Core D at two locations within the study area; to the west of I-215 and SJBL line at
Central Avenue and Gernert Road, and less than 500 feet south of the Moreno Valley / March
Field Station site. The southern portion of the study area, within the City of Perris, identified
Proposed Noncontiguous Habitat Block 4 is located approximately 1,500 feet west of I-215 and
the SJBL line. Also in the southern portion MSHCP identified Proposed Constrained Linkage 19
that crosses the SJBL line (east and west of I-215) at the San Jacinto River. Below provides a
short description of each Core and Linkage, including connections and species provided for with
live-in and/or movement habitat. MSHCP Cores and Linkages within the PVL project study.
Table 2.3-1 summarizes the MSHCP Cores and Linkages within or adjacent to the PVL corridor
and the PVL project’s relationship to them, as well as the planning species involved.
Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A consists of the Box Springs Mountains, located in
the extreme northern region of the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan. This Block includes
two pieces of land connected to each other by Proposed Constrained Linkage 8 and in turn
connected to other MSHCP conserved lands via Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 and
Proposed Linkage 4. It provides Live-In Habitat for species, and it likely contains movement
Habitat for common mammals such as bobcat. It is partially constrained by existing urban
development and is surrounded by a city planned land use designation.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is comprised of upland Habitat in the vicinity of Central
Avenue. It is the only connection from Sycamore Canyon Park to Box Springs Reserve. This
Linkage is important for species dispersal and would reduce the likelihood of species extinction
as a result of population isolation. Habitat Planning Species such as cactus wren and Bell’s
sage sparrow occurs within this Linkage. This Linkage likely provides for movement of common
mammals such as bobcat. The Linkage is constrained by existing urban development and
roadways.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 8 is comprised of upland Habitat in the Pigeon Pass Valley
and connects to two existing Noncontiguous Habitat Blocks in the Box Springs Mountain area.
Planning species such as cactus wren and bobcat may occur. This Linkage likely provides for
movement of common mammals such as bobcat. Maintenance of contiguous Habitat with
appropriate refugia for resting, such as rockpiles,brushpiles, windfalls, hollow snags and hollow
trees, is important for dispersal of juveniles. This Linkage is constrained by planned Rural
Mountainous development to the north.
DRAFT
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 2-5 December 22, 2009
Existing Core D consists of Sycamore Canyon Park and is the most isolated of all proposed
and existing cores. It is connected to Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A via Proposed
Constrained Linkage 7. The Core provides Live-In Habitat for the granite spiny lizard and likely
provides movement Habitat for bobcat. Management entities in this existing Core include March
Joint Powers Authority and the City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department.
Proposed Noncontiguous Habitat Block 4 is comprised of the Motte Rimrock Reserve. It
provides habitat for a number of Planning Species, including Quino checkerspot butterfly,
coastal California gnatcatcher, and Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR). Maintenance of large intact
interconnected habitat blocks is important for these species. Activities associated with proposed
adjacent land uses such as fire, fire suppression, off-road vehicle use and landscaping with
exotic invasive species may be harmful to SKR.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 (Lower San Jacinto River) is located approximately in the
center of the Mead Valley Area Plan. This Linkage connects Proposed Linkage 7 in the
southwest with Proposed Extension of Existing Core 4 (San Jacinto River Core) in the
northeast. Existing agricultural use and a small amount of existing urban development constrain
the Linkage along much of its length. Although the river will be channelized for flood control, the
Linkage will nonetheless maintain connectivity along the river and provide for movement of
common mammals such as bobcat. Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) are known to occur
near San Jacinto River.
DRAFT
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 2-6 December 22, 2009
Table 2.3-1
PVL Project Applicable MSHCP Cores and Linkages
Feature Planning Species PVL Study Area Relationship to
Feature
Adjacent General Plan
Land Use
Covered Activities
Potentially Affecting
Feature
Existing
Noncontiguous
Habitat Block A
southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow,
cactus wren, loggerhead shrike,
SKR, bobcat, and Nevin's barberry
1,400 ft east of SJBL Line between
Marlborough and Spruce Streets
(Box Springs Mountain Reserve)
Rural Mountainous, City
(Riverside, Moreno
Valley), Open Space/
Conservation
Pigeon Pass Road,
San Bernardino to
Moreno Valley
CETAP Corridor
Proposed
Constrained
Linkage 7
Bell's sage sparrow, cactus wren,
and bobcat
Crosses SJBL Line and
I-215 at Poarch Road
City (Riverside) and
Community Development I-215
Proposed
Constrained
Linkage 8
southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow,
cactus wren, loggerhead shrike,
and bobcat
1,000 ft east of SJBL Line at Big
Springs Road
Rural Mountainous and
Open Space/
Conservation
None
Existing Core D Wilson's warbler
West of I-215 and SJBL Line at
Central Avenue and Gernert Road;
Less than 500 ft south of the
Moreno Valley/ March Field Station
(Sycamore Canyon Park)
City (Riverside),
Community Development Alessandro Boulevard
Proposed
Constrained
Linkage 19
mountain plover, loggerhead
shrike, white-faced ibis, bobcat,
Los Angeles pocket mouse, San
Jacinto Valley crownscale,
Davidson's saltscale, thread-leaved
brodiaea, vernal barley, Coulter's
goldfields, spreading navarretia,
and Wright's trichocoronis
Crosses the SJBL Line along the
Lower San Jacinto River City (Perris)Ethanac Road, I-215
Proposed
Noncontiguous
Habitat Block 4
Bell's sage sparrow, cactus wren,
coastal California gnatcatcher,
SKR, and long-spined spine flower
1,500 ft west of I-215 and SJBL
Line (Motte Rimrock Reserve)
Community Development
and Rural None
DRAFT
2.0 MSHCP SETTING
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 2-7 December 22, 2009
2.4 OTHER MSHCP FEATURES
The southern portion of the study area (within Perris) is located within the MSHCP NEPS
Survey Area. However, this portion of the NEPS Survey Area is also included within the
boundary of Covered Activity for the San Jacinto River project. The study area is also located
within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area. The study area is not located within any other special
survey areas under the MSHCP.The proposed PVL project is considered a covered activity
under MSHCP Section 7.0,Covered Activities, Section 7.3.7,Flood Control Facilities, San
Jacinto River Flood Control Project, of the MSHCP.
DRAFT
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 3-1 December 22, 2009
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
Assessment of the potential occurrence of special-status species along the project study area
was based on available information on species-specific distribution and the presence of suitable
habitat. Prior to conducting the field reconnaissance, a review of reasonably available literature
and databases was performed to identify special-status species and/or sensitive habitats that
may be present at or adjacent to the site, as well as identify habitat conservation plans (HCPs)
or natural community conservation plans that may apply to the study area beyond the MSHCP.
Special-status species in this report are those listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or
candidates for listing by the USFWS, CDFG and/or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).
The following sections provide a description of the findings from the literature and database
review. The MSHCP setting was previously discussed in Chapter 2.0.
3.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
The 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle maps provided the boundaries for listed species for
database searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the USFWS
electronic database, and the CNPS Online Inventory of Rare Plants. The MSHCP was reviewed
for listed special-status plant species along the PVL study area within: Area Plans and Subunits,
Criteria Cells, Cores and Linkages, Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS), and
Riparian/Riverine Areas. These database searches resulted in thirty-two special-status plant
species with listed occurrences or potential to occur within the study area. Search results are
summarized in Table 3.1-1.
3.1.1 Narrow Endemic Plant Species
The southern portion of the study area, which resides within the City of Perris, is located within
NEPS Survey Area 3 of the MSHCP. The MSHCP NEPS list includes fourteen species;
however, only seven species are listed as potentially occurring within the PVL study area.
These seven special-status plant species include: California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica),
Munz’s onion (Allium munzii), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), slender-horned spin
flower (Dodecahema leptoceras), spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), vernal barley
(Hordeum intercedens), and Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii). These
plant species are identified in Table 3.1-1,and noted with ‘NEPS’.
3.1.2 Riparian / Riverine Plant Species
The MSHCP also protects riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools within its boundaries.
Protection of these areas is important to the conservation of twenty-three identified plant
species. Eight of these species have the potential to occur within the PVL study area and
include: California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex
coronata var. notatior), Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum),
slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens
ssp. laevis), spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea
filifolia), and vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens). These plant species are identified in Table
3.1-1, and noted with an ‘R’.
DRAFT
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 3-2 December 22, 2009
Table 3.1-1
Listed Sensitive Plant Species
Plant Species
Recorded
in the
CNDDB
Recorded
in the
CNPS
Federal/ State
Covered
Species
MSHCP
Covered
Species
California Orcutt grass
Orcuttia californica 1B.1 FE/SE XR, NEPS
Chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis 2.2
Chaparral sand verbena
Abronia villosa var. aurita X 1B.1
Coachella Valley milk-vetch
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 1B.2 FE
Coulter’s goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri X 1B.1 X
Davidson’s saltscale
Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii 1B.2 X
Gambel’s water cress
Nasturtium gambelii X 1B.1 FE/ST
Little mousetail
Myosurus minimus ssp. Apus X 3.1 X
Long-spined spine flower
Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina X 1B.2 X
Marsh sandwort
Arenaria paludocola X 1B.1 FE/SE
Moran’s navarretia
Navarretia fossalis X 1B.1 FE
Munz’s Onion
Allium munzii X 1B.1 FE/ST XNEPS
Nevin’s barberry
Berberis nevinii X 1B.1 FE/SE X
Palmer’s grapplinghook
Harpagonella palmeri X 4.2 X
Parish’s brittlescale
Atriplex parishii X 1B.1 X
Parish’s desert-thorn
Lycium parishii X 2.3
Parry’s spine flower
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi X 1B.1 X
Payson’s jewelflower
Caulanthus simulans X 4.2 X
Plummer’s mariposa lily
Calochortus plummerea X 1B.2 X
Robinson’s pepper-grass
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii X 1B.2 X
Salt marsh bird’s-beak
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Maritimus X 1B.2 FE/SE
San Diego ambrosia/dwarf burr ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila 1B.1 FE XNEPS
DRAFT
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 3-3 December 22, 2009
Table 3.1-1 (Continued)
Listed Sensitive Plant Species
Plant Species
Recorded
in the
CNDDB
Recorded
in the
CNPS
Federal/ State
Covered
Species
MSHCP
Covered
Species
San Jacinto Valley crownscale
Atriplex coronata var. notatior X 1B.1 FE XR
Santa Ana River woollystar
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum X 1B.1 FE/SE XR
Slender-horned spine flower
Dodecahema leptoceras X 1B.1 FE/SE XR, NEPS
Smooth tarplant
Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis X 1B.1 XR
South Coast saltscale
Atriplex pacifica X 1B.2
Spreading navarretia
Navarretia fossalis 1B.1 FT XR, NEPS
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia X 1B.1 FT/ SE XR
Triple-ribbed milk-vetch
Astragalus tricarinatus 1B.2 FE
Wright’s trichocoronis
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii X 2.1 XNEPS
Vernal Barley
Hordeum intercedens 3.2 XR
Notes:
California Native Plant Society:
1B –Plants rare and endangered in California
2 –Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
3 –Plants need more information, a review list
4 –Plants of limited distribution, a watch list
.1 –Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and
immediacy of threat)
.2 –Fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened)
.3 –Not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats
known)
Federal and State Designations:
FE –Federally-listed Endangered
FT –Federally-listed Threatened
SE –State-listed Endangered
ST –State-listed Threatened
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan:
XR –Riparian/Riverine Areas
XNEPS –Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS)
Sources: USFWS, CNDDB, CNPS, and MSHCP
DRAFT
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 3-4 December 22, 2009
3.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
The 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle maps provided the boundaries for listed species for
database searches of the CNDDB, and the USFWS electronic database. The MSHCP was
reviewed for listed special-status species along the PVL study area within: Area Plans and
Subunits, Criteria Cells, Cores and Linkages, and Riparian/Riverine Areas. The database
searches resulted in thirty-two special-status wildlife species listed as occurring or having the
potential to occur within the PVL corridor, and are listed in Table 3.2-1. Note that the table also
includes species that may not be specifically special-status species but are considered in this
review because they are components of the MSHCP criteria.
Table 3.2-1
Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species
Wildlife Species
Recorded
in the
CNDDB
Federal/
State
Covered
Species
MSHCP
Covered
Species
Area Plans
Planning
Species
Cores &
Linkages
Planning
Species
Invertebrates/Insects
Quino checkerspot butterfly
Euphydryas editha quino FE X
Riverside fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus woottoni FE XR
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi FT XR XMV,4
Fish
Arroyo chub
Gila orcutti X SSC X
Santa Ana sucker
Catastomus santaanae X FT/SSC XR
Amphibians
Arroyo toad
Bufo californicus FE/SSC XR
California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii FT/SSC XR
Mountain yellow-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii
FE/SP,
SSC XR
Western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii X SSC X
Reptiles
Belding’s orange-throated whiptail
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi X SSC X
Coastal western whiptail
Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus X X
Northern red-diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus rubber ruber X SSC X
San Diego horned lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum X SSC X
Southwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata pallida X SSC X
DRAFT
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 3-5 December 22, 2009
Table 3.2-1 (Continued)
Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species
Wildlife Species
Recorded
in the
CNDDB
Federal/
State
Covered
Species
MSHCP
Covered
Species
Area Plans
Planning
Species
Cores &
Linkages
Planning
Species
Birds
Bald eagle
Haleaeetus leucocephalus X FT/SE,
SP XR
Bell’s sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli belli X SSC X XHG,1 MV,1 X1, 2, 3, 5
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia hypugaea X SSC X
Cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus SSC X XHG,1 MV,1 X1, 2, 3, 5
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris actia X SSC X
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica X FT/SSC X XMV,1 X5
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperii X SSC X
Least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus X FE/SE XR
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus X SSC X XMV,4 X1, 3, 6
Long-eared owl
Asio otus X SSC X
Mountain plover
Charadrius montanus PT/SSC X XMV,4 X6
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus SE/SSC XR
Southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
X SSC X X1, 3
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE/SE XR
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor X SSC X
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis X SE XR
White-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi SSC X XMV,4 X6
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus X SP X
Wilson’s warbler
Wilsonia pusilla X X4
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens X SSC X
DRAFT
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 3-6 December 22, 2009
Table 3.2-1 (Continued)
Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species
Wildlife Species
Recorded
in the
CNDDB
Federal/
State
Covered
Species
MSHCP
Covered
Species
Area Plans
Planning
Species
Cores &
Linkages
Planning
Species
Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus X SSC X
Bobcat
Lynx rufus X XHG,1 X1, 2, 3, 6
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus X SSC X XMV,4 X6
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax X SSC X
Pocketed free-tailed bat
Nyctinimops femorosaccus X SSC X
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Dipodomys merriami parvus X FE/SSC X
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii X SSC X
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia X SSC X
Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus Ramona X SSC X
SKR
Dipodomys stephensi X FE/ST X XMV,1 X1, 5
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus X SSC X
Notes:
Federal and State Designations:
FE –Federally-listed Endangered
FT –Federally-listed Threatened
SE –State-listed Endangered
ST –State-listed Threatened
SSC –California or CDFG Species of Special Concern
SP –Fully Protected by Fish and Game Commission and/or the CDFG
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan:
XR –Riparian/Riverine Areas
X RN,2 –Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan, Subunit 2: Sycamore Canyon –West
X HG,1 –Highgrove Area Plan, Subunit 1: Sycamore Canyon / Box Springs –Central
X MV,1 –Mead Valley Area Plan, Subunit 1: Motte-Rimrock
X MV,4 –Mead Valley Area Plan, Subunit 4: San Jacinto River –Lower
X1 –Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A
X2 –Proposed Constrained Linkage 7
X3 –Proposed Constrained Linkage 8
X4 –Existing Core D
X5 –Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block 4
X6 –Proposed Constrained Linkage 19
Sources: USFWS, CNDDB and MSHCP
DRAFT
3.0 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 3-7 December 22, 2009
3.3 STEPHENS’ KANGAROO RAT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
The Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP) has been administered by
the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, a joint exercise of powers agency
comprised of Riverside County, and the Cities of Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris,
Riverside, Corona, Murrieta, and Temecula since 1996. The SKRHCP area encompasses
approximately 533,954 acres including areas of open space, developed areas, and agricultural
land uses.
The SKRHCP established seven permanent core area reserves for SKR, one of which is in the
vicinity of the proposed PVL project. The Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base Core
Reserve is located west of I-215 and the existing rail corridor. The SKR area reserve covers
approximately 2,502 acres across two components. The proposed Moreno Valley / March Field
Station is situated south of Alessandro Boulevard, and therefore falls outside of the SKR Core
Reserve Area. Although the project corridor and station site are outside the SKR Core Reserve
Area, they are located within the SKR Fee Area. Projects located within the fee area may be
required to pay mitigation fees based on the area impacted.
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-1 December 22, 2008
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
4.1 METHODOLOGY
Kleinfelder biologists conducted a series of reconnaissance level field surveys along the PVL
study area April 14 through April 18, 2008; October 29, 2008; February 18 through February 20,
2009, May 14, 2009; and May 27 through May 28, 2009. The study area included evaluation of
the BNSF and SJBL alignments, as well as each of the four station sites and facilities.
Pedestrian surveys were conducted along the perimeter and within the interior of the proposed
station sites using several randomly chosen transects. The length of the existing BNSF and
SJBL alignments were surveyed along the ROW, via vehicle where habitat communities were
developed and/or highly disturbed, and on foot in areas which exhibited potential for sensitive
resources.
During the field reconnaissance, biologists recorded observed plant and animal species and
classified vegetation communities and habitats. Plant species were identified in the field using
the best observed samples or collected and later inspected and keyed to species level where
possible. Scientific nomenclature and common names of plants follow The Jepson Manual –
Higher Plants of California (Hickman, 1993). Aerial photographs were utilized in the field to aid
in mapping vegetation communities and observed species. Presence of wildlife species was
assessed through direct observation aided by binoculars or by calls, tracks, scat, pellets or other
sign. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species followed Field Guide to
Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins, 2003),The Sibley’s Guide to Birds (Sibley, 2000),
and A Field Guide to Mammals (Burt, 1998).
This habitat assessment was performed to assess potential habitat for special-status species
along the PVL study area. Focused, protocol level, or nocturnal surveys were not conducted as
a part of this general habitat assessment. Multiple reconnaissance surveys during various
seasons were also not conducted; therefore, some annual plant species may not have been
identifiable and migratory species which could potentially use the sites on a seasonal basis may
not have been detected during this evaluation.
Habitat present at each of the PVL study area locations or reaches are presented in the
following format: General Habitat Description, Observed Sensitive Plant Species, and Observed
Sensitive Wildlife Species.
4.2 HABITAT COMMUNITIES
Habitat communities observed along the site were described using the vegetation communities
as defined in the MSHCP. Detailed vegetation community descriptions can be found in the
MSHCP. A brief summary of vegetation community descriptions used in this report is presented
below.
4.2.1 Developed/Disturbed Land
Developed or disturbed lands consist of areas that have been disced, cleared,or otherwise
altered. Developed lands may include roadways, existing buildings, and structures. Disturbed
lands may include ornamental plantings for landscaping, escaped exotics, or ruderal vegetation
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-2 December 22, 2008
dominated by non-native, weedy species such as mustard (Brassica sp.), fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus).
4.2.2 Agriculture
Agricultural lands include areas occupied by dairies and livestock feed yards or areas that have
been tilled for use as croplands or groves/orchards. Approximately 13.5 percent of the Plan
Area (169,480 acres) consists of agricultural lands. The largest areas of dairy and livestock feed
yards are located north of San Jacinto and north of Juniper Flats in the communities of
Lakeview, Mystic Lake, Nuevo, southeast Perris, Eastvale, Lake Norconian off of Bellegrave
Avenue, Norco, and in Glen Avon. Field croplands are mapped extensively throughout the Plan
Area. The largest areas are around SR-371 in the vicinity of Anza; in an east-west strip from
Murrieta Hot Springs; through French Valley; Antelope Valley; Paloma Valley; Menifee Valley;
Winchester; Domenigoni Valley to West Hemet; the Diamond Valley area; and in Eastvale. The
largest area of grove/orchard is in Santa Rosa East between Gavilan Mountain and Mesa de
Colorado.
4.2.3 Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal sage scrub is distributed throughout Western Riverside County, occupying
approximately 12% (156,450 acres) of the Plan Area (PSBS 1995). It occurs from the eastern
slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains to elevations in the San Jacinto Mountains less than 1,500
m (5,000 ft). Sage scrub often is distributed in patches throughout its range (O’Leary 1992);
over a scale of several miles, it can be found in diverse Vegetation Community mosaics with
other plant communities, particularly grassland and chaparral, and oak/riparian woodland in
wetter areas. In Western Riverside County coastal sage scrub is found both in large contiguous
blocks scattered throughout the County as well as integrated with chaparral and grasslands.
Coastal sage scrub is dominated by a characteristic suite of low-statured, aromatic, drought-
deciduous shrubs and subshrub species. Composition varies substantially depending on
physical circumstances and the successional status of the Vegetation Community; however,
characteristic species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), California encelia (Encelia
californica), and several species of sage (e.g.,Salvia mellifera, S. apiana) (Holland 1986;
Sawyer-Wolf 1995). Other common species include brittlebush (E. farinosa), lemonadeberry
(Rhus integrifolia), sugarbush (Rhus ovata), yellow bush penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides),
Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), boxthorn (Lycium spp.),
shore cactus (Opuntia littoralis),coastal cholla (O. prolifera), tall prickly-pear (Opuntia oricola),
and species of Dudleya.
4.2.4 Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub occurs throughout many drainages in the Plan Area and
comprises approximately 0.6% (7,940 acres) of the Plan Area. Large acreages of the vegetation
occur on the Santa Ana River near Lake Evans in the City of Riverside; along the San Gorgonio
River and tributaries near Banning; on the San Jacinto River from the National Forest to the
Soboba Indian Reservation; near Temecula along Temecula Creek; the Aguanga area; Bautista
Creek south of Hemet; and near Murrieta and Glen Ivy in the Temescal Valley.
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-3 December 22, 2008
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is a Mediterranean shrubland type that occurs in washesand
on gently sloping alluvial fans. Alluvial scrub is made up predominantly of drought-deciduous
soft-leaved shrubs, but with significant cover of larger perennial species typically found in
chaparral (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977). Scalebroom generally is regarded as an indicator
of Riversidian alluvial scrub (Smith 1980; Hanes et al.1989). In addition to scalebroom, alluvial
scrub typically is composed of white sage (Salvia apiana), redberry (Rhamnus crocea), flat-top
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), our lord’s candle (Yucca whipplei), California croton
(Croton californicus), cholla (Opuntia spp.), tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus), yerba santa
(Eriodictyon spp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and mountainmahogany (Cercocarpus
betuloides) (Hanes et al.1989; Smith 1980). Annual species composition has not been studied
but is probably similar to that found in understories of neighboring shrubland vegetation. Two
sensitive annual species are endemic to alluvial scrub vegetation in the Plan Area: slender -
horned spine lower (Dodecahema leptocerus) and Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum
densifolium ssp. sanctorum).
4.2.5 Chaparral
Chaparral vegetation is the most abundant and widespread vegetation type in Western
Riverside County, covering approximately 35 percent (434,950 acres) of the Plan Area. Large
contiguous stands of chaparral occur along the Santa Ana Mountains in the western portion of
the Plan Area,and along the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Agua Tibia Mountains in the
eastern and southern portions. Although chaparral is less common than other vegetation types
in the central lowlands of Riverside County, three large chaparral-dominated areas occur on
steeper lands near the Gavilan Hills-Gavilan Plateau-Meadowbrook Region, the Lakeview
Mountains-Double Butte area, and the Sedco Hills-Hogbacks area.
Chaparral is a shrub-dominated Vegetation Community that is composed largely of evergreen
species that range from 1 to 4 m in height (Keeley 2000). The most common and widespread
species within chaparral is chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) (Hanes 1971). Other common
shrub species include manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), wild-lilac (Ceanothus spp.), oak
(Quercus spp.), redberry (Rhamnus spp.), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), mountain-mahogany
(Cercocarpus betuloides), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and mission manzanita (Xylococcus
bicolor) (Holland 1986). Soft-leaved subshrubs are less common in chaparral than in coastal
sage scrub (see below) but occur within canopy gaps of mature stands (Holland 1986; Keeley
and Keeley 1988; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Common species include California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), sages (Salvia spp.), California sagebrush (Artemisia
californica), and monkeyflower (Mimulus spp.). In addition, herbaceous species, including
deerweed (Lotus scoparius), nightshade (Solanum spp.), Spanish bayonet (Yucca whipplei),
rock-rose (Helianthemum scoparium), onion (Allium spp.), soap plant (Chlorogalum spp.), bunch
grasses (Nassella spp., and Melica spp.), wild cucumber (Marah spp.), bedstraw (Galium spp.),
and lupine (Lupinus spp.) are also present (Holland 1986; Keeley and Keeley 1988; Sawyer and
Keeler-Wolf 1995 ).
4.2.6 Grasslands
Grasslands occur throughout most of Western Riverside County and cover approximately
12.2% (154,140 acres) of the Plan Area. Two general types of grasslands occur in Southern
California: (1) non-native dominated, primarily annual grassland ("non-native grassland"); and
(2) native dominated, perennial grassland ("valley and foothill grassland") (Heady 1977; Keeley
1989; Sims and Risser 2000). The only valley and foothill grasslands mapped within the Plan
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-4 December 22, 2008
Area are distributed over approximately 0.2% (2,700 acres) of the Plan Area on the Santa Rosa
Plateau. Non-native grasslands occur throughout the majority of the Plan Area (11.6%), usually
within close proximity to urbanized or agricultural land uses. Large patches of non-native
grasslands occur in the Riverside Lowlands near March Air Reserve base, Lake Mathews, Lake
Perris, Lake Elsinore, near Banning, Cahuilla, and in the Terwilliger Valley south of Anza.
Valley and foothill grasslands typically contain the perennial bunch grasses Nassella pulchra
and Nassella lepida. Lesser amounts of other native grasses, such as Melica spp.,Leymus
spp., Muhlenbergia spp., and beard grass (Bothriochloa barbinodis), may also be present. In
addition, non-native grasses or forbs may be present to varying degrees. Native herbaceous
plants commonly found within valley and foothill grasslands include yellow fiddleneck
(Amsinckia menziesii),common calyptridium (Calyptridium monardum),suncup (Camissonia
spp.), Chinese houses (Collinsia heterophylla), California poppy (Eschcholzia californica),
tarweed (Hemizonia spp.),coast goldfields (Lasthenia californica), common tidy-tips (Layia
platyglossa), Lupinus spp., Plagiobothrys spp., blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitata),Muilla
spp., blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), and Dudleya spp. (Holland 1986; Sims and Risser
2000).
4.2.7 Non-native Grasslands
Non-native grasslands are likely to be dominated by several species of grasses that have
evolved to persist in concert with human agricultural practices: slender oat (Avena barbata),wild
oat (A. fatua), fox tail chess (Bromus madritensis), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), ripgut grass (B.
diandrus), barley (Hordeum spp.), rye grass (Lolium multiflorum),English ryegrass (L. perrene),
rat-tail fescue (Vulpia myuros), and Mediterranean schismus (Schismus barbatus) (Jackson
1985; Sims and Risser 2000).
4.2.8 Riparian
Riparian vegetation, including forest, woodland, and scrub subtypes, is distributed in waterways
and drainages throughout much of Western Riverside County, covering approximately 1.2
percent (15,030 acres) of the Plan Area. Southern cottonwood/willow forest makes up the
largest proportion of the riparian vegetation in the Plan Area, comprising nearly one-half (6,610
acres) of the acreage. Most of the southern cottonwood/willow forest Vegetation Community
occurs along the Santa Ana River drainage from Lake Evans to beyond the Prado Basin, along
the San Gorgonio River north of Banning and along Temecula Creek east of Vail Lake.
Additional types of riparian vegetation can be found along the San Gorgonio River north of
Banning (montane riparian forest), Temescal Canyon Wash and its tributaries (riparian scrub
and mulefat scrub), the stream channels within the San Mateo Canyon watershed (riparian
forest, southern sycamore/alder riparian woodland and riparian scrub), and Vail Lake (tamarisk
scrub).
Riparian communities typically consist of one or more deciduous tree species with an assorted
understory of shrubs and herbs (Holland and Keil 1995). Depending on community type, a
riparian community may be dominated by any of several trees/shrubs, including box elder (Acer
negundo), big-leaf maple (A. macrophyllum), coast live oak (Q. agrifolia), white alder (Alnus
rhombifolia), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii),
California walnut (Juglans californica), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), wild grape
(Vitis girdiana) giant reed (Arundo donax), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), tamarisk (Tamarix
spp.), or any of several species of willow (Salix spp.). In addition, various understory herbs may
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-5 December 22, 2008
be present, such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata), wild cucumber (Marah macrocarpus),
mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and poison oak (Toxicodendron
diversilobum).
4.2.9 Southern Willow Scrub
Southern willow scrub is dominated by willow trees and shrubs (Salix spp.) and also may
contain gooseberry (Ribes spp.) and elderberry. When disturbance is high within this Habitat
type, the dominant species typically is sandbar willow (Salix exigua). When disturbance is less,
the dominant species typically is Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii). Willows are fast-
growing and can reproduce vegetatively from root sprouts. Red willow (Salix laevigata) occupies
fast-flowing perennial streams at elevations up to 1,200 m and often occurs with yellow willow.
Yellow willow (Salix lasiandra) grows along stream channels and in perennially wet places at
elevations of 2,500 m. Sandbar willow occurs along sandbars and riverbeds at elevations below
900 m. Arroyo willow occupies Habitat within perennial and intermittent stream channels at
elevations up to 750 m.
Habitats and Species ObservedThe following provides a description of the habitat types and
species observed along the project corridor and at proposed station sites and facilities. General
habitat community types are identified using the nomenclature and descriptions as defined by
the MSHCP, and summarized above in Section 5.2.
4.2.10 BNSF Alignment
The project will utilize the existing BNSF mainline with no planned project related improvements
until reaching the Citrus Connection.The current BNSF mainline area is a highly utilized rail
corridor with adjacent warehouse and commercial uses.
General Habitat Observed
Generally, habitat observed along the BNSF alignment was of the Developed/Disturbed Land
habitat community regime. The general condition of the BNSF alignment was observed to be
degraded habitat with little or no vegetation. Continual disturbance from maintenance
operations within the railroad right-of-way may likely contribute to this habitat regime.
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
Special-status plant species were not observed or detected along the BNSF alignment of the
PVL study area.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
Special-status wildlife species were not observed or detected along the BNSF alignment of the
PVL study area.
4.2.11 Citrus Connection
The Citrus Connection site is bounded by the existing BNSF alignment to the west and the
existing SJBL alignment to the east. A new track is proposed at this site to connect these two
alignments.
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-6 December 22, 2008
General Habitat Observed
Two vegetative communities were observed at this site and included non-native grassland with
disturbed southern willow scrub located adjacent in Springbrook Wash.The area north of the
Wash is highly disturbed could be described as the Developed/Disturbed Land habitat
community regime.
Springbrook Wash, located south of the Citrus Connection site, contains riparian habitat capable
of providing refuge for many wildlife species.This area has also been recently revegetated with
native species and designated for 100% conservation.The wash bisects the site and runs from
east to west, draining to a watershed in the Spring Box Mountains and an urban area east of the
site. The PVL rail connector was re-designed to avoid the riparian habitat in Springbrook Wash.
The southern willow scrub community is present within the Springbrook Wash and is comprised
of an over-story of Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis),
tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), red-gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)and
Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle). The shrub layer of this habitat contained blue elderberry
(Sambucus mexicana)and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia),while the dominant plant species in
the herbaceous layer included water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), stinging nettle (Urtica
diocia), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and radish (Raphanus sativus). California ground
squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi)burrows were also observed in the Springbrook Wash.
The riparian area in Springbrook Wash provides habitat and refuge for many wildlife species
including birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The riparian area onsite was noted to be
heavily used by a variety of bird species including California towhee (Piplio crissalis), American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and black phoebe (Sayornis
nigricans). A dead gopher snake (Pituophis sp.) was also noted in the wash area along with a
few western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis).
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
Special-status plant species were not observed or detected within the Citrus Connection site of
the PVL study area.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
Special-status wildlife species were not observed or detected within the Citrus Connection site
of the PVL study area.
4.2.12 SJBL Alignment
At the time of this assessment, the study area was an active rail line used for freight shipments.
The SJBL alignment crosses fifty three drainage culverts in the PVL study area,many of these
would be extended or replaced as part of the proposed project. The general habitats for these
culverts are discussed below. Additionally, two bridges along the SJBL alignment cross over
the San Jacinto River and San Jacinto Rover Overflow Channel. The bridge habitats are
discussed separately in Section 5.3.8.
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-7 December 22, 2008
General Habitat Observed
Generally, habitat observed along the SJBL alignment was of the Developed/Disturbed Land
habitat community regime. The general condition of the SJBL alignment appeared as degraded
habitat with little or no vegetation, likely due to continual disturbance from on-going
maintenance operations within the railroad ROW.Along the I-215 corridor, within the ROW, are
large display billboards. Within the structure of these billboards raptor nests were observed.
The specific type of raptor could not be determined, however. Additionally, it should be noted,
that there are small areas of sensitive vegetation along the SJBL related to the drainage
culverts.
Culverts
There were fifty three culvert locations evaluated for the project. The culverts along the
alignment primarily focus sheet flow from one side of the railroad alignment to the other. In
some cases the downstream end eventually connects into the existing local storm drain system.
The areas surrounding the culverts are primarily uplands with very small pockets of jurisdictional
or riparian habitat that has developed because of the focused water source, and the lack of
maintenance by the railroad.These areas of habitat are very fragmented with small localized
areas that do not connect to larger contiguous habitats and therefore represent lower quality.
There is a small area of higher quality riparian habitat located south of Box Springs Mountain
Reserve, and north of the I-215/SR-60 interchange. This area is the focus of runoff from the
surrounding area, including the freeways, and therefore habitat has developed. Because of the
local topography, the drainage occurs on both sides of the ROW, and therefore the habitat has
developed on both sides as well.
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
No Special-status plant species were observed during the field reconnaissance.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
No Special-status wildlife species were observed during the field reconnaissance.
4.2.13 Hunter Park Station
At the time of the field reconnaissance, the location of the Hunter Park Station had not been
confirmed; therefore the three sites proposed for selection were surveyed. These three sites
included: Palmyrita, Columbia, and Marlborough.
General Habitat Observed
Palmyrita Site –The Palmyrita site is located within an industrial park and developed area, but
the Box Springs Mountains habitat area is located half-mile southeast of this site. Therefore,
mixes of common wildlife species that thrive in urbanized areas, along with a few species from
nearby native habitat areas that may frequent the site on a transient basis, are expected onsite.
Based on historical resources and evidence onsite, the majority of this site was formerly an
orange tree orchard with an industrial building and business in the central portion of the site.
Most of the trees have been removed and large piles of tree mulch are scattered throughout the
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-8 December 22, 2008
site. The former orchard has now transitioned into a non-native grassland with primarily non-
native herbaceous species including foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), red brome (Bromus
rubens), black mustard (Brassica nigra), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), stinging nettle (Urtica
dioica), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), and horseweed (Conyza canadensis).
A pair of ravens (Corvus corax)was observed perched on one of the mulch piles and flying over
the site and a Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)was noted flying over. Various other bird
species were observed utilizing the site including western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta),
western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica),mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and black
phoebe (Sayornis nigricans).Mammals detected onsite included coyote (Canis latrans),
Audubon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi).No reptiles or amphibians were detected during the site reconnaissance, but
common lizards such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)and side-blotched
lizard (Uta stansburiana)are expected to utilize the site.
Columbia Site –The Columbia station site is in active citrus production with the area generally
maintained to be free of excess vegetation.The immediately adjacent areas are
commercial/warehouse operations and completely devoid of any native habitat.
Marlborough Site –The Marlborough station site is currently vacant. A portion of the site has
been recently graded while the remaining portion of the site contains a large volume of fill soil.
The area is very disturbed with no native vegetation. The site is located on the west side of the
SJBL and is adjacent to commercial/warehouse operations.
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
No Special-status plants were observed at any of the three potential station locations.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
The following sensitive wildlife species were observed on or in the immediate vicinity of the
station site:
Palmyrita Site –Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. This species was observed flying over the site. No
nesting habitat is available for this species onsite, although marginal foraging habitat is
available.
Columbia Site –No special status wildlife species were observed on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site.
Marlborough Site –No special status wildlife species were observed on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site.
4.2.14 Moreno Valley/March Field Station
General Habitat Observed
The Moreno Valley/March Field Station site is predominantly vegetated with annual non-native
grassland species including filaree (Erodium cicutarium), black mustard (Brassica nigra),
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-9 December 22, 2008
horehound (Marrubium vulgare), and red brome (Bromus rubens). A few inclusions of sage
scrub species were found within the non-native grassland including; coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis),California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sage brush (Artemisia
californica),and brittle bush (Encelia californica). A concrete ditch runs parallel to the SJBL
alignment and was supporting wetland vegetation including cattail (Typha sp.), mulefat
(Baccharis salicifolia), narrow-leaved willow (Salix exigua), and sedge species (Carex sp.).Two
ponded areas were located in the central portion of the site created by two drain inlets. These
areas exhibited a few hydropytic plant species including monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus)and
rabbitfoot (Polypogon monspeliensis).
Various bird species were noted utilizing both the non-native grassland area and the wetland
vegetation in the channel. Species noted in the channel include great egret (Ardea alba), red-
winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla). Species noted
utilizing the grassland area included horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), western kingbird
(Tyrannus verticalis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and white-crowned sparrow
(Zonotrichia leucophrys). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)was noted flying over the site
along with an American kestrel (Falco sparverius)and common raven (Corvus corax). A pacific
tree frog (Hyla regla)was detected in the channel. Small mammal burrows were noted
throughout the site, but mostly concentrated in the embankment by the channel.
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
No Special-status plant species were observed during the field reconnaissance.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
The following sensitive wildlife species were observed on and immediately adjacent to the
Moreno Valley/March Field Station site:
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. A flock of horned larks were observed foraging in
the grassland habitat onsite and on the adjacent habitat west of the site.
4.2.15 Downtown Perris Station
The Downtown Perris Station site is located in a highly urbanized setting and no native
vegetation or wildlife habitats were observed onsite.
General Habitat Observed
No native habitat was observed during the field reconnaissance.
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
No Special-status plant species were observed at the site during the field reconnaissance.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
No Special-status wildlife species were observed at the site during the field reconnaissance.
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-10 December 22, 2008
4.2.16 South Perris Station and Layover Facility
General Habitat Observed
The South Perris Station site and Layover facility are located within an agricultural area and
surrounding properties were actively used for row crops and sheep grazing. Historical signs of
agriculture were evident onsite, but the fields at the time of the survey were fallow and non -
native grassland species, salt-scrub and sage scrub species have established. Herbaceous
species noted included fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), black
mustard (Brassica nigra), red brome (Bromus rubens), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), wild
oats (Avena sp.), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), pineappleweed (Matricaria matricarioides),
field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). A few sage scrub
and salt scrub indicator species were noted including California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasiciulatum), saltbush species (Atriplex sp.), and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). A
few areas immediately adjacent to the alignment were noted to have cracked soil which is
evidence of ponding and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). Two trees were noted onsite including a
red-gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)in the southeastern portion of the site and a
mesquite tree (Prosopis sp.)in the central portion of the site north of Bonnie Drive. Multiple
eucalyptus trees are present east of the site and the freeway ramps. A drainage culvert on the
south side of the SJBL tracks was noted to support some riparian species saltcedar (Tamarix
sp.)and mesquite trees (Prosopis sp.).
Various species of birds were noted utilizing the site including horned lark (Eremophila alpestris
actia), meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), western kingbird
(Tyrannus vociferans), kill deer (Charadrius montanus), and a pair of red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamaicensis). Larger burrows likely occupied by California ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi)were noted along the berm that the SJBL tracks are on, on the slope supporting the
freeway off-ramp that adjoins the site, and on the slope on the south side of Bonnie. The scat of
Coyote (canis latrans) and cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)is noted in multiple locations onsite.
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
No Special-status plant species were observed on-site during the field reconnaissance.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
The following sensitive wildlife species were observed on the South Perris Station and Layover
Facility site:
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. California horned lark was observed onsite and in
the vicinity of the site and known to occur throughout this area of the alignment.
4.2.17 San Jacinto River Bridge and San Jacinto River Overflow Channel Bridge
Two railroad bridges that cross the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow
Channel, located northwest along the SJBL alignment from the South Perris Stat ion site would
be replaced under the proposed project.
DRAFT
4.0 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 4-11 December 22, 2008
General Habitat Observed
The two bridges are located between Case Road and the agricultural fields. The surrounding
areas are highly disturbed because of activities related to both these land uses.The river
carries seasonal flow and is directed under the railroad bridge and then the Case Road Bridge.
If the river flow is high enough the Overflow Channel allows the water under the railroad but
then directs it to the same Case Road Bridge as the main channel. When the area is dry or
damp the main channel is used by off-road vehicles to transit from east of the railroad ROW to
areas west of Case Road.This is evidenced by the deep ruts formed under the river bridge.
The Overflow Channel Bridge does not allow enough clearance to vehicles to transit under it.
Observed Special-Status Plant Species
No Special-status plant species were observed on-site during the field reconnaissance.
Observed Special-Status Wildlife Species
No Special-status wildlife species were observed on-site during the field reconnaissance.
DRAFT
5.0 RESULTS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 5-1 December 22, 2008
5.0 RESULTS
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 summarize the literature and database research, regulatory protection status
of special-status species, general preferred habitat of listed species, and potential for those
listed species to be present or to utilize the project study area.
5.1 POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
5.1.1 BNSF Alignment
No sensitive species or NEPS were identified with the potential to occur along the BNSF
mainline.
5.1.2 SJBL Alignment
Over the majority of the SJBL Alignment there are no sensitive species or NEPS. However,
there are sensitive plants located at the culvert replacement areas and there is a potential for
narrow endemic plant species at the San Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto River
Overflow Channel Bridge.
5.1.3 Citrus Connection
No sensitive species or NEPS were identified with the potential to occur at the Citrus
Connection.
5.1.4 Hunter Park Station
Palmyrita Site –No sensitive or narrowly endemic plant species were identified with the
potential to occur at the Palmyrita Station site.
Columbia Site –No sensitive or narrowly endemic plant species were identified with the
potential to occur at the Columbia Station site.
Marlborough Site –No sensitive or narrowly endemic plant species were identified with the
potential to occur at the Marlborough Station site.
5.1.5 Moreno Valley/March Field Station
The following sensitive plant species was identified to have the potential to occur at the Moreno
Valley/March Field Station site:
smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis)is not a Federally or State listed
species, but is considered a 1B.1 species by the CNPS and is covered under the MSHCP as
a Riparian/Riverine plant species. This species is known to occur within the vicinity of the site
and has a potential to occur in the non-native grassland areas, particularly in those areas with
ponding.
DRAFT
5.0 RESULTS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 5-2 December 22, 2008
5.1.6 Downtown Perris Station
No sensitive or narrowly endemic plant species were identified with the potential to occur at the
Downtown Perris Station site.
5.1.7 South Perris Station and Layover Facility
The following sensitive or narrowly endemic plants were identified to have the potential to occur
at the South Perris Station and Layover Facility site:
San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior)is a Federally listed
endangered species, and is considered 1B.1 species by the CNPS. It is also a covered under
the MSHCP as a Riparian/Riverine plant species. The site contains non-native grassland,
habitat suitable for San Jacinto Valley crownscale and is known to occur within the area.
smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis)is not a Federally or State listed
species, but is considered a 1B.1 species by the CNPS and is covered under the MSHCP as
a Riparian/Riverine plant species. It has the potential to occur in the non-native grassland,
which is known to occur within the vicinity of the site.
South Coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica)is not a Federally or State listed species, but is
considered a 1B.2 species by the CNPS and is covered under the MSHCP as a
Riparian/Riverine plant species. South Coast saltscale is known to occur in the site vicinity
within non-native grassland.
spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)is a Federally listed threatened species and is
also a NEPS. Spreading navarretia is considered a 1B.1 species by the CNPS and is also
covered under the MSHCP as a Riparian/Riverine plant species. A small drainage ditch was
noted on the south side of the tracks with some riparian scrub vegetation. Due to the close
proximity of this area to the San Jacinto River where spreading navarretia is known to occur,
there is a probability that this species could be present at this site.
thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)is a Federally threatened and State endangered
listed species, with a 1B.1 classification by the CNPS. It is also covered under the MSHCP as
a Riparian/Riverine plant species. Thread-leaved brodiaea has been reported to occur in the
vicinity of the site within non-native grassland. It could potentially be present within the
drainage ditch area.
5.1.8 San Jacinto River Bridge and San Jacinto River Overflow Channel Bridge
The following sensitive or narrowly endemic plants were identified to have the potential to occur
at the San Jacinto River Bridge sites:
smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis)is not a Federally or State listed
species, but is considered a 1B.1 species by the CNPS and is covered under the MSHCP as
a Riparian/Riverine plant species. Smooth tarplant has been reported to occur in the vicinity
of the site and could potentially be present within the river or on the adjacent upland habitat.
spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)is a Federally listed threatened species and is
also a NEPS. Spreading navarretia is considered a 1B.1 species by the CNPS and is also
covered under the MSHCP as a Riparian/Riverine plant species. Spreading navarretia has
DRAFT
5.0 RESULTS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 5-3 December 22, 2008
been reported to occur within the San Jacinto River, with the potential to occur along the
banks of the channel, and within the immediate vicinity.
thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)is a Federally threatened and State endangered
listed species, with a 1B.1 classification by the CNPS. It is also covered under the MSHCP as
a Riparian/Riverine plant species. Thread-leaved brodiaea has been reported to occur in the
vicinity of the site and could potentially be present within the river or adjacent upland habitat.
5.2 POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES
5.2.1 BNSF Alignment
No sensitive wildlife species were identified with the potential to occur wit hin the BNSF
Alignment.
5.2.2 SJBL Alignment
The following sensitive wildlife species were identified with the potential to occur within the SJBL
Alignment:
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)is not federally listed species but is a
California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Burrow complexes
located along the rail berm along the SJBL tracks, likely supporting California ground
squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), could support burrowing owls on a transient basis. The
level of disturbance at this site may lower the likelihood of use of these burrows as nesting
sites. No active signs of burrowing owls were noted in and around the burrows.
Coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus)is not a Federally or State
listed species but is covered under the MSHCP. This species has the potential to utilize both
the habitat in and adjacent to the SJBL.
least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)is a Federally and State listed endangered species
and covered under the MSHCP as Riparian/Riverine species. This species has the potential
to utilize the riparian wash onsite, but due to the degraded nature of the habitat onsite and
lack of connectivity to other habitat areas, reduces the likelihood of this species onsite.
Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)is a Federal and State listed
endangered species and covered under the MSHCP as Riparian/Riverine species. The
riparian habitat onsite provides marginal habitat for this species which is typically found in
dense thickets of riparian vegetation. The southern willow scrub habitat onsite is sparse and
fragmented and has a non-native component. In addition, the level of disturbance and lack of
connectivity to a habitat area that supports year-round water may preclude this species from
utilizing the site.
Western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. The western spadefoot toad may utilize the
Springbrook Wash, particularly areas that are subject to ponding. Ponded areas were noted
onsite and were moist during the site reconnaissance. This would provide suitable breeding
habitat for this species.
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi)is listed as a Federally endangered and
State threatened species and covered under the MSHCP. The SKR inhabits non-native
DRAFT
5.0 RESULTS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 5-4 December 22, 2008
grassland and disturbed Riversidian sage scrub communities. Non-native grassland was
present at the site, but no signs of SKR were observed but the site is located within the fee
area as described in the SKRHCP.
5.2.3 Citrus Connection
The following sensitive wildlife species were identified with the potential to occur at the Citrus
Connection:
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)is not federally listed species but is a
California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Burrow complexes
located along the berm on the west side of the SJBL tracks, likely supporting California
ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), could support burrowing owls on a transient basis.
The level of disturbance at this site may lower the likelihood of use of these burrows as
nesting sites. No active signs of burrowing owls were noted in and around the burrows.
Coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus)is not a Federally or State
listed species but is covered under the MSHCP. This species has the potential to utilize both
the habitat in and adjacent to the Springbrook Wash.
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)is a California Species of Special Concern and covered
under the MSHCP. This species has the potential to utilize the riparian habitat in the
Springbrook Wash foraging and nesting.
least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)is a Federally and State listed endangered species
and covered under the MSHCP as Riparian/Riverine species. This species has the potential
to utilize the riparian wash onsite, but due to the degraded nature of the habitat onsite and
lack of connectivity to other habitat areas, reduces the likelihood of this species onsite.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)is a California Species of Special Concern and
covered under the MSHCP. This species has the potential to utilize the riparian area onsite,
but due to the isolated nature of the site and lack of connectivity to larger habitat blocks,
reduces the likelihood of this species onsite.
Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)is a Federal and State listed
endangered species and covered under the MSHCP as Riparian/Riverine species. The
riparian habitat onsite provides marginal habitat for this species which is typically found in
dense thickets of riparian vegetation. The southern willow scrub habitat onsite is sparse and
fragmented and has a non-native component. In addition, the level of disturbance and lack of
connectivity to a habitat area that supports year-round water may preclude this species from
utilizing the site.
Western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. The western spadefoot toad may utilize the
Springbrook Wash, particularly areas that are subject to ponding. Ponded areas were noted
onsite and were moist during the site reconnaissance. This would provide suitable breeding
habitat for this species.
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi)is listed as a Federally endangered and
State threatened species and covered under the MSHCP. The SKR inhabits non-native
grassland and disturbed Riversidian sage scrub communities. Non-native grassland was
present at the site, but no signs of SKR were observed but the site is located within the fee
area as described in the SKRHCP.
DRAFT
5.0 RESULTS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 5-5 December 22, 2008
5.2.4 Hunter Park Station
The following sensitive wildlife species were identified with the potential to occur at the Hunter
Park station site:
Palmyrita Site
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)is not federally listed species but is a
California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Burrow complexes
located along the east side of the SJBL tracks, likely supporting California ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beecheyi), has the potential to support burrowing owls on a transient basis,
but due to the level of disturbance at this site has a lower likelihood of using the burrows as
nesting sites. No active signs of burrowing owls were noted in or around the burrows.
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi is listed as a Federally endangered and
State threatened species and covered under the MSHCP. The SKR inhabits non-native
grassland and disturbed Riversidian sage scrub communities. Although non-native grassland
is present onsite,the site is isolated from larger habitat areas and was recently an orchard
which may reduce the likelihood of this species utilizing the site. No signs of SKR were
observed onsite, but the site is located within the fee area as described in the SKRHCP.
Columbia Site
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)is not federally listed species but is a
California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Burrow complexes
located along the east side of the SJBL tracks, likely supporting California ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beecheyi), has the potential to support burrowing owls on a transient basis,
but due to the level of disturbance at this site has a lower likelihood of using the burrows as
nesting sites. No active signs of burrowing owls were noted in or around the burrows.
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi is listed as a Federally endangered and
State threatened species and covered under the MSHCP. The SKR inhabits non-native
grassland and disturbed Riversidian sage scrub communities.The site is an active citrus
orchard which may reduce the likelihood of this species utilizing the site. No signs of SKR
were observed onsite, but the site is located within the fee area as described in the SKRHCP.
Marlborough Site
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)is not federally listed species but is a
California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Burrow complexes
located along the east side of the SJBL tracks, likely supporting California ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beecheyi), has the potential to support burrowing owls on a transient basis,
but due to the level of disturbance at this site has a lower likelihood of using the burrows as
nesting sites. No active signs of burrowing owls were noted in or around the burrows.
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi is listed as a Federally endangered and
State threatened species and covered under the MSHCP. The SKR inhabits non-native
grassland and disturbed Riversidian sage scrub communities.The site is highly disturbed and
is isolated from larger habitat areas which may reduce the likelihood of this species utilizing
the site. No signs of SKR were observed onsite, but the site is located within the fee area as
described in the SKRHCP.
DRAFT
5.0 RESULTS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 5-6 December 22, 2008
5.2.5 Moreno Valley/March Field Station
The following sensitive wildlife species were identified to have the potential to occur on the
Moreno Valley/March Field Station site:
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)is not federally listed species but is a
California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Burrow complexes
that could support burrowing owl were observed primarily along the embankment by the
drainage channel.
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) )is a California Species of Special Concern and
covered under the MSHCP. This species has the potential to utilize the habitat onsite for
foraging and the riparian vegetation adjacent to the site for nesting.
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi)is listed as a Federally endangered and
State threatened species and covered under the MSHCP. The SKR inhabits non-native
grassland and disturbed Riversidian sage scrub communities which are present onsite.
Although no signs of SKR were observed onsite, the site is located within the fee area as
described in the SKRHCP.
western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. The two ponded areas onsite associated with the
drainage inlets has the potential to support this species. In addition, western spadefoot toad
has been reported in the riparian habitat immediately adjacent to the site.
5.2.6 Downtown Perris Station
No sensitive wildlife species were identified with the potential to occur at the Downtown Perris
Station site due to lack of suitable habitat. However, this station site is located within the SKR
fee area is a California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP.
5.2.7 South Perris Station and Layover Facility
The following sensitive wildlife species were identified to have the potential to occur at the South
Perris Station and Layover Facility site:
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)is not federally listed species but is a
California Species of Special Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Burrow complexes
that could potentially support burrowing owls were noted on berms within the ROW , the
freeway off-ramp slope and the slope located south of Bonnie Drive.
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) )is a California Species of Special Concern and
covered under the MSHCP. This species has the potential to utilize the habitat onsite for
foraging, but little suitable nesting habitat is available.
western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Although no water was observed during the field
reconnaissance, areas with cracking soils and evidence of ponding along the ROW could
potentially support this species.
DRAFT
5.0 RESULTS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 5-7 December 22, 2008
5.2.8 San Jacinto River Bridge and San Jacinto River Overflow Channel Bridge
The following sensitive wildlife species were identified to have the potential to occur at the San
Jacinto River Bridge sites:
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi)is listed as a Federally endangered and
State threatened species and covered under the MSHCP. The SKR inhabits non-native
grassland which is present onsite. Although no signs of SKR were observed onsite, the site is
located within the fee area as described in the SKRHCP.
western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii)is a California Species of Special
Concern and covered under the MSHCP. Ponded water was present in the river channel at
the time of the site reconnaissance and moisture is likely present for the majority of the year.
Western spadefoot toad has the potential to use these moist areas to breed.
DRAFT
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 6-1 December 22, 2008
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are identified to fulfill the requirements of the MSCHP in which
the Federal and local regulations are included:
Conduct pre-project (project planning survey’s, not 30-day surveys) burrowing owl surveys to
identify current habitation areas.
Complete a jurisdictional determination for the culverts designated for replacement or
extension.
Complete a jurisdictional determination for the San Jacinto River and Overflow Channel
areas.
Conduct willow flycatcher protocol survey’s in the southern area of Box Springs Mountain
Reserve.
Conduct least Bell’s vireo protocol survey’s in the southern area of Box Springs Mountain
Reserve.
Conduct California gnatcatcher protocol survey’s in the Box Springs Mountain Reserve in
areas adjacent to the ROW.
Once the above identified information is developed, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent
or Superior Preservation report and a MSHCP Consistency Determination should be completed
for submitted to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for project
approval.
DRAFT
7.0 REFERENCES
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 7-1 December 22, 2008
7.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 2000, last updated December 31, 2007.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2008.Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
www.cnps.org/inventory.
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Endangered and Threatened Species List.
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/CFWO_Species_List.htm.
CDFG/ESD 1995. California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. Unpublished report. 8 pp.
Hickman, James C. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, California:
University of California Press, 1993.
Holland, R.F. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Sacramento, California: Resources Agency, 1986.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 2008.Web Soil Survey 2.0 –.
www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP)–Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).www.rcip.org.
Sawyer, John O., and Keeler-Wolf, Todd, A Manual of California Vegetation, California Native
Plant Society, 1995.
Sensitive biological resources present or potentially present on the site were identified using the
following databases and documents.
Stebbins, Robert C., Western Reptiles and Amphibians-Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2003.
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, 1996. Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency.
Sibley, David Allen, The Sibley Guide to Birds, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.
STATSGO soil data online from California Soil Resource Lab:
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/node/27 Accessed: November 13, 2008.
United States Geological Survey (USGS),7.5-minute series topographical quadrangles.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008a.National Wetland Inventory Maps –
Wetland Mapper website.www.fws.gov/nwi.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, 2003. Riverside County
Habitat Conservation Agency, Adopted June 17, 2003.
DRAFT
7.0 REFERENCES
92666/SDIR116_Habitat Assessment Report 7-2 December 22, 2008
Data regarding biological and wetland resources on the project site were obtained through a
literature review of pertinent scientific literature, maps, and aerial photographs, including:
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 7.5-minute series topographical quadrangles.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008a. National Wetland Inventory
Maps –Wetland Mapper website.www.fws.gov/nwi
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 2008. Web Soil Survey 2.0 –.
www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Sensitive biological resources present or potentially present on the site were identified using the
following databases and documents:
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 2000, last updated December 31,
2007. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants.www.cnps.org/inventory
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Endangered and Threatened Species List.
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/CFWO_Species_List.htm
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP)–Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).www.rcip.org
APPENDIX A
APN Parcels
DRAFT
92666/jurisdictional_determination December 22, 2009
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNI A
Project Location:
The project is located in western Riverside County, extending 24 miles between the
Cities of Riverside and Perris.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle maps:
Riverside East, San Bernardino South, Steele Peak, and Perris
Prepared for:
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District Office
915 W ilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90017, Suite 210
On Behalf of:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Post Office Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
Prepared by:
KLEINFELDER
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 320-2000
December 22, 2009
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
92666/jurisdictional_determination Page i of ii December 22, 2009
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ..............................................................................1-1
1.2 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED .........................................................................................1-3
1.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................1-4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................2-1
2.1 TRACK IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................2-1
2.2 ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS...............................................................................2-2
2.3 STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................2-3
2.4 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ...........................................................................2-7
2.4.1 USACE Jurisdiction Subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ...........2-7
2.4.2 CDFG Jurisdiction Subject to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game
Code 2-9
3.0 JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................3-1
3.1 STUDY AREA OBSERVATIONS...........................................................................3-1
3.2 WETLAND FEATURES .........................................................................................3-2
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS .........................................................4-1
4.1 POTENTIAL W ATERS OF THE U.S. INDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT AREA .....4-5
4.2 POTENTIAL W ETLANDS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT AREA.........................4-5
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................5-1
5.1 MITIGATION .........................................................................................................5-2
6.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................6-1
TABLES
Table 4.0-1 Impacts to USACE Jurisdiction ....................................................................4-2
Table 4.0-2 Impacts to CDFG Jurisdiction.......................................................................4-3
FIGURES
Figure 1.0-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ............................................................................1-2
Figure 2.3-1 W atershed Map............................................................................................2-4
PLATES
Culvert Site Photographs
APPENDIX
A Jurisdictional Determination Individual Study Areas
DRAFT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
92666/jurisdictional_determination Page ii of ii December 22, 2009
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
BMPs Best Management Practices
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CW A Clean Water Act
GPS Global Positioning System
MP Mile Post
NWP Nationwide Permit
OHWM Ordinary High W ater Mark
PVL Perris Valley Line
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RWQCB Regional W ater Quality Control Board
SJBL San Jacinto Branch Line
SW PPP Storm W ater Pollution Prevention Plan
TOB Top of Bank
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFW S United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WoUS Waters of the United States
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/jurisdictional_determination ES-1 December 22, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the findings of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction for the proposed Perris Valley Line
(PVL) commuter rail project. The proposed project area is an existing transportation corridor
located in western Riverside County. The proposed project corridor extends north of the
existing Riverside Downtown Station approximately four miles on the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) main line, from the BNSF right-of-way, north of Citrus Street in the City of Riverside,
approximately 2000 feet of new track, known as the “Citrus Connection” will be constructed to
the east to connect from the BNSF mainline to the existing San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL),
which is owned by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The SJBL then
extends approximately 20 miles from the City of Riverside, south to south of the City of Perris.
This new rail extension would be operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(SCRRA), while the SJBL portion of the corridor would continue to be owned by RCTC.
This study is intended to address the potential for jurisdictional W aters of the United States and
the potential for jurisdictional wetlands. The study area contains on site jurisdictional linear
drainage features and on-site jurisdictional wetlands that meet USACE jurisdictional criteria for
Waters of the United States as per the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, (2007).
In February 2009, Mr. Chris Enyedy and Mr. W illiam Goggin of Kleinfelder examined the project
corridor to determine the limits of USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and limits of CDFG jurisdictional pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and
Game Code.
Information was collected at a total of 56 potential drainage features. Feature locations were
identified based on the presence of a culvert transecting the railroad right-of-way. Of the 56
potential features surveyed, 26 were determined to either not fulfill the criteria for linear drainage
features or to lack hydrological connection to a Water of the United States (W oUS), which is a
requirement for USACE jurisdiction. Additionally, the features were evaluated using CDFG
jurisdictional requirements, and quantities of both permanent and temporary impacts identified.
Based on the findings of this wetland delineation, potentially jurisdictional wetland features were
observed within the rail right-of-way (ROW) but outside of the proposed work areas. Data was
recorded for five wetland sampling points. Two of the sampling points were determined to be
uplands and three were determined to be wetlands. Of the five locations, three were observed
to have wetland hydrology, three were observed to have hydric soils and four were observed to
have hydrophytic vegetation.
A total of thirty (30) jurisdictional features were observed on site comprised of eleven (11)
ephemeral drainages, ten (10) intermittent drainages, eight (8) perennial drainages, and one (1)
drainage which could not be clearly identified as intermittent or perennial. Based on the field
information and data evaluation, the proposed project is anticipated to permanently impact 0.02
acres of USACE jurisdictional area, and temporary impacts to USACE are anticipated at 0.036
acres. The CDFG permanent impacts are anticipated to be 0.035 acres and 0.056 acres of
temporary impacts.
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
92666/jurisdictional_determination ES-2 December 22, 2009
Mitigation for project impacts will be appropriate for both the USACE and CDFG impacts and be
consistent with the goals of the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation
Program.
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 1-1 December 22, 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the findings of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction for the proposed Perris Valley Line
(PVL) commuter rail project. The proposed project area is an existing transportation corridor
located in western Riverside County. The proposed project corridor extends north of the
existing Riverside Downtown Station approximately four miles on the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) main line, from the BNSF right-of-way, north of Citrus Street in the City of Riverside,
approximately 2000 feet of new track, known as the “Citrus Connection” will be constructed to
the east to connect from the BNSF mainline to the existing San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL),
which is owned by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The SJBL then
extends approximately 20 miles from the City of Riverside, south to south of the City of Perris
(Figure 1.0-1). This new rail extension would be operated by the Southern California Regional
Rail Authority (SCRRA), while the SJBL portion of the corridor would continue to be owned by
RCTC.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This report supports the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the project as well as the permit
applications for the resource agencies. The project anticipates extending a number of the
existing culverts, fully replacing a small number of culverts and replacing the two bridges over
the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. Permits required for the
implementation of the project due to impacts on jurisdictional waters include; a streambed
alteration agreement from the CDFG in compliance with Section 1600 (et seq) of the California
Fish & Game Code; a water quality certification from the Regional W ater Quality Control Board
(RW QCB) in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; and a permit from the
USACE subject to Section 404 of the Clean W ater Act.
1.2 BACKGROUND
The study area for this project is an existing transportation corridor located approximately 70
miles east of Los Angeles, in western Riverside County. The study corridor extends
approximately 24 miles southeast from the City of Riverside to south of the City of Perris.
Existing conditions within the project corridor include established rail lines that were constructed
in the 19th century. Originally known as the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF),
the existing BNSF railroad main line was constructed between 1885 and 1888 by the Santa Ana
& Los Angeles Railway Company. This line originally extended southwest from Highgrove and
Riverside to Santa Ana in Orange County where it connected with existing lines in Los Angeles
(Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc. [MFA], 2003).
Prior to the construction of the BNSF main line, the segment of the alignment now known as the
SJBL was constructed in two segments over a six year period. The California Southern Railroad
completed construction of the first segment between Highgrove and Perris in 1882 to serve as
part of its San Bernardino to National City main line. The second segment between Perris and
San Jacinto was completed in 1888 (MFA, 2003). Both the current BNSF and SJBL rights-of-
way are within their same respective corridors as originally constructed in the late 1880s.
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 1-2 December 22, 2009
Figure 1.2-1
Regional and Vicinity Map
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 1-3 December 22, 2009
Later, the SJBL was acquired by AT&SF and most recently by RCTC in 1993. Through its
operating agreement with RCTC, BNSF (AT&SF’s successor) provides limited freight service to
customers along the SJBL, primarily along the I-215 corridor.
Both the SJBL and the BNSF lines are currently used for freight operations. The BNSF main
line also accommodates Inland Empire – Orange County trains operated by SCRRA/Metrolink
between the Riverside Downtown Station and the San Bernardino Station.
Perris Valley Line - Existing Conditions Report
Prior to the initiation of the project an Existing Conditions Report was prepared for the SJBL
portion of the project corridor, between Highgrove and south of Perris (J.L. Patterson &
Associates, Inc., 2008). This report reviewed the existing drainage features along the SJBL
looking for signs of erosion, sediment deposition in culverts or on tracks, adequate side ditches,
ponding water, track flooding, embankment deficiencies, etc. Additionally, the structural
conditions of the culverts and bridges were evaluated, and recommendations for replacement
presented. Overall, a total of 58 culverts along the project alignment were evaluated with
specific recommendations identified for repairs or replacement.
The San Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto Overflow Channel Bridge were inspected as
well. Both bridges are Timber Open Deck Pile Trestles and are identified by the associated mile
post (MP) numbers. The San Jacinto River Bridge is located at MP 20.70 and the Overflow
Channel Bridge is located at MP 20.80. Based on this inspection the report recommends
complete replacement of both bridges prior to starting commuter rail operations.
Design Drawings
In addition to the Existing Conditions Report, the 30 percent Design Drawings for the project
were used to determine which culverts would require extension because of proposed track
modifications. These culverts were evaluated specifically where the extensions were proposed.
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED
RCTC developed a Purpose and Need for the PVL through an FTA-sponsored Alternative
Analysis (AA) process. The AA is the process for reaching a broad consensus on exactly what
type of improvement(s) best meet locally defined Goals and Objectives for a specified study
area. The Purpose and Need established through the AA was developed based upon
understanding of the transportation conditions, problems, and issues in the study area that
would need to be addressed by a major transportation investment.
The AA identified that the purpose of proposed transportation improvements is to provide
alternatives to help alleviate traffic congestion on the freeway segment and arterials in the study
area, thereby improving the mobility of people and goods. The improvements should also
provide or improve linkages to the overall transportation system, support the achievement of
regional air quality goals, and avoid environmental and community impacts to the extent
possible.
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 1-4 December 22, 2009
The central transportation facilities in this corridor include I-215, a limited access freeway with a
segment that runs from Perris to Riverside in a north to northwesterly direction, and a limited
use rail freight line, the SJBL. Both I-215 and the SJBL run approximately parallel to one
another for the length of the corridor. The SJBL is an existing non-highway transportation ROW
that is significantly underutilized from a passenger transportation perspective. Opportunities to
use this existing right-of way have been explored in the past with general conclusion that it has
the potential to relieve pressure on existing and forecasted congestion on the regional
transportation network. The I-215/SJBL corridor is in need of an improved transportation
system independent of the ever growing and increasingly congested roadway system. The
needs of the I-215/SJBL corridor were developed through outreach to the public, affected
communities, stakeholders and concerned individuals. The needs identified are listed below:
• Reduce roadway congestion;
• Provide transit travel options to growing population and employment centers;
• Coordinate transportation planning and community development; and
• Improve use of underutilized transportation resources.
Transportation movement occurs primarily via the heavily congested I-215 freeway, which
overlaps State Route 60 (SR-60) between Riverside and Moreno Valley. Current and planned
freeway improvements cannot fully accommodate forecasted demand. In addition, potential
freeway expansion beyond currently planned improvements would have substantial impacts on
adjoining neighborhoods (STV, 2004).
The northern end of the study area is served by SCRRA/Metrolink commuter rail service to San
Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange counties. The study corridor includes a railroad ROW (the
SJBL) that could provide a transit alternative to I-215, avoiding the freeway bottleneck and
congestion. This potential commuter rail service provides an opportunity for transferring some
patrons to a transit mode within the study corridor, and provides the opportunity for extending
commuter rail service further south and east into Riverside County.
1.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Four goals and complementary objectives were established by RCTC for the I-215/SJBL
corridor based on the corridor’s issues and the potential for a transit system to achieve or help
achieve the project Purpose and Need. The Goals and Objectives are:
Goal 1 – Improve the Transportation System with Alternate Travel Choices
• Reduce highway congestion in the corridor;
• Improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commuter alternative to the automobile,
by making it available, reliable, and convenient to use;
• Establish and expand the regional transit network within and beyond the study
corridor; and
• Promote a seamless regional transit system.
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 1-5 December 22, 2009
Goal 2 – Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
• Strengthen the older urban communities as centers of economic opportunity;
• Broaden the range and availability of public transportation alternatives between the
various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes;
• Encourage transit-friendly communities, at higher densities;
• Foster TOD around transit stations; and
• Provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent.
Goal 3 – Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts
• Contain residential, commercial, and industrial “sprawl” development;
• Conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1990;
• Minimize impacts to the natural and human-made environment; and
• Minimize the need for new ROW resources thereby reducing land use impacts to the
study corridor.
Goal 4 – Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently
• Invest resources efficiently;
• Improve the productivity and cost effectiveness of transit services in the corridor;
• Enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system within the corridor; and
• Select investments that build upon underused and abandoned transportation resources.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-1 December 22, 2009
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed PVL project would consist of the existing BNSF and SJBL alignments. The
proposed PVL project would be an extension of the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 line from the existing
Riverside Downtown Station along a portion of the BNSF main line and would connect to the
SJBL using the proposed Citrus Connection. For the opening year 2012, the PVL would include
installation and rehabilitation of track; construction of four stations (with provisions for two future
stations) and a Layover Facility; improvements to existing at-grade crossings and culverts;
replacement of two existing bridges along the SJBL at the San Jacinto River; and construction
of communication towers and landscape walls.
2.1 TRACK IMPROVEMENTS
All track improvements will occur within the existing SJBL right-of-way. All work will meet
SCRRA commuter rail standards. In order to more accurately describe the improvements to the
track, the alignment is broken down into the following segments with the identified changes:
• “Citrus Connection”: To connect the BNSF to the SJBL, a new approximately 2,000-
foot-long track will be constructed north of Springbrook Wash.
• Marlborough Avenue south to Mount Vernon Avenue: The track will be upgraded with
new concrete ties, new welded rail, and new ballast as required.
• Mount Vernon Avenue to approximately MP 7.0: As this section was recently upgraded
by BNSF, the wooden ties will be replaced as needed and new ballast added.
• MP 7.0 to approximately MP 7.5 (the Box Springs Boulevard area): This area will be
upgraded with new concrete ties and new welded rail.
• Eastridge Avenue to MP 16.9: A second track will be constructed on the I-215 side of
the existing SJBL track within the right-of-way. This track will be constructed with new
concrete ties and new welded rail. The existing track, which will remain for freight
service only, will not be upgraded, but will be moved slightly where the right-of-way
passes underneath roadway overpasses. This change is required to allow for enough
clearance for both tracks and supports for the roadway overpasses.
• MP 16.9 to MP 18.2: The track will be upgraded with new concrete ties and new welded
rail.
• MP 18.2 to approximately MP 19: The track will be relocated so that the PVL will align
with the new platforms at the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility. The new track will be
constructed of new concrete ties and new welded rail, approximately 18 feet from the
existing track, and the existing track will be removed.
• MP 19 to MP 22: The track will be upgraded on the existing alignment with new
concrete ties and new welded rail.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-2 December 22, 2009
2.2 ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS
Stations
Based on projected ridership, RCTC is proposing four stations for the opening year of 2012
including Hunter Park Station, Moreno Valley/March Field Station, Downtown Perris Station, and
South Perris Station.
Each of the proposed stations built as part of the PVL project would be constructed at-grade,
with 680-foot long side platforms, and fully ADA-compliant in accordance with federal law and
SCRRA/Metrolink design standards. The “typical” platform is constructed of concrete with steps
up and ADA-compliant walkways from the surrounding grade to reach track elevation. In
addition to the platform, there would be a trackside canopy structure, ticket kiosks, schedule
information, a shelter comprised of mast-supported roof planes (sloped to facilitate drainage),
and decorative fencing to direct riders to the appropriate areas for either boarding or
disembarking from trains. All parking areas would be at-grade. Each station is described below
in greater detail.
For 2012, the four proposed stations are:
• Hunter Park Station would be located at one of three proximate sites. The Palmyrita
Station option is proposed for the east side of the SJBL main track at Iowa Avenue
between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues. The Columbia and Marlborough Station
options have been identified along the west side of the main track, with entry and exit
from Columbia and Marlborough Avenues, respectively. Selection of the Palmyrita
Station option also would require a new main track to be constructed east of the existing
SJBL between Citrus Street and Marlborough Avenue to accommodate the station. Any
of these station options can accommodate parking for approximately 480 vehicles.
• Moreno Valley/March Field Station would be located south of Alessandro Boulevard on
property currently owned by the March Joint Powers Authority (March JPA) and would
be donated to RCTC. RCTC would be responsible for the construction, operations, and
maintenance for the station and parking areas. The associated parking area would have
a capacity of approximately 445 vehicles.
• Downtown Perris Station would be located between San Jacinto Avenue and 4th Street
at the existing Perris Multimodal Transit Facility. The only improvements to be
undertaken by RCTC would include the expansion of the existing parking capacity by
approximately 440 spaces, and track realignment within the ROW to allow for proper
spacing between the platform and the train. The Perris Multimodal Transit Facility,
currently under construction, would include eight bus bays and five canopies. The
facility would be operated as a bus terminal by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) prior to
the opening of the proposed PVL project. With the opening of the PVL, it would become
a multimodal facility.
• South Perris Station would be located north of I-215 near the intersection of the SJBL
ROW and State Route 74 (SR-74). Parking at this station would be provided for
approximately 880 vehicles.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-3 December 22, 2009
Layover Facility
The proposed Layover Facility would be located south of the South Perris Station and north of I-
215. In the 2012 opening year, the Layover Facility would accommodate four 10-car trains
arriving from Riverside in the afternoon. Trains would be stored overnight on the four storage
tracks (approximately 1,000 feet in length), and would receive light maintenance, cleaning, and
operational testing prior to morning departures. The Layover Facility would include an ADA-
accessible employee support building with modular offices, storage, and parking. The
employee support building would be raised by six feet to remain out of the 100-year floodplain.
Culverts and Bridges
There are 53 drainage culverts along the SJBL within the project area. Of the 53 culverts, eight
treated wood box culverts (MP 1.30, 5.30, 9.70, 13.40, 15.30, and 15.80) would be replaced
entirely. The eight treated wood box culverts have deteriorated and are near failure according to
the Existing Conditions Report (JL Patterson & Associates, Inc. 2008). In addition to the
wooden box culverts, 23 culverts will be extended to accommodate drainage under the
proposed second rail.
The San Jacinto River is located near the southern end of the project. The project proposes to
replace the two rail bridges at the San Jacinto River. The two bridge replacements, referred to
as Bridge 20.70 and Bridge 20.80, are over the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River
Overflow Channel.
2.3 STUDY AREA
Project Location
The project area is located in western Riverside County between the City of Riverside to south
of the City of Perris. The entire project is located within the Santa Ana River watershed, with
the southern portion of the project located with the San Jacinto River sub-watershed (Figure
2.3-1). The San Jacinto River is considered a sub-watershed because it has the potential to
reach the Santa Ana River only in very wet years.
Climate
The proposed project is located in western Riverside County which has a mediterranean climate
characterized by hot, dry summers and mild, relatively wet winters. The elevation of the project
ranges from approximately 900 to approximately 1,500 feet above Mean Sea Level (United
States Geological Survey, 1978–1980). The climate in the area is characterized by hot
summers, mild winters and rainfall, which occurs almost entirely in the winter and early spring
months. The mean annual precipitation is approximately 10 inches, with most of that rain falling
between November and March (Riverside County, 2009). The range of average temperatures,
high/low, is 68°F/43°F in January to 95°F/64°F in August.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-4 December 22, 2009
Figure 2.3-1
Watershed Map
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-5 December 22, 2009
Soil Types
Thirty seven soil types were identified within the project area. The majority (approximately 80
percent) of the soil types were classified as sandy loams. Loam soils generally contain more
nutrients and humus than sandy soils, have better infiltration and drainage than silty soils, and
are easier to till that clay soils. Three of the soil types were included in the Nationally Hydric
Soils Indicator List including tow phases of Domino silt loam (Dv, Dw) and Madera fine sandy
loam (MaA). This suggests that most of the site soils formed in primarily upland conditions;
however, some hydric soils have formed in local areas due to soil erosion.
(AnC, AoC) Arlington Sandy Loam - The Arlington series have brown, neutral, very fine sandy
loam A horizons; reddish brown, mildly alkaline, loam B2t horizons; and are underlain by weakly
cemented duripans. Arlington soils are on alluvial fans and terraces at elevations of 400 to
2,000 feet and occupy slopes of 2 to 8 percent. The climate is one of long dry summers and
short mild winters with an average annual precipitation of 10 to 15 inches. The series is well
drained; slow to medium runoff; and permeability is slow.
(BuC) Buren Fine Sandy Loam - The Buren series have yellowish brown, moderately alkaline,
fine sandy loam A horizons; brown and pale brown, moderately alkaline, clay loam B2t horizons;
and yellowish brown, weakly cemented Csi horizons. These soils are on gently to strongly
sloping alluvial fans and terraces at elevations of about 700 to 3,000 feet. The soils formed in
alluvium derived mostly from basic igneous rocks and partly from other crystalline rocks. The
Buren soil type on site occupies 2 to 8 percent slopes and depth to a weakly cemented horizon
ranges from 27 to 40 inches. This soil series is well to well drained, runoff is slow to medium,
and permeability is moderately slow in the Bt horizon and very slow in the Csi horizon. The
Buren soils were formerly classified as Noncalcic Brown soils.
(ChF2, CkF2) Cieneba Sandy Loam and Cieneba Sandy Rocky Loam - The Cieneba series
consists of dark grayish brown to light brown sandy to gravelly loam A horizons. Cieneba soils
are shallow and very shallow, formed from material weathered from granite and other rocks of
similar texture and composition. The soils are at elevations of 500 to 4,000 feet and on-site
soils in this series occupy 15 to 50 percent slopes. This soil series is somewhat excessively
drained; runoff is low to medium; and permeability is moderately rapid, but much slower in the
weathered granite.
(Dv, Dw) Domino Fine Sandy Loam - The Domino series consists of moderately deep,
moderately well drained soils over lime-cemented hardpans. The Domino soils are on nearly
level basin areas and toes of alluvial fans at elevations of 1,000 to 1,800 feet and occupies up to
2 percent slopes. Depth to the indurated lime hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Soils are
moderately well drained with slow runoff and slow permeability. Both phases of this soil type are
listed on the National Hydric Soils Indicator List and are located within 1,000 to 2,000 feet of the
San Jacinto River crossing on the project site.
(EnA, EnC, EpA, EpC2) Exeter Sandy Loam - The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to
a duripan (30 to 42 inches), moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from
granitic sources. Exeter soils are on hummocky; undulating to gently rolling alluvial fans and
stream terraces at elevations of 20 to 700 feet and occupy slopes from 0 to 9 percent. The soils
formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. In most areas, the hummocky relief has been
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-6 December 22, 2009
smoothed by leveling. Soils are moderately well drained with moderately permeability above
the hardpan. Permeability of the duripan is very slow.
(FbF2, FkD2) Fallbrook Fine Sandy Loam - The Fallbrook series consists of deep, well-drained
soils that formed in material weathered from granitic rocks. Usually the rock is deeply weathered
and rock outcrops are common in some areas. Fallbrook soils are gently rolling to very steep
and are on round hills at elevations of 200 to 3,000 feet or as high as 3,500 feet on south facing
slopes. Depth to a paralithic contact of weathered parent material is 40 to 60 inches. Soils of
this series occupy slopes from 8 to 35 percent. Soils are well-drained with medium to very rapid
runoff and moderately slow permeability. These soils are very similar to the Ramona series.
(GyA, GyC2, GyD2) Greenfield Sandy Loam - The Greenfield series consists of deep, well
drained soils that formed in moderately coarse and coarse textured alluvium derived from
granitic and mixed rock sources. Greenfield soils are on alluvial fans and terraces and on-site
soils occupy slopes from 2 to 15 percent. The A horizon ranges in color from pale brown to light
brownish gray to grayish brown. Rock fragments range from less than 1 to 25 percent in the A
and B horizons. Coarse and very coarse sands average more than 20 percent of the soil.
(HcC, HcD2, HgA) Hanford Sandy Loam - The Hanford series consists of very deep, well
drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly form granite. The
Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 to 3,500
feet. The on-site soils of this series range from a fine to coarse sandy loam and occupy slopes
of 0 to 15 percent. Soils are well drained with negligible to low runoff and moderately rapid
permeability.
(MaA) Madera Fine Sandy Loam - The Madera series consists of moderately deep to hardpan,
well or moderately well drained soils that formed from in old alluvium derived from grantic rock
sources. Madera soils are on hummocky, gently sloping to undulating low terraces at elevations
of 10 to 250 feet with on-site soils in this series occupying slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Soils are
well to moderately drained with medium to very slow runoff and very slow permeability. Madera
fine sandy loam (MaA) is listed on the National Hydric Soils Indicator List and is located
approximately 4,000 feet southeast of the San Jacinto River crossing on the project site.
(MmB, MmC2, MmD2, MmE3, MnD2) Monserate Sandy Loam - The Monserate series consists
of deep, well-drained soils that formed on nearly level to moderately steep old dissected
terraces and fans at elevations of 700 to 2,500 feet. On-site soils from the Monserate series
occupy slopes from 0 to 25 percent and are characterized as eroded to severely eroded.
Monserate soils are moderately well to well drained with slow to rapid runoff. Permeability is
moderately slow in the B2t horizon and very slow in the duripan. The Monserate soils were
formerly classified as Nonclacic Brown soils.
(PaA, PaC2) Pachappa Fine Sandy Loam - The Pachappa series consists well-drained
Noncalcic Brown soils developed from moderately coarse textured alluvium. They occur on
gently sloping alluvial fans and flood plains under annual grass-herb vegetation. The Pachappa
soils occur at elevations under 1,000 feet and on-site soils from this series occupy slopes from 0
to 8 percent. Soils are well drained with very slow runoff and moderate permeability. In places,
the soil is subject to occasional overflow and high water table. The soils appear to have
developed under conditions of occasional high water table. Most areas are no longer so
affected, but excess salts and exchangeable sodium are still present in places.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-7 December 22, 2009
(RaA, RaB2, RaB3, RaD2) Ramona Sandy Loam - The Ramona series is a member of the fine-
loamy, mixed, thermic family of Typic Hapoxeralfs. Typically, Ramona soils have brown, slightly
and medium acid, sandy loam and fine sandy loam A horizons, reddish brown and yellowish
red, slightly acid, sandy clay loam B2t horizons, and strong brown, neutral, fine sandy loam C
horizons. The Ramona soils are nearly level to moderately steep. They are on terraces and fans
at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet. They formed in alluvium derived mostly from granitic and
related rock sources. On-site Ramona soils occupy slopes from 0 to 15 percent. Soils are well
drained with slow to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability.
(RtF) Rockland - The Rockland series consists of well-drained soils that formed in loamy
colluvium from rotational landslides on slopes of stream valleys and dissections of ground
moraines. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderate in the upper part of the profile and
moderately slow in the lower part. Rockland series soil slopes range from 18 to 70 percent.
Drainage water saturation does not occur above a depth of 203 centimeters year round (well
drained).
(TeG) Terrace Escarpments – Terrace escarpments consist of unaltered, variable alluvium
outwash on terraces or barrancas (a deep ravine or gorge). These areas have various soil
profiles that are typically truncated.
(Wf, Wg, Wm, Wn) W illows Silty Clay - The Willows series consists of very deep, poorly to very
poorly drained sodic soils formed in alluvium from mixed rock sources. Willows soils are in
nearly level basins in intermountain valleys and large valleys at elevations 20 feet to as much as
1,700 feet. The soils formed in fine-textured mixed alluvium. Intermittent water tables are at
depths of 24 to 60 inches. In some areas the water tables have been lowered by drainage and
water control structures. Unless protected, this soil receives runoff form other areas. The
Willows series soils that have been mapped within the project site are located within 1-mile of
the San Jacinto River crossing
2.4 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
2.4.1 USACE Jurisdiction Subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean W ater Act, the USACE regulates the discharge of dredged
and/or fill material into “waters of the United States”. “W aters of the United States” includes
navigable waterways and wetlands adjacent to navigable waterways, non-navigable waterways
and wetlands adjacent to non-navigable waters that are contiguous with navigable waterways.
The term "waters of the United States" is defined at 33 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part
328 and currently includes (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and
flow of the tide), (2) all interstate waters and wetlands, (3) all impoundments of waters
mentioned above, (4) all tributaries to waters mentioned above, (5) the territorial seas, and (6)
all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above.
On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County V. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) that the USACE jurisdiction does not extend to
previously regulated isolated waters, including, but not limited to, isolated ponds, reservoirs, and
wetlands. Examples of isolated waters that are affected by this ruling include: vernal pools;
stock ponds, lakes (without outlets); playa lakes; and desert washes that are not tributary to
navigable or interstate waters or to other jurisdictional waters.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-8 December 22, 2009
In the absence of wetlands, the limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, including
intermittent streams, extend to the Ordinary High W ater Mark (OHWM), which is defined at 33
CFR 328.3(e) as:
“...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical
characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in
the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and
debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding
areas.”
Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987, the USACE published
a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. In 1989,
the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation developed an updated
methodology, which was adopted by the USACE, U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service (USFWS),
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and United States Department of
Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service and which replaced the 1987 W etland
Manual (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). The use of this 1989
manual was perceived by many to excessively increase the jurisdictional limits of wetlands.
After several congressional hearings, USEPA, USACE, United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service, and USFW S published proposed 1991 revisions to the 1989 manual
(Government Printing Office, 1991). A few days afterwards, the President signed the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1992, which in effect, prohibits the use of the
1989 manual. Because the 1991 proposed revisions to the 1989 manual have not yet been
adopted, the only remaining valid methodology is the 1987 W etland Manual. The methodology
set forth in the 1987 Wetland Manual generally requires that, in order to be considered a
wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric
characteristics.
While the manual provides great detail in methodology and allows for varying special conditions,
a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria: More than 50 percent of the
dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands, that is, rated as facultative or
wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in W etlands (Reed, 1988). These plants
are known as “hydrophytic vegetation”;
• Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or
periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating
a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions). Such soils,
known as “hydric soils”, have characteristics that indicate they were developed in
conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods
during the growing season; and
• Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches
of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year
(approximately 18 days for southern California). Although the most reliable evidence of
wetland hydrology may be provided by a gaging station or groundwater well data, such
information is often limited for most areas. Thus, most hydrologic indicators are those
that can be observed during field inspection. The following indicators provide some
evidence of hydrology: (1) standing or flowing water; (2) water logged soils during the
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-9 December 22, 2009
growing season; (3) water marks present on trees or other objects associated with a
drainage; (4) drift lines, which are small piles of debris oriented in the direction of water
movement through an area; (5) shelving; (6) destruction of terrestrial vegetation; and (7)
thin layers of sediments deposited on leaves or other objects.
2.4.2 CDFG Jurisdiction Subject to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code,
the CDFG regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel,
or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.
CDFG defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least
periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other
aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has
supported riparian vegetation." CDFG's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made
reservoirs." CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of
those waterways to fish and wildlife. CDFG Legal Advisor has prepared the following opinion:
• Natural waterways that have been subsequently modified and which have the potential
to contain fish, aquatic insects, and riparian vegetation will be treated like natural
waterways...
• Artificial waterways that have acquired the physical attributes of natural stream courses
and which have been viewed by the community as natural stream courses, should be
treated by (CDFG) as natural waterways...
• Artificial waterways without the attributes of natural waterways should generally not be
subject to Fish and Game Code provisions...
Thus, CDFG jurisdictional limits closely mirror those of the USACE, however, exceptions are
CDFG’s addition of artificial stock ponds and irrigation ditches constructed on uplands, and the
addition of riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the riparian areas
federal wetland status.
Soils
As mentioned previously, hydric soils are saturated or ponded for a sufficient duration during the
growing season to develop anaerobic or reducing conditions that favor the growth and
regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (USACE, 1987). Indicators of wetland soils include
observations of ponding and saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, contrasting mottles
(concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron), or gleying which indicated reducing
conditions. Additional supporting information includes documentation of a soil as hydric, or
reference to wet conditions in the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey (NRCS,
2008). Often localized hydric soil conditions are not documented due to their small size,
erroneous mapping or recent development of hydric conditions are not documented due to their
small size, erroneous mapping, or recent development of hydric conditions, and must be visually
inspected to confirm hydric conditions.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-10 December 22, 2009
Survey Methodology
Suspected USACE/CDFG jurisdictional areas were evaluated based on USACE Criteria
established in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, as modified by the Regional Supplement
for the Arid West (USACE, 2007).
On February 18, 19, and 20, 2009 Kleinfelder biologists, Mr. Chris Enyedy and Mr. W illiam
Goggin, examined the Citrus Connection and SJBL to determine the limits of USACE jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the
California Fish and Game Code. Temperatures ranged from low 50s degree Fahrenheit (°F) to
low 70s °F. On May 27 and May 28, 2009 Ms. Hopkins field reviewed several locations
delineated during the February field event to address changes in project design.
Prior to the beginning field delineation, 80 foot to the inch scaled colored aerial photographic
maps and USGS topographic maps were examined to determine locations of potential areas of
USACE/CDFG jurisdiction. In addition Kleinfelder reviewed information provided by RCTC
regarding the locations of culverts within the project area. This information was used to define
distinct study areas within the project area. In general study areas were defined as the area
within a 50 foot radius of each culvert within the project area, except where physical features,
including fences and buildings, truncated the study area. The rational for defining the study
area as a limited subset of the project area is that modifications within the project site are
generally confined to the surface of the tracks, which are maintained to avoid vegetation or
erosion, and areas of culvert upgrade or replacement. As such impacts to jurisdictional features
will be confined to the study areas assessed. Other data that was reviewed include National
Wetland Inventory database and soils data. Global Positioning System (GPS), coordinates were
collected in the field using a Trimble® GeoHX unit. Using a digital camera, photographs of
selected jurisdictional drainages were taken. Each linear drainage or waterbody was provided a
drainage number based on its MP location (e.g., “MP 1.30”, MP 5.30”, etc.). Drainages are in
order of MP along the alignment from north to south starting at the Citrus Connection on the
SJBL.
Suspected USACE/CDFG jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable
channels and/or wetland vegetation, riparian habitat, and hydrology. The lateral extent of a
jurisdictional drainage can be measured in several ways depending on the particular situation.
The outer edge of riparian vegetation is used as the line of demarcation between riparian and
upland habitats and is therefore an identifiable boundary of the lateral extend of a jurisdictional
drainage. On smaller streams or dry washes with little or no riparian habitat, the bank was used
to mark the lateral extent of the jurisdictional drainage. OHW Ms were delineated and quantified
according to the USACE guidance on delineating arid streams in the southwestern United
States (Lichvar and W akeley, 2004). In addition, suspected riparian habitats were evaluated
using the guidance described in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements
Sections 1600 – 1607 (CDFG, 2004).
Suspected wetland habitats on the site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Drainage areas that the met the criteria for hydrology, according to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers W etland Delineation Manual, that supported the prevalence of facultative or wetter
vegetation was sampled using soil pits.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-11 December 22, 2009
Wetland Indicator Status
• Using the Routine, Small Area Determination Method described in the USACE Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987), sample plots (SP) were used to determine wetland or non-
wetland status. Visual observations were used to identify vegetation, soil, and
hydrological characteristics within the vicinity of the sample plots.
• Plant community types in proximity to potential wetland boundaries were identified. The
biologists selected a representative observation point for each plant community, visually
selected the dominant species from each stratum of the community, and recorded the
wetland indicator status of the dominant species. A determination was then made as to
whether the vegetation was hydrophytic or not.
• Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where the frequency and duration of inundation
or soil saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant
species are assigned wetland indicator status according to the probability of a particular
species occurring in wetlands. These indicators are published by the USFWS. As per
the USACE, more than fifty percent of the dominant species must be hydrophytic to
meet the wetland vegetation criterion. Hydrophytic plant indicator status designations
conform to the following:
o Obligate Wetland Plants (OBL) – Plants that occur almost always (estimated
probability greater than 99 percent) in wetlands under natural conditions, but may
also occur rarely (estimated probability less than 1 percent) in non-wetlands.
o Facultative W etland Plants (FACW ) – Plants that occur usually (estimated
probability is greater than 67 percent to 99 percent) in wetlands under natural
conditions, but also occur (estimated probability is 1 percent to 33 percent) in
non-wetlands.
o Facultative Plants (FAC) – Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability
is between 33 to 67 percent) of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands.
o Facultative Upland Plants (FACU) – Plants that occur sometimes (estimated
probability 1 percent to less than 33 percent) in wetlands, but occur more often
(estimated probability is greater than 67 percent to 99 percent) in non-wetlands.
o Obligate Upland Plants (UPL) - Plants that occur rarely (estimated probability
less than 1 percent) in wetlands, but almost always occur (estimated probability
is greater than 99 percent) in non-wetlands under natural conditions.
• Soil pits were dug at sample plots within the potential wetlands being investigated.
Munsell Soil Color Charts (MacBeth, 1992) were used to evaluate the color, hue, and
chroma of representative soils and oxygen reduction reactions (redox) features
associated with anaerobic conditions. Redox features were also characterized by their
size, distinction, and frequency of occurrence.
The biologist analyzed observed soil conditions against the “Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in
the U.S. v. 6.0” and recorded finding from the samples to determine if the soils were hydric.
Reducing conditions in the soil pits may be indicated by the presence of oxidized root channels,
mottling, or gley soils. Also noted were other hydrological indicators such as soil saturation
within the upper 12 inches of the soil, standing water within the soil pits, and the depth to
saturated soil.
DRAFT
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
92666/jurisdictional_determination 2-12 December 22, 2009
DRAFT
3.0 JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSMENT
92666/jurisdictional_determination 3-1 December 22, 2009
3.0 JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 STUDY AREA OBSERVATIONS
Features located within the project area consisted primarily of man-made or man-altered
waterways, which transversed the railroad right of way by way of culverts or bridges. Culverts
frequently acted to focus sheet flow to a restricted area and were often characterized by
adjacent, engineered, trackside ditches which lacked evidence of an OHW M. Typical situations
encountered within the project area are as follows:
Stream Class
• Sites lacking an OHWM (Non-streams): Included in the project area are locations where
direct precipitation to the locations adjacent to the site is transported as sheet flow. This
water is transported via culverts from the upgradient to the downgradient side of the
tracks. These locations lack sign of an OHW M or top of bank (TOB and are not
considered jurisdictional by either USACE or CDFG criteria.
• Sites lacking hydrological connection: Similar to the sites described above are locations
where historical conditions or the influence of the culvert has resulted in evidence of a
defined OHW M upgradient, downgradient or both, of the railroad track which terminates
in a swale. As these sites lack hydrological connection to a W oUS, they are not
jurisdictional by USACE criteria. CDFG criteria is site specific and depends, in part, on
the extent of channel formation and potential to support wildlife.
• Ephemeral Sites: Ephemeral streams on the subject site ranged from 1 to 19 feet in
width at the OHW M and 6 to 32 feet at the TOB. These sites typically had a clearly
defined OHW M and TOB, but lacked water flow for sufficient duration to support
hydrophytic vegetation. Due to the significant rain event prior to the delineation field
visit, LDFs lacking water flow at the time of the field visit were classified as ephemeral.
• Intermittent Sites: Intermittent features in the project area ranged from 2 to 26 feet in
width at the OHW M and 4 to 172 feet at the TOB. These sites typically had a clearly
defined OHW M and TOB. Due to the significant rain event prior to the delineation field
visit, intermittent features contained flowing water along at least a portion of their
delineated length at the time of the February field visit but were unwetted at the time of
the May field event.
• Perennial Sites: Perennial features in the project area include the Box Springs and
several stormwater channels. They in some instances, include such characteristics as
benching and tabling within the OHW M. Concrete lined perennial features are also
present. Perennial features in the project area ranged from 1.5 to 28 feet in width at the
OHWM and 8.5 to 42 feet at the TOB.
In addition to classification of stream type, the stream class was determined for each delineated
feature. Stream classes are traditionally navigable water (TNW), relatively permanent water
(RPW) and non-RPW.
DRAFT
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 3-2 December 22, 2009
3.2 WETLAND FEATURES
Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is characterized by inundation or soil saturation with a frequency and
duration long enough during the growing season to cause the development of hydric soils and
plant communities denominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland hydrology assessment is
based on soil surveys, observable topographic patterns of drainage and impoundment, and
OHWM.
Field Observations
Five wetland sampling points, representing three areas of potential wetlands were collected.
Sampling points X.1 and X.2 are associated with the San Jacinto River Overflow bridge located
at MP 20.80. Sampling points 26.1 and 26.2 are associated with the culvert located at MP 6.8.
Sampling point 31 is associated with the culvert located at MP 10.10. The bridge and culverts
and their related drainages are discussed above.
Sampling point X.1 was located in an area with approximately 5 inches of surface water, which
is indicative of wetland hydrology. The paired sampling point X.2 is was characterized by
surface soil saturation, however as this location was sampled during the February field event,
the presence of surface saturation is a reflection of the recent rain event and is not an indicator
of wetland hydrology.
Sampling points 26.1 and 26.2 were characterized by one to two inches of surface water,
surface saturation, water marks and sediment deposits. Sampling point 26.1 also had evidence
of drift deposits and water-stained leaves. These characteristics are evidence of wetland
hydrology. The wetland at site 26 spans both sides of the railroad, with an intervening culvert.
Sampling point 31 was characterized by 12 inches of surface water, which is indicative of
wetland hydrology. Sampling point 31 abuts the intermittent/perennial feature at location 31.
Conclusions about Hydrology
Sample points X.1, 26.1, 26.2, and 31 showed evidence of wetland hydrology based on the
depth of standing water at the surface for each of these four points as well as additional
hydrology indicators for sample points 26.1 and 26.2.
Soils
Hydric soils are saturated or ponded for a sufficient duration during the growing season to
develop anaerobic or reducing conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic
vegetation (USACE 1987). Indicators of wetland soils include observations of ponding and
saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, contrasting mottles (concentrations of oxidized
minerals such as iron), or gleying (blue-gray color) which indicate reducing conditions.
Additional supporting information includes documentation of a soil as hydric, or reference to wet
conditions, in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 2008) soil survey. Often,
localized hydric soil conditions are not documented due to their small size, erroneous mapping,
DRAFT
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 3-3 December 22, 2009
or recent development of hydric conditions, and must be visually inspected to confirm hydric
conditions.
Field Observations
Kleinfelder dug soil pits to a depth of 18 inches below ground surface for two of the five wetland
data locations. For sampling points X.1 and X.2, a single A horizon with a color of 10YR 4/2
was present. Soils were silty clay without redox features. Soil in these locations was not
characteristic of hydric soils.
Sampling points 26.1 and 26.2 had a hydrogen sulfide odor at the soil surface. Hydrogen
sulfide odor is an indicator of hydric soils. In addition sampling point 26.2 had mucky black soil
observed within an outfall area. A layer of muck at least 1 centimeter in depth is an indicator of
hydric soil.
Sampling point 31 was located within a well defined pool of standing water with a clearly defined
OHWM. The presence of standing water typically precludes digging of a soil pit. Hydric soils at
this location are assumed.
Conclusions about Project Area Soils
Sample points within the project area contain areas of both hydric and non-hydric soils. Hydric
soils within the sample points were identified based on the presence of muck, hydrogen sulfide
odor and inundation. The presence of locations with well defined hydric soils also supports the
conclusion that X.1 and X.2 were in locations of non-hydric soils, as soils in the project area
have been un-disturbed for sufficient time as to have developed hydric soil indicators.
Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil
saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are
assigned wetland indicator status according to the probability of species occurring in wetlands
(Reed, 1988). More than fifty percent of the dominant species must be hydrophytic to meet the
wetland vegetation criterion.
Existing Level of Disturbance
The observed conditions of the project areas indicate significant modification and disturbance of
the historic native substrate and vegetation structure. Kleinfelder observed evidence that the
site had been graded and filled throughout the majority of the project area. Evidence of human
induced modifications of the site include residential, commercial and industrial development,
agricultural modifications and the development of the railroad. The historically expected
vegetation structure appears to have been extirpated, and replaced by non-native species and
native plants adapted to the project areas current substrate and hydrological conditions.
Project Area Vegetation
The project area is characterized by a railroad berm with compacted soils that are, or have in
the past been, sprayed with herbicides. As such the majority of the right of way is unvegetated
with areas of ruderal vegetation bordering the railroad berm. The railroad right of way transects
DRAFT
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 3-4 December 22, 2009
commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, military and educational uses, yielding a variety
of vegetation types bordering the project area.
Sampling point X.1 contains a mix of FACW, FAC, and UPL species. Sampling point X.1 had
two dominant and two non-dominant species identified in the field. Of the dominant species,
one was FACW and the other was FAC. The four identified species were in the herb stratum.
The dominance test is 100% at this location. Based on the dominance test sampling point X.1
has hydrophytic vegetation.
Sampling point X.2 contains a mix of FAC and UPL species. Sampling point X.2 had three
dominant three and non-dominant species identified in the field. Of the dominant species, one
was FAC and two were UPL. The six identified species were in the herb stratum. The
dominance test at sampling point X.2 is 33 percent, which indicates upland vegetation. The
prevalence index at sampling point X.2 is 4.3 which indicates an upland vegetation community.
Therefore the vegetation at this site is upland vegetation.
Sampling point 26.1 contains a mix of OBL and FACW species. Sampling point 26.1 had two
dominant and one non-dominant species identified in the field. Of the dominant species, both
were OBL. One of the identified species was in the tree stratum and two were in the shrub
stratum. The dominance test is 100% at this location. Based on the dominance test sampling
point 26.1 has hydrophytic vegetation.
Sampling point 26.2 contains a mix of OBL and FACW species. Sampling point 26.2 had three
dominant and one non-dominant species identified in the field. Of the dominant species, two
were OBL and one was FACW. One of the identified species was in the tree stratum and three
were in the shrub stratum. The dominance test is 100% at this location. Based on the
dominance test sampling point 26.2 has hydrophytic vegetation.
Sampling point 31 contains a mix of FACW and FAC species. Sampling point 31 had three
dominant and three non-dominant species identified in the field. Of the dominant species, two
were FACW and one was FAC. Three of the identified species were in the shrub stratum and
three were in the herb stratum. The dominance test is 100% at this location. Based on the
dominance test 31 has hydrophytic vegetation.
Conclusions about Project Area Vegetation
By implementing the USACE arid west methodology for determining wetland vegetation
indicators, the dominant or majority (greater than 50 percent) of the vegetation within sampling
points X.1, 26.1, 26.2 and 31 is comprised of hydrophytic or wetland vegetation. Sampling point
X.2 lacked a majority of hydrophytic or wetland vegetation as measured by a less than 50%
wetland vegetation and a prevalence index of three or greater, and therefore contains upland
vegetation.
DRAFT
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 4-1 December 22, 2009
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS
The project is approximately 24 miles in length and extends from the City of Riverside to south
of the City of Perris. The project is planning to totally replace 8 wooden culverts, extend twenty
three existing concrete culverts, and replace two wooden bridges.
USACE Jurisdiction
Permanent impacts to USACE jurisdiction from the proposed Project total 0.020 acres. In
addition, temporary impacts to USACE jurisdiction from the proposed Project total 0.036 acres
(Table 1). It should be noted that although wetlands were identified within the existing rail right-
of-way, no wetlands are within the proposed project work areas.
CDFG Jurisdiction
Permanent Impacts to CDFG jurisdiction from the proposed Project total 0.0.35 acres. In
addition, temporary impacts to CDFG jurisdiction from the proposed Project total 0.056 acres
(Table 2).
DRAFT 4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS 92666/jurisdictional_determination 4-2 December 22, 2009 Table 4.0-1 Impacts to USACE Jurisdiction MILEPOST STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE MEETS CRITERIA (IMPACTED) USACE TOTAL JURISDICITONAL AREA (ft) USACE TEMPORARY IMPACTS (ft) USACE PERMANENT IMPACTS (ft) 1.30 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 1.40 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 5.30 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 490 41 0 5.80 INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 439 87 42 6.11 PERENNIAL YES NO YES 228 19.5 0 6.20 PERENNIAL YES (downstream) NO NO 412 0 0 6.60 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 319 135 117 6.70 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 794 269.5 107.5 9.70 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 9.90 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 10.10 PERN/INTRM(1) YES YES YES 1610 144 64 11.13 INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 404 162 144 11.30 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 11.59 INTRM/ERSN YES NO YES 306 247 208 12.10 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 12.40 NONE NO NO NO 0 0 0 12.52 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 658 110 80 12.58 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 13.20 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 13.40/13.43 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 494 90 0 14.50 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 14.80 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 14.90 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 15.30 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 1319 173.5 91 15.80 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 16.16 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 16.20 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 245 58.5 31.5
DRAFT 4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS 92666/jurisdictional_determination 4-3 December 22, 2009 MILEPOST STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE MEETS CRITERIA (IMPACTED) USACE TOTAL JURISDICITONAL AREA (ft) USACE TEMPORARY IMPACTS (ft) USACE PERMANENT IMPACTS (ft) 17.10 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 160 15 0 18.10 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 20.7 (Bridge) INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 4307 0 0 20.8 (Bridge) INTERMITTENT YES YES NO 3561 0 0 NOTES: Total Ft 15746 1552 885 Total Acreage 0.607 0.036 0.020 Table 4.0-2 Impacts to CDFG Jurisdiction MILEPOST STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE MEETS CRITERION (IMPACTED) CDFG TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL AREA (Ft2) CDFG TEMPORARY IMPACTS (Ft2) CDFG PERMANENT IMPACTS (Ft2) 1.30 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 1.40 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 5.30 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 1087 70.5 0 5.80 INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 854 137 77 6.11 PERENNIAL YES NO YES 349 25.5 0 6.20 PERENNIAL YES (downstream) NO NO 920 0 0 6.60 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 833 180 156 6.70 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 1126 269.5 107.5 9.70 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 9.90 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 10.10 PERN/INTRM(1) YES YES YES 2250 216 144 11.13 INTERMITTENT YES NO YES 893 294.5 248 11.30 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 11.59 INTRM/ERSN YES NO YES 707 361 304 12.10 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0
DRAFT 4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS 92666/jurisdictional_determination 4-4 December 22, 2009 MILEPOST STREAM TYPE JURISDICTIONAL POTENTIAL WETLAND FEATURE MEETS CRITERION (IMPACTED) CDFG TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL AREA (Ft2) CDFG TEMPORARY IMPACTS (Ft2) CDFG PERMANENT IMPACTS (Ft2) 12.40 NONE NO NO NO 0 0 0 12.52 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 1162 187 136 12.58 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 13.20 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 13.40/13.43 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 1336 162 90 14.50 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 14.80 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 14.90 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 15.30 EPHEMERAL YES NO YES 3035 332 182 15.80 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 16.16 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 16.20 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 347 130 70 17.10 EPH/ERSN YES NO YES 406 60 0 18.10 NA NO NO NO 0 0 0 20.70 (Bridge) INTERMITTENT YES NO NO 12208 0 0 20.80 (Bridge) INTERMITTENT YES YES NO 5662 0 0 NOTES: Total Ft2: 33175 2425 1514.5 Total Acreage: 1.4 0.056 0.035
DRAFT
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION RESULTS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 4-5 December 22, 2009
4.1 POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE U.S. INDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT AREA
Of the fifty six (56) potential linear drainage features surveyed, thirty (30) features were
determined to be jurisdictional and twenty six (26) were determined to either not fulfill the criteria
for linear drainage features or to lack hydrological connection to a W ater of the United States
(W oUS), which is a requirement for USACE jurisdiction.
The thirty (30) jurisdictional features were observed on site were comprised of eleven (11)
ephemeral drainages, ten (10) intermittent drainages, eight (8) perennial drainages, and one (1)
drainage which could not be clearly identified as intermittent or perennial.
4.2 POTENTIAL WETLANDS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT AREA
Three of the five sample points were characterized as having hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, wetland hydrology and hydrological connection to a W oUS and are considered wetland
points. Sample points X.1 and X.2 lacked hydric soils and wetland hydrology. In addition X.2
lacked hydrophytic vegetation. These locations are considered uplands.
DRAFT
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 5-1 December 22, 2009
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Direct Impacts
The PVL project area contains both wetlands and other W oUS which are USACE and CDFG
jurisdictional.
A total of two jurisdictional wetland features, characterized by three wetland sampling points,
were identified within the project area. One feature was seasonal and one feature was
perennial.
A total of 30 jurisdictional linear drainage features were identified within the project area,
consisting of 11 ephemeral drainages, 10 intermittent drainages, 8 perennial drainages and 1
drainage which is either intermittent or perennial.
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters could potentially occur via exposure of graded areas and
other areas denuded of vegetation by construction activities to rainfall. Erosion of exposed soils
could indirectly impact jurisdictional water courses downstream. With implementation of the
construction water quality plan and post-construction water quality plan the effects to
downstream jurisdictional waters, including erosion, siltation, and other degradation of water
quality, are expected to be minimal and not substantial. The following construction and post-
construction water quality control measures are designed to minimize the effects of this potential
problem.
Construction W ater Quality Plan
Section 402(p) of the 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act requires that this project be
authorized by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The primary
objectives of the NPDES General Construction Activities Storm W ater Permit for the Project are
to: (1) reduce excessive erosion potential, (2) minimize excessive sedimentation, (3) prevent
other materials used at the construction sites from causing off-site contamination, (4) eliminate
non-storm water discharges from the construction sites, (5) install appropriate measures to
reduce impacts on waterways from the completed project and provide a commitment that these
measures will be maintained, and (6) establish maintenance commitments on post-construction
sites. Implementation of the NPDES permit conditions will ensure that the Project will meet
these objectives.
Regulations governing storm water runoff associated with construction activities require that the
Project perform the following tasks. Prior to the start of any construction activities on the project
site, a Notice of Intent (NOI) will be filed by the applicant with the State W ater Resources
Control Board as a requirement of the use of the General Construction Activity Storm W ater
Permit. A Storm W ater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) and Monitoring Program will be
developed to identify specific pollution prevention measures that will eliminate or control
potential point and non-point pollution sources on the site during and following the Project’s
construction phase. The SW PPP will contain provisions for changes to the plan, such as
alternative mechanisms or plant materials, if necessary during project design and/or
construction to achieve the stated goals and performance standards.
DRAFT
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 5-2 December 22, 2009
The SWPPP will comply with the effluent limitations of the General Construction Activities Storm
Water Permit will implement storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control,
prevent, remove or reduce pollutants in storm water discharges.
Post Construction W ater Quality Plan
Best Management Practices: The post-construction water quality plan will be designed to
provide the daily protection against the pollution of stormwater runoff that is associated with
linear transportation facilities. The primary post-construction concern is to prevent erosion and
provide bank stabilization on the downstream side of the railroad track – as is currently
happening with several culvert outlets. These culverts will be reconfigured and maintained so
as not to cause downstream erosion in the future. The structural (treatment control) BMPs may
include the control of impervious runoff, energy dissipaters, and water quality inlets. Final
stabilization would be obtained when soil disturbing construction activities have been
completed.
Revegetation Plan: The Revegetation Plan will include the revegetation plan include the
revegation of graded areas and other denuded sites due to construction activities for the
purpose of erosion control. Areas in which vegetation did not exist prior to project related
activities would be returned to their pre-construction state. The goal of the revegetation plan is
to protect the final cover soils against erosion and to provide vegetative cover that will survive
the arid climate of the site with minimal irrigation and maintenance.
5.1 MITIGATION
The mitigation for impacts to USACE and CDFG jurisdictions are currently being developed and
will be submitted under a separate cover. Offers of mitigation will be coordinated and finalized
through consultation with the resource agencies. The remaining portion of this section is an
assessment of a few of the guiding principals usually employed in negotiating mitigation with the
resource agencies for impacts to jurisdictional waters.
Mitigation can take several forms. It can consist of; avoidance of impacts, reduction of impacts,
or compensation for impacts (Memorandum of Agreement, 1989). The first two types of
mitigation (avoidance or reduction or impacts) are much preferred by the agencies and should
be investigated to the maximum extent possible. In cases where impacts cannot be avoided or
substantially reduced, compensation must be considered.
Compensation is the creation of habitat to replace similar habitat unavoidably eliminated at a
different location. In order to be accepted, the concerned agencies must be convinced that the
proposed compensation will totally mitigate for the lost habitat. Because the creation of habitat
requires time (usually several years) there is a temporal loss of habitat unless the mitigation is
preformed several years in advance of the removal of the existing habitat. As a result, the
agencies often require compensation at a ratio of greater than one-to-one.
If mitigation is performed on the project site, or immediately adjacent to the project site, the
mitigation is said to be “onsite”. If no mitigation opportunities are available at or adjacent to the
project site, “offsite” mitigation may be considered. Generally, as the distance between the
project and the mitigation sites increases, the value of the mitigation (as determined by the
agencies) decreases.
DRAFT
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 5-3 December 22, 2009
If onsite mitigation is not available, a project proponent may contribute money to a mitigation
bank, if acceptable to the resource agencies. A mitigation bank is a parcel of habitat, which is
managed for its natural resource values and set aside in perpetuity or protected from future
development. The resource benefits derived from this management regime are sold as credits
to protect proponents who seek mitigation opportunities to compensate for impacts to CDFG
and/or USACE jurisdiction elsewhere.
If there is no practicable opportunity of on-site compensation or use of a mitigation bank, then
the USACE may accept the use of an in-lieu-fee mitigation (Federal Register, 2000). Those
organizations considered qualified to implement formal in-lieu-fee arrangements should work in
advance with USACE to ensure that the authorized impacts will be offset fully on a project-by-
project basis. Organizations should supply the USACE with information in advance on (1)
potential sites where specific restoration projects or types of restoration projects are planned;
(2) the schedule for implementation; (3) the type of mitigation that is most ecologically
appropriate on a particular parcel; and (4) the financial, technical, and legal mechanisms to
ensure long-term mitigation success. The in-lieu-fee arrangements should contain distinct
provisions that clearly state the legal responsibility for ensuring mitigation terms are satisfied
fully rests with the organization accepting the in-lieu-fee. In-lieu-fee mitigation should be
planned to be self-sustaining over time to the extent possible.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Results
Permanent impacts to USACE jurisdiction from the proposed Project total 0.020 acres, with no
wetlands being impacted. In addition, temporary impacts to USACE jurisdiction from the
proposed Project total 0.036 acres, with no wetlands being impacted. Permanent impacts to
CDFG jurisdiction from the proposed Project total 0.035 acres. In addition, temporary impacts to
CDFG jurisdiction from the proposed project total 0.056 acres.
USACE Regulations and Procedures
Federal law recognizes wetlands and other waters of the United States as valuable natural
resources. Therefore, federal agencies (principally USACE, USFWS, and EPA) strongly
discourage activities within federal jurisdictions that alter aquatic habitats. They include the
individual permit program and the nationwide permit program.
Nationwide Permit Programs
Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are general permits issued by USACE on a national level.
Currently, NW Ps cover activities such as placement of navigational aids, outfall structures,
linear transportation crossings, back stabilization activities, and stream and wetland restoration
projects associated with residential and commercial development. Regulations authorizing the
NWPs provide a streamlined approach to compliance with Section 404 for certain development
activities. Regulations authorizing NW Ps give USACE the authority to modify, suspend, or
revoke NWPs for specific activities or within specific geographic regions, as well as the authority
for districts or divisions to add their conditions, called regional conditions, to the general
conditions. If a project cannot comply with one or more conditions of an NWP, the project
proponent must apply for an Individual Permit.
DRAFT
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
92666/jurisdictional_determination 5-4 December 22, 2009
CDFG Regulations and Procedures
Unlike the USACE, CDFG regulates not only the dredge or fill material, but all activities that alter
streams and lakes and their associated habitats. CDFG has no abbreviated permitting process
comparable to the USACE nationwide permits. A CDFG 1600 Agreement is required for all
activities resulting in impacts to streambeds and their associated riparian habitats.
CDFG generally requires that any impacts to streambeds and adjacent riparian habitats be fully
mitigated. To ensure rapid and favorable action on a 1600 notification, a mitigation plan should
be submitted with the notification package. It normally takes 44 days for the CDFG to process a
1600 notification.
RW QCB Regulations and Procedures
A 401 water quality certification is required to those applicants who seek a federal permit to
discharge fill material into a water of the United States. The USACE will not grant authorization
until the water quality certification has been obtained or waived. A water quality certification is
issued by the RWQCB that states that the applicant will comply with all pertinent water quality
standards (both federal and state water quality standards). The jurisdictional limits of the
RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act are identical as that defined above for
the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
If the applicant is not notified by the Regional Board within 60 days of the postmarked date of
the application, the applicant may assume that the project meets the conditions of the
certification.
DRAFT
6.0 REFERENCES
92666/jurisdictional_determination 6-1 December 22, 2009
6.0 REFERENCES
BNSF Railway, 2006. Proposed BNSF Cajon Third Main Track, Summit to Keenbrook –
Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Prepared by URS Corporation.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. California Natural Diversity Data Base.
Sacramento, California. The Resources Agency.
Hickman, James C., 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Holland, R.F., 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Sacramento, California: Resources Agency.
MacBeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation, 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore,
Maryland.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Climate Analysis for W etlands.
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/wetlands.html Accessed: June 4, 2008.
Riverside County Flood Control District Santa Ana W atershed Map.
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/stormwater/content/santaanaws.htm Accessed
June 17, 2009.
Sawyer, John O., and Keeler-W olf, Todd, 1995. Manual of California Vegetation. California
Native Plant Society, December 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers W etlands Delineation Manual. Department
of the Army, 1987.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid W est Region, December, 2006, Revised and Adopted
2007.
U.S. Department of Agricultural, Soil data found at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/W ebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed: February 21, 2009.
U.S. Department of Fish and W ildlife Service. National W etlands Inventory Maps.
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NW I/index.html. Accessed: May 6, 2009.
U.S. Geological Survey. 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps; Perris (1979), Riverside
East (1980), San Bernadino South (1980) and Steele Peak (1978).
Weather Underground (website). http://www.wunderground.com/. Accessed May 6, 2009.
Wetland Training Institute, Inc. Federal W etland Regulation Reference Manual. B.N. Goode
and R. J. Pierces (eds.) W TI 90-1, 1991.
DRAFT
6.0 REFERENCES
92666/jurisdictional_determination 6-2 December 22, 2009
Wetland Training Institute, Inc. Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators v 6.0. R. J. Pierces
(ed.) WTI 2006-1, 2006.
PLATES
Culvert Site Photographs
APPENDIX A
Jurisdictional Determination Study Areas
(,ICL4EI1VFrEIr4LDEwRShorehamPlaceSanDiego,CA‘BrightPeople.RightSolutions.22P18583202000f8583202001kleinfeldercomOctober31,2008ProjectNo.92666-4FAnthonyVenturato,RE.STVIncorporated9l3OAnaheimPlace,Suite210RanchoCucamonga,California91730Subject:HazardousMaterialsCorridorStudyProject:PerrisValleyLineProjectRiversideCounty,CaliforniaDearMr.Venturato:TheenclosedHazardousMaterialsCorridorStudyforthePerrisValleyLineCorridorProjectprovidestheneededinformationfortheCEQADocument.ThisreportprovidessitespecificdataforthepreparationofasamplingplaninsupportoftheGeotechnicalFieldExplorationandHazMatInvestigationWorkPlan.Weappreciatethisopportunitytoprovideourservicestoyou.Shouldyourequireadditionalinformationorhaveanyquestionsregardingthisreport,pleasecontactMarkPeabodyat(858)320-2000orLizanneSimmonsat(951)506-1488.Respectfullysubmitted,KLEINFELDERWEST,INC.MargareR.CarrollLizanneSimmons,PGNo.7431EnvironmentalScientistSeniorGeologist\MarkPeabody,PENo.’C46787SeniorProfessionalMCR:LS:MP:rp92666-4F/SDI8RO5I_Final-rev.docOctober312008Copyright2008Kleinfelder
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CORRIDOR STUDY
PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved
Only the client or its designated representatives may use this document and
only for the specific project for which this report was prepared.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page i of v October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
AReportPreparedfor:STVIncorporated9130AnaheimPlace,Suite210RanchoCucamonga,California91730HAZARDOUSMATERIALSSTUDYPERRISVALLEYLINECORRIDORPROJECTRIVERSIDECOUNTY,CALIFORNIAKleinfelderProjectNo.92666-4FPreparedby:&M4JLKLE/NFELDERBrightPeoplePightSolutions.LoriA.Cathcart,REARegionalManagerKLEINFELDERWEST,INC.43174BusinessParkDrive,Suite103Temecula,California92590(951)506-1488October31,2008MargaretR.CarrollEnvironmentalProjectManagerReviewedby:92666-4F/SD18R051_Final-rev.docCopyright2008KleinfelderPageiiofvOctober31,2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page iii of v October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PURPOSE................................................................................................. 1
1.2 DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES .......................................................... 2
1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS................................................................. 3
1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS............................................................ 3
1.5 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS...................................................... 4
2.0 SETTING .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION/LAND USE............................................................... 5
2.2 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue.......................... 7
2.2.2 Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue ........... 9
2.2.3 Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair
Isle Drive)................................................................................... 11
2.2.4 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus
Avenue ....................................................................................... 13
2.2.5 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road ........................... 15
2.2.6 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74).............. 17
2.2.7 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215.............. 19
2.3 ADJOINING AREA LAND USE................................................................ 21
3.0 HISTORICAL USE OF THE CORRIDOR AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES..... 23
3.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue........................ 24
3.1.2 Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue ......... 26
3.1.3 Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair
Isle Drive)................................................................................... 26
3.1.4 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus
Avenue ....................................................................................... 27
3.1.5 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road ........................... 29
3.1.6 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74).............. 31
3.1.7 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215.............. 32
3.2 HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW........................................ 34
3.2.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue........................ 35
3.2.2 Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue ......... 36
3.2.3 Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair
Isle Drive)................................................................................... 37
3.2.4 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus
Avenue ....................................................................................... 38
3.2.5 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road ........................... 40
3.2.6 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74).............. 41
3.2.7 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215.............. 42
3.3 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS..................................................... 43
3.3.1 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74).............. 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page iv of v October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
3.3.2 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215.............. 46
4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE................................................................................. 49
4.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................... 49
4.2 SITE OBSERVATIONS............................................................................ 49
5.0 RECORDS REVIEW .......................................................................................... 58
5.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES .......................... 58
5.2 ADDITIONAL AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS ......................... 61
5.2.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District ............................ 61
5.2.2 City of Riverside Building Department........................................ 62
5.2.3 Riverside County Department of Environmental Health ............. 63
5.2.4 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board...................... 68
5.2.5 State Fire Marshall, Pipeline Safety Office................................. 71
5.2.6 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.......................................... 71
5.2.7 Questar Corporation................................................................... 72
5.2.8 Perris Building Department......................................................... 72
5.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ............................................ 72
5.3.1 Segments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (partial) ........................................ 73
5.3.2 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus
Avenue ....................................................................................... 73
5.3.3 Segments 4 and 5 ...................................................................... 74
5.3.4 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road ........................... 75
5.3.5 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215.............. 75
5.4 FACILITIES OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN................ 76
6.0 EVALUATION.................................................................................................... 92
6.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ................................................................ 92
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS................................................................. 93
7.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................ 95
8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 97
TABLES
Table 1 Site Description and Land Use .................................................................. 5
Table 2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology - Segments 1 through 7
(Tables 2A through 2G)........................................................................8-20
Table 3 Adjoining Land Use .................................................................................. 21
Table 4 Historical Aerial Photographs Reviewed .................................................. 23
Table 5 Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed...................................................35
Table 6 Site Observations .................................................................................... 50
Table 7 Records Reviewed and Number of Listings............................................. 59
Table 8 Environmental Sites of Interest ............................................................... 77
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page v of v October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
PLATES
Plate 1 Site Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Perris Valley Line – Segments 1, 2, 3
Plate 3 Perris Valley Line – Segments 4, 5
Plate 4 Perris Valley Line – Segments 6, 7
Plate 5 Detailed Site Plan, proposed Palmyrita Station Site
APPENDICES
Appendix A Historical Information and Referenced Materials
Appendix B Corridor Photographs
Appendix C Environmental Database Report
Appendix D Regulatory Correspondence and Information
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A Hazardous Materials Corridor Study (HMCS) was performed for Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) under contract to STV Incorporated (STV) by
Kleinfelder, for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Corridor Project (Project). The proposed
Project traverses a section of railroad alignment from the City of Riverside on the north
to the City of Perris on the south, in Riverside County, California (see Plate 1, Site
Vicinity Map). The Corridor is the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) portion of the PVL
plus the proposed connection to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline.
The Corridor evaluated in this report does not include BNSF mainline portion however.
The Corridor has been divided into seven segments, as shown on Plate 1, from north to
south, to simplify preparation and understanding of this report. According to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) draft project description, the proposed new
connection to the BNSF mainline and proposed stations at eight locations are referred
to from north to south, as the proposed Citrus Connection and proposed Palmyrita
Station (both included in Segment 1), proposed University of California Riverside (UCR)
Station (Segment 2), proposed Fair Isle Station (Segment 3), proposed Moreno
Valley/March Field Station (Segment 4), proposed Ramona Station (Segment 5),
proposed Downtown Perris Station (Segment 6), and proposed South Perris Station
(Segment 7). For the purposes of this report, the Corridor, proposed connector, and
proposed stations are referred to collectively as the Site. Additionally, the Corridor,
proposed connector, proposed stations, and off-Site properties located within a 500-foot
distance of the Corridor and proposed stations are referred to as the Study Area for this
assessment. This report was prepared as part of the overall CEQA study for the
Corridor and to provide data for the preparation of a sampling plan as part of the
Geotechnical Drilling Program.
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this HMCS is to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to limitations
discussed in this report and the scope of work set forth in Work Order No. 2 provided by
STV 1 : 1) the potential for hazardous materials from Study Area sources to have
impacted the Site; and 2) to identify potential impacts from environmental conditions of
concern associated with the Site that could cause risk to human health and/or the
environment. The term environmental conditions of concern is not intended to include
1Dated February 19, 2008
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 1 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the
environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if
brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
This report describes Kleinfelder’s assessment methodology and documents our
assessment findings, subject to the limitations presented in Section 1.4 of this report.
1.2 DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES
The following sections describe Kleinfelder’s work scope:
• Section 1, Introduction, includes a discussion of the purpose/reason for performing
the HMCS, an evaluation of significant assumptions (i.e., property boundaries if not
marked in the field), limitations, exceptions, and special terms and conditions (i.e.,
contractual), and user reliance parameters.
• Section 2, Setting, is a compilation of information concerning the study area, legal
description (if provided), current and proposed use of the Study Area, a description
of structures and improvements on the Site at the time of Kleinfelder’s assessment,
and adjoining property use. Physical setting sources (including topography, soil and
groundwater conditions) are also presented in this Section.
• Section 3, Historical Use of the Study Area, summarizes the history of the
Corridor, proposed stations, and adjoining properties. This history is based on
various sources, which include: a review of historical aerial photographs, historical
topographic maps, and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
• Section 4, Site Reconnaissance, describes Kleinfelder’s observations during the
reconnaissance of the Study Area. The methodology and limiting conditions are
described in this Section.
• Section 5, Records Review, is a compilation of Kleinfelder’s review of several
databases available from Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies regarding
hazardous substance use, storage, or disposal within the Study Area. Records
provided by the RCTC and STV are summarized and copies of relevant documents,
such as building department records and results of previous site assessments, are
included in the appendices of this report.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 2 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• Section 6, Evaluation, is a presentation of identified impacts and their significance,
as well as opinions regarding the information in Sections 2 through 5. Our
conclusions regarding the sites of environmental interest and potential presence of
hazardous materials connected with the Site are presented.
• Section 7, Potential Mitigation Measures, is a summary of potential measures to
mitigate potential environmental impacts/issues discussed in Section 6.
• Section 8, References, is a summary of some of the resources used to compile this
report.
Pertinent documentation regarding the Study Area is included in appendices of this
report.
The scope of this HMCS is designed to meet CEQA requirements, was not performed to
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-05 Standard for Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments. An evaluation of business environmental risk
associated with the Site was not included in Kleinfelder’s scope of work. This report
therefore does not incorporate business environmental risk considerations, such as
asbestos-containing materials, radon, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water,
wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene,
health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, vapor
intrusion, and high voltage power lines.
1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
Kleinfelder assumes the accuracy of the subcontracted regulatory agency database
report, attached. Kleinfelder also assumes the property owner(s) and/or Client provided
all applicable and available environmental records and specialized knowledge regarding
the Site. Kleinfelder has not made other significant assumptions during the
performance of this HMCS.
1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
A HMCS is non-comprehensive by nature and may not identify all environmental
problems, and will not eliminate all risk. This report is a qualitative assessment.
Kleinfelder offers a range of investigative and engineering services to suit the needs of
our clients, including more quantitative investigations. Although risk can never be
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 3 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
eliminated, more detailed and extensive investigations yield more information, which
may help RCTC and STV understand and better manage risks. Since such detailed
services involve greater expense, we ask our clients to participate in identifying the level
of service, which will provide them with an acceptable level of risk.
Kleinfelder performed this HMCS consistent with the proposed scope subsequently
approved by RCTC and STV. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made.
Environmental issues not specifically addressed in this report were beyond the scope of
our services and not included in our evaluation.
This report may be used only by the RCTC and STV and only for the purposes stated
within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than 1 year from the
date of the report. Land or facility use, on- and off-site conditions, regulations, or other
factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of
time. Since site activities and regulations beyond our control could change at any time
after the completion of this report, our observations, findings, and opinions can be
considered valid only as of the date of the Site visit. This report does not provide
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
“Innocent Owner” protections (ASTM E1527-05 Standard, Section 4.6). Any party other
than RCTC and STV who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such
intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that
additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance
with any of these requirements by RCTC and STV or anyone else will release
Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized
party, and RCTC and STV agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder
from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance.
1.5 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
No special terms and conditions in addition to those discussed previously were agreed
to by RCTC and STV or Kleinfelder in Work Order No. 2 provided by STV, dated
February 19, 2008.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 4 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.0 SETTING
Presented in this section is a description of the condition of the Study Area at the time of
the HMCS. The Site Vicinity Map is shown on Plate 1. Tables 1 through 3 summarize
the area description and land use, physical characteristics, and adjoining properties.
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION/LAND USE
The Site consists of an approximately 22 mile Corridor along an existing railroad line
and eight proposed station locations. For purposes of this report, the Corridor has been
divided into numbered Segments 1 through 7, descending from north to south. The
Study Area for this assessment includes off-Site properties located within a 500-foot
distance of the Corridor, the Corridor, proposed connector segment, and proposed
stations. Table 1 provides a description of the Corridor segments, proposed stations,
and proposed connector segment along with associated land use. Information
presented in this section was obtained from review of various maps (such as
topographic maps and tax assessor maps), aerial photographs, public records at city
and/or county offices, interviews, and information provided by RCTC and STV.
Table 1
Site Description and Land Use
Segments Description/Land Use
Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue
Corridor Segment 1 consists of the northern most portion of the Corridor from the
proposed Citrus Connection located south of Spring Street, continuing
south along the existing railroad tracks to, and including, the proposed
Palmyrita Station. Segment 1 terminates at Columbia Avenue. Land use
within the vicinity of Segment 1 is predominantly industrial and residential.
Land use specific to proposed stations (Citrus Connection and Palmyrita
Stations) within Segment 1 is described below.
Proposed Citrus
Connection
The proposed Citrus Connection consists of vacant land between Spring
Street on the north and just south of Springbook Wash, which traverses in
an east-west direction along the southern portion of the proposed Citrus
Connection. No structures are currently located on the proposed Citrus
Connection property.
Proposed Palmyrita
Station
The proposed Palmyrita Station consists of a vacant industrial building
surrounded by vacant land that was formerly used for agricultural purposes
(orange groves). A single row of orange trees is currently located around
the perimeter of the proposed Palmyrita Station property.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 5 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 1 (Continued)
Site Description and Land Use
Segments Description/Land Use
Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue
Corridor
Segment 2 consists of that portion of the Corridor along the existing railroad
tracks from Columbia Avenue and continuing south, up to and including the
proposed UCR Station, terminating at Mount Vernon Avenue. Land use in
the vicinity of Segment 2 is predominantly commercial and residential.
Land use specific to the proposed UCR Station is described below.
Proposed UCR Station The proposed UCR Station consists of vacant land with the railroad tracks
traversing the approximate center. Neighboring residences to the north of
the proposed UCR Station have encroached onto the eastern portion of the
property and are using this area for storage purposes, a basketball court,
and gardens.
Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive)
Corridor Segment 3 consists of that portion of the Corridor along the Existing
railroad tracks from Mount Vernon Avenue and continuing east, then south,
to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive). Segment 3 includes the proposed
Fair Isle Station to the north of Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive). Land
use within the vicinity of Segment 3 is predominantly residential and vacant
land. Land use specific to the proposed Fair Isle Station is described
below.
Proposed Fair Isle
Station
The proposed Fair Isle Station consists of undeveloped land. Outcrops of
boulders and evidence of alluvial deposits were observed at the proposed
Fair Isle Station property.
Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue
Corridor Segment 4 consists of that portion of the Corridor along the Existing
railroad tracks from Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) and continuing
south to Cactus Avenue. Segment 4 consists of the proposed March Field
Station between Alessandro Boulevard to the north and Cactus Avenue to
the south. Land use in the vicinity of Segment 4 is predominantly
commercial and vacant land. Land use specific to the proposed March
Field Station is described below.
Proposed Moreno
Valley/ March Field
Station
The proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station consists of vacant land.
Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
Corridor Segment 5 consists of that portion of the Corridor along the Existing
railroad tracks from Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road. Segment 5 includes
the proposed Ramona Station located immediately south of the Cajalco
Expressway and west of Interstate 215 (I-215). Land use in the vicinity of
Segment 5 is predominantly vacant land with some commercial and
industrial development. Land use specific to the proposed Ramona Station
is described below.
Proposed Ramona
Station
The proposed Ramona Station consists of vacant land.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 6 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 1 (Continued)
Site Description and Land Use
Segments Description/Land Use
Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74)
Corridor Segment 6 consists of that portion of the Corridor along the Existing
railroad tracks from Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74) in downtown
Perris. Segment 6 includes the proposed Downtown Perris Station located
between 1st Street on the north, and just north of 4th Street on the south.
Land use in the vicinity of Segment 6 consists of vacant land and
commercial development. Land use specific to the proposed Downtown
Perris Station is described below.
Proposed Downtown
Perris Station
The proposed Downtown Perris Station consists of four parcels. The
southwestern parcel is occupied by two vacant commercial structures. The
remaining parcels consist of vacant land surrounding the railroad tracks.
Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
Corridor Segment 7 consists of that portion of the Corridor along the Existing
railroad tracks from 4th Street (Highway 74) and continuing south then east
to I-215. Segment 7 includes the proposed South Perris Station located
immediately west of I-215 and north of Bonnie Drive. Land use in the
vicinity of Segment 7 is a mixed use of residential, commercial, industrial,
and vacant land. Land use specific to the proposed South Perris Station is
described below.
Proposed South Perris
Station
The proposed South Perris Station consists of vacant land.
2.2 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
The physical conditions of the Corridor by segment are discussed in the following
sections.
2.2.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue
Segment 1 of the PVL Corridor study ranges in elevation from approximately 937 feet
above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 968 feet above msl. The general
topographic relief in the segment vicinity is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward the
west-northwest (Environmental Data Resources [EDR], 2008b). Soils within the
immediate vicinity of the segment consist of sandy loam and coarse sandy loam. These
soils are considered hydrologic class B soils. Class B soils have moderate infiltration
rates, and include moderately well and well-drained soils with moderately coarse
textures (EDR, 2008a; Soil Survey Geographic Database [SSURGO]).
No oil and gas fields were identified within the 500-foot search distance of the Corridor
(Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources [DOGGR], 2007).
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 7 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Information about regional geology associated with Segment 1 is presented on
Table 2a. This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with
public agencies, or from previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the vicinity
of the segment.
Table 2a
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 1
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources:
Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Riverside East 7.5’ Quadrangle,
Riverside County, California, scale
1:24,000, Morton, 2001; Western
Municipal Water District [WMWD],
2007; Dibblee, 2003)
Segment 1 is located within the Riverside Basin (WMWD,
2007), which is located in the northern part of the Peninsular
Ranges Province within the northern part of the Perris block,
between the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones (Morton,
2001). Regional mapping indicates the surficial sediments
underlying Segment 1 are primarily Pleistocene alluvial
deposits derived from local terrains of plutonic rocks. Alluvial
deposits include tan to light reddish brown sand and minor
gravel dissected by stream channels (Dibblee, 2003).
DEPTH TO REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER (Source: WMWD
Fall 2007 Cooperative Well Measuring
Program)
Based on depth to water data available from nearby wells,
groundwater beneath Segment 1 is anticipated to exceed 100
feet below ground surface (bgs) (WMWD, 2007). Fluctuations
of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water,
and increased soil moisture content should be anticipated
during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of
landscaped areas on or adjacent to the segment can also
cause a fluctuation of local groundwater levels.
DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED
FLOW1 (Source: EDR, 2008a) Groundwater flow in the area is reported to be west-northwest.
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS (Sources:
EDR, 2008a; City of Riverside Public
Utilities, 2007)
Regional groundwater problems were not identified in the
EDR report (EDR, 2008a). Water quality parameters along
this area meet state regulations (City of Riverside Public
Utilities, 2007).
WATER SUPPLY (Source: EDR,
2008a)
The well search revealed no wells within an approximate 0.5-
mile distance of the segment. A total of twelve water wells
were identified between 0.5-mile and 1.0-mile of Segment 1;
however, no public supply wells were mapped by EDR.
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
(Sources: EDR, 2008a; Federal
Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA], 2008)
The segment vicinity is designated as a being in a “Zone C”
flood zone according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). Zone C is assigned to areas where minimal flooding
occurs.
1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Segment-specific conditions may
vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present),
and other developments.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 8 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.2.2 Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue
Segment 2 of the PVL Corridor study ranges in elevation from approximately 950 feet
above msl to approximately 1,193 feet above msl. The general topographic relief in the
segment vicinity is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward the west-northwest (EDR,
2008b). Soils within the immediate vicinity of the segment consist of sandy loam and
coarse sandy loam. These soils are considered hydrologic class B soils. Class B soils
have moderate infiltration rates, and include moderately well and well-drained soils with
moderately coarse textures (EDR, 2008a; SSURGO).
No oil and gas fields were identified within the 500-foot search distance of the Corridor
(DOGGR, 2007).
Information about regional geology associated with Segment 2 is presented on
Table 2b. This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with
public agencies, and/or from previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the
vicinity of the segment.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 9 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 2b
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 2
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources:
Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Riverside East 7.5’ Quadrangle,
Riverside County, California, scale
1:24,000, Morton, 2001; WMWD,
2007; Dibblee, 2003)
Segment 2 is located within the Riverside Basin (WMWD,
2007), which is located in the northern part of the Peninsular
Ranges Province within the northern part of the Perris block,
between the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones (Morton,
2001). Regional mapping indicates the surficial sediments
underlying Segment 2 are primarily Pleistocene alluvial
deposits derived from local terrains of plutonic rocks. Alluvial
deposits include tan to light reddish brown sand and minor
gravel dissected by stream channels (Dibblee, 2003). To the
east of Segment 2 are the Box Springs Mountains, which are
composed of biotite granodiorite and tonalite (Dibblee, 2003;
Morton, 2001).
DEPTH TO REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER (Source: WMWD,
2007)
Depth to water data was available from four nearby wells
located within a 0.5- to 1-mile radius of Segment 2. Based on
groundwater data from three of the four wells, depth to
groundwater beneath Segment 2 is anticipated to exceed 100
feet bgs. However, depth to groundwater in an agricultural
well nearby indicates a depth to groundwater of 63.5 feet bgs
(WMWD, 2007). Fluctuations of the groundwater level,
localized zones of perched water, and increased soil moisture
content should be anticipated during and following the rainy
season. Irrigation of landscaped areas on or adjacent to the
segment can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater
levels.
DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED
FLOW1 (Source: EDR, 2008a) Groundwater flow in the area is reported to be west-northwest.
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS (Sources:
EDR, 2008a; Riverside Public Utilities,
2007)
Regional groundwater problems were not identified in the
EDR report (EDR, 2008a). Water quality parameters along
this area meet state regulations (City of Riverside Public
Utilities, 2007).
WATER SUPPLY (Source: EDR,
2008a)
The well search revealed no wells within an approximate 0.5-
mile radius of the segment. A total of seven water wells were
identified between 0.5-mile and 1.0-mile of Segment 2;
however, no public supply wells were mapped by EDR.
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
(Sources: EDR, 2008a; FEMA, 2008)
The segment vicinity is designated as a being in a “Zone C”
flood zone according to the FIRM. Zone C is assigned to
areas where minimal flooding occurs.
1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Segment-specific conditions may
vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present),
and other developments.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 10 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.2.3 Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive)
Segment 3 of the PVL Corridor study ranges in elevation from approximately 1,193 feet
above msl to approximately 1,452 feet above msl. The general topographic relief in the
segment vicinity slopes toward the west-northwest (United States Geological Survey
[USGS], 1980). Soils within the immediate vicinity of the segment consist of sandy loam
(D.E. Beaudette and A.T. O'Geen, 2008).
No oil and gas fields were identified within the 500-foot search distance of the Corridor
(DOGGR, 2007).
Information about regional geology associated with Segment 3 is presented on
Table 2c. This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with
public agencies, and/or from previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the
vicinity of the segment.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 11 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 2c
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 3
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources:
Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Riverside East 7.5’ Quadrangle,
Riverside County, California, scale
1:24,000, Morton, 2001; WMWD,
2007; Dibblee 2003)
Segment 3 is located within the Riverside Basin (WMWD,
2007), which is located in the northern part of the Peninsular
Ranges Province within the northern part of the Perris block,
between the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones (Morton,
2001). Regional mapping indicates surficial sediments
underlying Segment 3 are primarily Pleistocene alluvial
deposits derived from local terrains of plutonic rocks. Alluvial
deposits include tan to light reddish brown sand and minor
gravel dissected by stream channels (Dibblee, 2003). Biotite
hornblende tonalite is also prevalent in the immediate
segment vicinity along the south side of the Box Springs
Mountains (Morton, 2001).
DEPTH TO REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER (Source: WMWD,
2007)
Depth to water data was available from three nearby wells
(WMWD, 2007). Based on data from these three wells, depth
to groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 100 feet bgs;
however, groundwater depth was measured between 8.62
and 24.85 feet bgs at 20775 Box Springs Road. Fluctuations
of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water,
and increased soil moisture content should be anticipated
during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of
landscaped areas on or adjacent to the segment can also
cause a fluctuation of local groundwater levels.
DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED
FLOW1 (Source: Eastern Municipal
Water District [EMWD], 2008)
Based on groundwater level contours, groundwater flow in the
immediate vicinity of the segment is reported to be to the
southeast (EMWD, 2008).
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS (Sources:
EDR, 2008a; EMWD, 2007)
Regional groundwater problems were not identified in the
EDR report (EDR, 2008a). According to the water quality
report, water quality parameters met state regulations
(EMWD, 2007).
WATER SUPPLY (Source:
GeoTracker, 2008)
The well search revealed no wells within an approximate 0.5-
mile radius of the segment.
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
(Source: EDR, 2008a) No flood zones are located within a 0.5-mile of the segment.
1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Segment-specific conditions may
vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present),
and other developments.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 12 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.2.4 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue
Segment 4 of the PVL Corridor study ranges in elevation from approximately 1,452 feet
above msl to approximately 1,537 feet above msl. The general topographic relief in the
segment vicinity slopes toward the south-southeast (USGS, 1980). Soils within the
immediate vicinity of the segment consist of sandy loam (D.E. Beaudette and A.T.
O'Geen, 2008).
No oil and gas fields were identified within the 500-foot search distance of the segment
(DOGGR, 2007).
Information about regional geology associated with Segment 4 is presented on
Table 2d. This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with
public agencies, and/or from previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the
vicinity of the segment.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 13 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 2d
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 4
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources:
Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Riverside East 7.5’ Quadrangle,
Riverside County, California, scale
1:24,000, Morton, 2001; WMWD,
2007; Dibblee, 2003)
Segment 4 is located within the Riverside Basin (WMWD,
2007), which is located in the northern part of the Peninsular
Ranges Province within the northern part of the Perris block,
between the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones (Morton,
2001). Regional mapping indicates the surficial sediments
underlying the segment are primarily Pleistocene alluvial
deposits derived from local terrains of plutonic rocks. Alluvial
deposits include tan to light reddish brown sand and minor
gravel dissected by stream channels (Dibblee, 2003). Biotite
hornblende tonalite is also prevalent in the immediate
segment vicinity along the south side of the Box Springs
Mountains (Morton, 2001)
DEPTH TO REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER (Source: WMWD,
2007)
Based on available depth to groundwater data, depth to
groundwater beneath the segment is anticipated to exceed
100 feet bgs (WMWD, 2007); however, groundwater depths
were measured between 19.17 and 23.64 feet bgs at 1596
Nandina Avenue. Fluctuations of the groundwater level,
localized zones of perched water, and increased soil moisture
content should be anticipated during and following the rainy
season. Irrigation of landscaped areas on or adjacent to the
segment can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater
levels.
DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED
FLOW1 (Source: EMWD, 2008)
Based on groundwater level contours, groundwater flow in the
immediate vicinity of the segment is anticipated to be to the
southeast (EMWD, 2008).
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS (Sources:
EDR, 2008a; EMWD, 2007)
Regional groundwater problems were not identified in the
EDR report (EDR, 2008a). According to the water quality
report, water quality parameters met state regulations
(EMWD, 2007).
WATER SUPPLY (Source:
GeoTracker, 2008)
The well search revealed no wells within an approximate 0.5-
mile radius of the segment.
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
(Source: EDR, 2008a) No flood zones are located within a 0.5-mile of the segment.
1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Segment-specific conditions may
vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present),
and other developments.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 14 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.2.5 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
Segment 5 of the PVL Corridor study ranges in elevation from approximately 1,498 feet
above msl to approximately 1,509 feet above msl. The general topographic relief in the
segment vicinity is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward the east-northeast (EDR,
2008b). Soils within the immediate vicinity of the segment consist of sandy loam and
coarse sandy loam. These soils are considered hydrologic class B soils. Class B soils
have moderate infiltration rates, and include moderately well and well-drained soils with
moderately coarse textures (EDR, 2008a, SSURGO).
No oil and gas fields were identified within the 500-foot search distance of the Corridor
(DOGGR, 2007).
Information about regional geology associated with Segment 5 is presented on
Table 2e. This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with
public agencies, and/or from previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the
vicinity of the segment.
Table 2e
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 5
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources:
Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Steele Peak 7.5’ Quadrangle,
Riverside County, California, scale
1:24,000, Morton, 2002; Dibblee,
2003;)
Segment 5 is located in the northern part of the Peninsular
Ranges Province within the central part of the Perris block,
between the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones. Regional
mapping indicates the surficial sediments underlying Segment
5 are primarily Holocene alluvial deposits (unconsolidated and
undissected) characterized by alluvial sand and clay of valley
areas, covered with gray clay soil. The segment is underlain
by Cretaceous and older basement rocks. Cretaceous
plutonic rocks are part of the composite Peninsular Ranges
batholith. Biotite-hornblende tonalite of the relatively large Val
Verde pluton dominates the northeastern half of the Steele
Peak quadrangle. Approximate location has a potassium-
argon age of 102 million years (Dibblee, 2003; Morton, 2002).
DEPTH TO REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER (Sources: WMWD,
2007; Metropolitan Water District
[MWD], 2007)
Based on available depth to groundwater, depth to
groundwater beneath the segment is anticipated to exceed 50
feet bgs (WMWD, 2007; MWD, 2007). Fluctuations of the
groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and
increased soil moisture content should be anticipated during
and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas
on or adjacent to the Segment can also cause a fluctuation of
local groundwater levels.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 15 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 2e (Continued)
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 5
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED
FLOW 1 (Sources: EDR, 2008a;
MWD, 2007; Earth Tech, 2003)
Groundwater flow in the area is anticipated to be variable.
Based on topography, groundwater flow direction is
anticipated to be to the east-northeast (EDR, 2008b).
Additionally, groundwater flow direction mapped for the West
San Jacinto Basins for spring 2008 depict groundwater flow
primarily to the southeast in the vicinity of Segment 5 (MWD,
2007). Information obtained regarding March Air Reserve
Base (MARB) describes complex groundwater flow directions
at the Main Base. Based on depth-to-groundwater
measurements only, the predominant groundwater flow
direction over most of the Main Base is generally toward the
southeast. Mounding of shallow groundwater in this area has
occurred due to significant recharge from the unlined Heacock
Storm Drain along the eastern base boundary. A groundwater
divide is situated in the MARB Site 2/27 area (near the north
end of the airfield). To the north of MARB Site 2/27
groundwater flows to the northwest, while flow is to the
southeast south of MARB Site 2/27 (Earth Tech, 2003).
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS (Sources:
EDR, 2008a; Earth Tech, 2003)
Regional groundwater problems were not identified in the
EDR report (EDR, 2008a). MARB has several contaminated
sites from fuels, oils, solvents, household wastes, construction
rubble, and other contaminants. Operable Unit 1 has the most
widespread contaminate plume thought to originate from
solvent spills, with the most persistent contaminate being
trichloroethene (TCE). However, the groundwater direction
has spread contamination to the south and east well outside
of the Study Area. Other sites have been remediated or are in
active remediation (Earth Tech, 2003).
WATER SUPPLY (Sources:
GeoTracker, 2008; EDR, 2008a)
The well search revealed no wells within an approximate 0.5-
mile radius of Segment 5. Two water wells were mapped by
EDR as being greater than 0.5-mile from the segment. No
public supply wells were identified to be within a 1-mile radius
of the segment on the EDR map.
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
(Source: EDR, 2008a; FEMA, 2008)
No flood zones are located within a 0.5-mile of the Segment
(EDR, 2008a). (Note: Mapping of FEMA flood zones is not
presented within the boundaries of MARB)
1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Segment-specific conditions may
vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present),
and other developments.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 16 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.2.6 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74)
Segment 6 of the Perris Valley Line Corridor study ranges in elevation from
approximately 1,509 feet above msl to approximately 1,546 feet msl. The general
topographic relief in the segment vicinity is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward the
east-northeast (EDR, 2008b). Soils within the immediate vicinity of the segment consist
of sandy loam and coarse sandy loam. These soils are considered hydrologic class B
soils. Class B soils have moderate infiltration rates, and include moderately well and
well-drained soils with moderately coarse textures (EDR, 2008a; SSURGO).
No oil and gas fields were identified within the 500-foot search distance of the Corridor
(DOGGR, 2007).
Information about regional geology associated with Segment 6 is presented on Table 2f.
This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with public
agencies, and/or from previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the vicinity of
the segment.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 17 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 2f
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 6
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources:
Preliminary Geologic Map of the Steele
Peak 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside
County, California, scale 1:24,000,
Morton, 2002; Dibblee, 2003)
Segment 6 is located in the northern part of the Peninsular
Ranges Province within the central part of the Perris block,
between the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones. Regional
mapping indicates the surficial sediments underlying the
segment are primarily Holocene alluvial deposits
(unconsolidated and undissected) characterized by alluvial
sand and clay of valley areas, covered with gray clay soil. The
segment is underlain by Cretaceous and older basement
rocks. Cretaceous plutonic rocks are part of the composite
Peninsular Ranges batholith. Biotite-hornblende tonalite of
the relatively large Val Verde pluton dominates the
northeastern half of the Steele Peak quadrangle.
Approximate location has a potassium-argon age of 102
million years (Dibblee, 2003; Morton, 2002).
DEPTH TO REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER (Sources: WMWD,
2007; MWD, 2007)
The depth to groundwater in nearby wells indicate that
groundwater beneath the segment is likely greater than 100
feet bgs north of Nuevo Road and approximately 60 feet bgs
at the southern portion of Segment 6. Fluctuations of the
groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and
increased soil moisture content should be anticipated during
and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas
on or adjacent to the segment can also cause a fluctuation of
local groundwater levels.
DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED
FLOW1 (Source: MWD, 2007)
Based on contours from spring 2005, groundwater flows to the
southeast north of Nuevo Road and to the northeast south of
Nuevo Road.
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS (Source: EDR,
2008a; EMWD, 2008)
Regional groundwater problems were not identified in the
EDR report (EDR, 2008a). Based on information obtained
from the EMWD website, water quality along the Corridor
meets state and federal Maximum Contaminant Levels
(Personal conversation with Mr. John Daverin of EMWD).
WATER SUPPLY (Source:
GeoTracker, 2008; EDR, 2008a)
The well search revealed no wells within an approximate 0.5-
mile radius of the segment. Two water wells were mapped by
EDR as being greater than 0.5 mile from the segment. No
public supply wells were identified to be within a 1-mile radius
of the segment on the EDR map.
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
(Source: EDR, 2008a; FEMA, 2008)
Most of Segment 6 is outside of the 500-year flood zone;
however, the southern extent of the segment is designated as
being within the 100-year flood zone. The flood zone is
designated as “Zone AE” flood hazard zone and is defined as
an area of 100-year floods where the base flood elevation has
been determined (FEMA, 2008).
1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Segment-specific conditions may
vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present),
and other developments.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 18 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.2.7 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
Segment 7 of the PVL Corridor study ranges in elevation from approximately 1,414 feet
above msl to approximately 1,452 feet above msl. The general topographic relief in the
segment vicinity is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward the east-southeast (EDR,
2008b). Soils within the immediate vicinity of the segment consist of fine sandy loam,
very fine sandy loam, and silty clay. These soils are considered hydrologic class C and
D soils, respectively. Class C soils have slow infiltration rates and include layers, which
impede the downward movement of water. Class D soils have very slow infiltration
rates, are characterized by clayey soils, and have a high water table or are shallow to
an impervious layer (EDR, 2008a).
No oil and gas fields were identified within the 500-foot search distance of the Corridor
(DOGGR, 2007).
Information about regional geology associated with Segment 7 is presented on
Table 2g. This information was obtained from published data and maps, interviews with
public agencies, and/or from previous investigations conducted by Kleinfelder in the
vicinity of the segment.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 19 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 2g
Regional Geology and Hydrogeology – Segment 7
Physical Parameter Information/Comments
REGIONAL GEOLOGY (Sources:
Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Perris Quadrangle, Riverside
County, California, scale 1:24,000,
Morton, 2003; Dibblee, 2003)
Segment 7 is located within the Perris Valley Basin. The Perris
Valley Basin resides in the central portion of the Perris Block,
within the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic
province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are a northwest-
southeast oriented complex of mountain ranges and valleys
formed by sub-unit blocks that are separated by similarly
trending strike-slip faults. Regional mapping indicates the
surficial sediments underlying the segment are primarily
Holocene alluvial fan deposits characterized by alluvial sand
and clay of valley areas (Dibblee, 2003; Morton, 2003).
DEPTH TO REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER (Source:
WMWD, 2007)
The depth to groundwater in nearby wells indicates that
groundwater beneath the segment is likely between 55 and 65
feet bgs. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones
of perched water, and increased soil moisture content should be
anticipated during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of
landscaped areas on or adjacent to the segment can also cause
a fluctuation of local groundwater levels.
DIRECTION OF ANTICIPATED
FLOW1 (Source: MWD, 2007)
The estimated direction of groundwater flow is to the west-
northwest, based on spring 2005 water level contours for the
west San Jacinto Basins (MWD, 2007).
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS (Sources:
EDR, 2008a, EMWD, 2007)
Regional groundwater quality problems and regional
impairments to water quality were not revealed during
Kleinfelder’s assessment (EDR, 2008a). The segment is
located within the EMWD service area. A copy of the Water
Quality Report was obtained from the EMWD internet site. In
summary, water quality meets federal and state drinking water
standards (EMWD, 2007).
WATER SUPPLY (Source: EDR,
2008a)
Water is supplied by the EMWD. The well search revealed no
wells within an approximate 0.5-mile radius of the segment.
One water well was mapped by EDR as being greater than 0.5-
mile from the segment. No public supply wells were identified to
be within a 1-mile radius of the segment on the EDR map.
FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
(Sources: EDR, 2008a; FEMA,
2008)
According to the EDR regulatory agency database search
report, the segment is located within the 100-year flood zone.
The segment is referenced as being located within a “Zone AE”
flood hazard zone as designated by FEMA (FEMA, 2008). Zone
AE is defined as an area of 100-year floods where the base
flood elevation has been determined (FEMA, 2008).
1 Groundwater flow direction is based on regional information sources. Segment-specific conditions may
vary due to a variety of factors including geologic anomalies, utilities, nearby pumping wells (if present),
and other developments.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 20 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
2.3 ADJOINING AREA LAND USE
Kleinfelder performed a brief windshield survey of the properties immediately adjoining
the Corridor, proposed connector, and proposed stations between April 14, 2008 and
April 18, 2008. A summary of the surrounding properties is presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Adjoining Land Use
Segment Land Use Description
Segment 1 Vacant land adjoins Segment 1 to the north, followed by Villa Street and a tractor
trailer storage yard.
Segment 1 is bound by single-family residences to the east from Spring Street to
Citrus Street. Industrial and commercial facilities (i.e., mobile home fabricator,
West Coast Wire and Steel, and Sabert) and vacant land bound Segment 1 to the
east, south of Citrus Street to Columbia Avenue. Railroad tracks are located
immediately east of Segment 1 between Palmyrita and Columbia Avenues,
followed by a commercial facility (Sabert) and vacant land.
A main railroad line (mainline) adjoins Segment 1 to the west, beyond which are
industrial/commercial buildings (i.e. Apprenticeship Training Center, and vacant
land from Spring Street to Citrus Street. Hunter Business Park, commercial
facilities, and an orange grove bound Segment 1 to the west from Citrus Street
south to Columbia Avenue.
Segment 2 Segment 2 is bound to the east by a drainage basin and vacant land to the east
from Columbia Avenue and south to approximately Spruce Street. As the
segment bends from a north-south into an east-west alignment, residences
primarily adjoin Segment 2 to the east-northeast from Spruce Street to Mount
Vernon Avenue.
Segment 2 is bound to the west by vacant land and industrial buildings from
Columbia Avenue south to Spruce Street. Residences bound Segment 2 to the
west from Spruce Street to Mount Vernon Avenue, with the exception of an Econo
Wash and Laundry facility, Complete Auto Service facility, and UCR located from
approximately Blaine Street south to Valencia Drive.
Segment 3 As the alignment turns to a more north-south direction, vacant land and land used
for residential purposes bound Segment 3 to the east and west. A stream
parallels Segment 3 to the west near the southern end.
Segment 4 Segment 4 is bound to the east by vacant land until it crosses beneath I-215.
Thereafter, a drainage basin, vacant land, and commercial/industrial buildings
bound Segment 4 to the east, south to approximately Eucalyptus Avenue. I-215
bounds Segment 4 to the east from Eucalyptus Avenue, south to approximately
Alessandra Boulevard. Vacant land is situated east of Segment 4 followed by I-
215 from Alessandro Boulevard to Cactus Avenue.
Vacant land lies immediately west of the northern portion of Segment 4 to Box
Springs Road, followed by the I-215, commercial/industrial facilities along
Sycamore Canyon Boulevard, and the Raceway Autoplex. The Raceway
Autoplex and vacant land bounds that portion of the Segment 4 immediately south
of the I-215, followed by commercial/industrial buildings to approximately
Alessandro Boulevard. Vacant land bounds Segment 4 to the west, south of
Alessandro Boulevard to Cactus Avenue.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 21 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 3
Adjoining Land Use
Segment Land Use Description
Segment 5 Segment 5 is bound by vacant land from Cactus Avenue south to approximately
Van Buren Boulevard to the west and east. Residential areas are situated further
west of the adjoining vacant land, and the I-215 followed by primarily vacant land
is situated further east of the adjoining vacant land. Approximately five silos of
unknown content were observed in the vicinity of the business Cass Construction.
A cemetery, vacant land, and a sewer plant adjoin Segment 5 to the west south of
Van Buren Boulevard to Oleander Avenue. A former auction area, vacant land,
industrial facilities, and a detention basin adjoin Segment 5 to the west, south of
Oleander Avenue south to Cajalco Road. A gasoline station and fast food
restaurant are located west of Segment 5 and south of Cajalco Expressway
adjoining the proposed Ramona Station to the west.
Vacant land is situated immediately east of Segment 5 and south of Van Buren
Boulevard, followed by I-215 and the March Field Air Museum and MARB airfield.
Vacant land is located east of I-215 south to approximately Nandina Avenue.
From Nandina Avenue and south to approximately Cajalco Road, commercial and
industrial facilities, and vacant land are located to the east of I-215.
Segment 6 Segment 6 is bound to the east by I-215 and vacant land from Cajalco Road
south to approximately Nuevo Road. South of Nuevo Road (to the east of
Segment 6) is a commercial/industrial facility, vacant land then residences to
approximately the I-215, ‘D’ Street off ramp. Commercial facilities generally
bound the remaining portion of Segment 6 to the south.
Industrial/commercial facilities (i.e., California Truss Company, Inc., lumber
company, McNally Enterprises Feed Division, JM Eagle, Cal Val, batch plant,
McKinson Brick outlet, Salvation Army, rehabilitation center, office buildings) and
vacant land bound Segment 6 to the west from Cactus Avenue to Harvell. South
of Harvell is ‘A’ Street, an EMWD Pumping Plant, school buildings, offices, vacant
land, and a school field to approximately the I-215 ‘D’ Street off-ramp. The
remaining area west of Segment 6 consists primarily of residences with some
commercial facilities to approximately Highway 74.
Segment 7 Segment 7 is bound to the east by vacant land and commercial facilities south to
‘D’ Street, and to the west predominantly by vacant land, ‘C’ Street and
residences. The Corridor shifts in an east-west direction at approximately ‘D’
Street. This portion of Segment 7 is then bound to the north by commercial
facilities, followed by residences to Perris Boulevard. Vacant land bounds
Segment 7 to the south, with residences beyond to Goetz Road.
Vacant land bounds Segment 7 to the north with industrial facilities near Johnson
Avenue and Ellis Avenue. Vacant land adjoins the remaining northern areas of
Segment 7 east to I-215 where it intersects Highway 74. Case Road followed by
vacant land and the Perris Valley Airport, bounds Segment 7 to the south from
Goetz Road to Murrieta Road. Approaching I-215 a detention basin and the
Perris Valley Water Reclamation Facility reside to the south.
Approximately twenty-six (26) 55-gallon drums were observed on an adjoining
vacant property to the east of Segment 7 (near ‘D’ Street), located immediately
north of 1st Street in the downtown Perris area. The drums appeared to be
associated with remediation that has taken place at this location. In addition, two
55-gallon drums were observed on this property, immediately adjoining to the
Corridor. The drums were labeled "SBC Environmental," and appeared to be
associated with remediation at this property. The contents of the drums were not
listed. No leaking or staining was observed on or beneath the drums.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 22 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
3.0 HISTORICAL USE OF THE CORRIDOR AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES
The history of the Corridor, proposed connector, and proposed stations was researched
to identify obvious uses. Historical land use was researched to the first developed use,
or back to 1940, whichever was earlier or readily available.
3.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
A review of historical aerial photography may suggest past activities at a site that may
not be documented by other means, or observed during a site visit. The effectiveness
of this technique depends on the scale and quality of the photographs and the available
coverage. Aerial photographs were obtained from several historical photograph
collections through EDR (EDR, 2008c). Aerial photographs covering 60 years were
available during the timeframe that this report was being prepared. A tabulation of the
aerial photographs reviewed for the Corridor is presented in Table 4. Copies of the
reviewed aerial photographs are included in Appendix A.
Table 4
Historical Aerial Photographs Reviewed
Date Approximate
Scale Type Source Quality
1931 1” = 333’’ Black and White Monoscopic Fairchild Good
1931* 1” = 1000’ Black and White Monoscopic Fairchild Good
1938 1” = 555’ Black and White Monoscopic Laval Good
1938 1” = 1000’ Black and White Monoscopic Laval Good
1953 1” = 555’ Black and White Monoscopic Pacific Air Good
1953 1” = 1000’’ Black and White Monoscopic Pacific Air Good
1963 1” = 333’ Black and White Monoscopic Mark Hurd Good
1967 1” = 1000’ Black and White Monoscopic Western Good
1977 1” = 666’ Black and White Monoscopic Teledyne Good
1977** 1” = 1000’ Black and White Monoscopic Teledyne Good
1980 1” = 1000 Black and White Monoscopic AMI Good
1989 1” = 666’ Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good
1989 1” = 1000’ Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good
1994 1” = 666’ Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good
1994 1” = 1000’ Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good
2002 1” = 666’ Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good
2002 1” = 1000’ Black and White Monoscopic USGS Good
Notes: Aerial photographs only provide information on indications of land use and no conclusions
regarding the release of hazardous substances can be drawn from the review of photographs
alone.
* North on photograph is incorrectly defined; the arrow points to the northwest, rather than
north.
** Scale is defined as 1”=1000’ on photograph, but appears to be 1”=666’.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 23 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
The Site boundaries were approximated during the early years because physical
features were not always readily apparent.
3.1.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue
• Corridor – With the exception of railroad tracks, no structures were apparent within
Segment 1 between Spring Street on the north and Columbia Avenue on the south,
in the photographs reviewed from 1931 through 2002.
• Proposed Citrus Connection – The proposed Citrus Connection appeared to be
used for agriculture (groves) in the 1931 through 1963 aerial photographs, and
appeared as vacant land in the 1977 through 2002 aerial photographs. A creek,
known as “Springbook Wash,” was apparent at the southern portion of the proposed
Citrus Connection in each of the aerial photographs and traverses the parcel in an
east-west direction. In the 2002 aerial photograph, unimproved roads were apparent
at the northern portion of the parcel.
• Proposed Palmyrita Station – Although difficult to see due to the small scale, a
residential-size structure appeared to have been located at the southwestern corner
of the proposed Palmyrita Station in the 1938 and 1953 photographs. The northern
half of the existing structure and office area adjoining it to the north was apparent on
the 1967 and 1977 aerial photographs. Due to the small scale of the aerial
photograph, it is not clear whether a cooling tower currently present on the parcel is
shown in these photographs. The remaining areas of the proposed Palmyrita
Station were used for agriculture (groves). In the 1989, 1994 and 2002 aerial
photographs, the southern half of the existing building on the proposed Palmyrita
Station parcel was apparent with the parking lot evident east of the building. The
existing cooling tower was apparent. The existing parking lot was apparent in these
photographs. However, due to the small scale, it is unclear whether an existing
fenced area at the southeastern corner of the parking lot is present. The remaining
areas of the proposed Palmyrita Station parcel appeared to be used for agriculture
(groves).
• Surrounding Area (1931, 1938, and 1953) – A railroad is apparent immediately
west of the proposed Citrus Connection . Land bordering the southern perimeter of
the proposed Citrus Connection parcel and south of the creek appears agricultural
with a small structure in the southwest corner. Vacant land was apparent
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 24 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
immediately east of the proposed Citrus Connection parcel, beyond the railroad
tracks, with residential-size structures and some agricultural areas located farther to
the east, northeast, and southeast. Vacant land or land used for agricultural
purposes appeared to the south, north, and west of the proposed Citrus Connection
parcel. The immediate vicinity along the Corridor in Segment 1 and in the vicinity of
the proposed Palmyrita Station appears agricultural.
• Surrounding Area (1963) – Increased development was apparent in the immediate
vicinity of Segment 1. Residential development was apparent east of the proposed
Citrus Connection parcel, beyond the railroad tracks. A commercial-size structure
was apparent west of the proposed Citrus Connection parcel, beyond the railroad
tracks, at the present day 1180 Spring Street location. Increased commercial and
residential development appeared northwest of the proposed Citrus Connection .
Land used for agriculture (groves) was apparent adjoining the proposed Citrus
Connection to the north and south, and along the Corridor in Segment 1 from Citrus
to Palmyrita Avenue. A commercial structure was apparent at the northeast corner
of Palmyrita Avenue and the Corridor. Agricultural land was apparent to the east,
south and west of the proposed Palmyrita Station and a commercial structure was
apparent to the southwest of the proposed Palmyrita Station.
• Surrounding Area (1977) – The vicinity appeared similar to that apparent on the
1963 aerial photograph. However, increased development was apparent to the east
of Segment 1 from Spring Street to Palmyrita Avenue.
• Surrounding Area (1989, 1994, and 2002) – The vicinity appeared similar to that
apparent on the 1977 aerial photograph. However, increased development was
apparent to the west of the proposed Palmyrita Station parcel in 1989 and 1994, and
to the east in 2002.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the agricultural use of the proposed
Citrus Connection parcel from at least 1931 through at least 1963, the proposed
Palmyrita Station from at least 1931 through 2002, and along Segment 1 from at least
1931 through 2002, pose potential environmental concerns to the Site. No other
environmental concerns were apparent on the aerial photographs reviewed.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 25 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
3.1.2 Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue
• Corridor – With the exception of the railroad tracks, no structures were apparent
within Segment 2 between Columbia Avenue on the north, and Mount Vernon
Avenue on the south, in the aerial photographs reviewed from 1931 through 2002.
• Proposed UCR Station – No structures were apparent on the proposed UCR
Station parcel in the photographs reviewed from 1931 through 2002. However,
evidence of encroachment onto the northern portion of the proposed UCR Station
from the adjoining residences to the north was apparent in the 1977, 1989, and 2002
aerial photographs.
• Surrounding Area (1931, 1938, and 1953) – Vacant and agricultural land was
apparent in the immediate vicinity of Segment 2 in the 1931, 1938 and 1953 aerial
photographs. The proposed UCR Station was bound by agricultural land (groves) to
the north and south. Scattered structures were apparent in 1953 to the west of the
Segment 2 alignment.
• Surrounding Area (1967) – Increased development was apparent at the southwest
corner of the alignment and Columbia Avenue. An aboveground water tank was
apparent at a higher elevation on the hills to the east of the northern portion of
Segment 2. Residences appear to adjoin the proposed UCR Station to the north.
Scattered residences and UCR were apparent south of Segment 2. A commercial
structure was apparent at the northwest corner of Linden Street and the Corridor.
• Surrounding Area (1977, 1989, 1994, and 2002) – The immediate area along the
Segment 2 alignment was similar to that apparent on the 1967 aerial photograph.
Increased residential development was evident to the north and south. The UCR
campus (south) appeared to have expanded.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, no environmental concerns were
apparent on the aerial photographs reviewed.
3.1.3 Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive)
• Corridor – With the exception of the railroad tracks, no structures were apparent
within Segment 3 between Mount Vernon Avenue to the north and Box Springs
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 26 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Road (Fair Isle Drive) to the south in the aerial photographs reviewed from 1931
through 2002.
• Proposed Fair Isle Station – The proposed Fair Isle Station appeared as vacant
land in the 1931 through 2002 aerial photographs.
• Surrounding Area (1931, 1938 and 1953) – The immediate vicinity along Segment
3 was vacant land in the 1931, 1938 and 1953 aerial photographs. Scattered
residences were apparent to the west of the Corridor in 1953.
• Surrounding Area (1967, 1977, 1989, and 2002) – Residences were apparent to
the north and south of Segment 3 at its northern end, and along the Segment 3
alignment to the west. Vacant land was apparent to the east of Segment 3 and
along portions to the west. Scattered residences were apparent in the hills further
west of Segment 3 in the 1989 and 2002 aerial photographs.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, no environmental concerns were
apparent on the aerial photographs reviewed.
3.1.4 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue
• Corridor – The existing railroad tracks between Alessandro Boulevard and Cactus
Avenue were not apparent in the 1938 through 1989 aerial photographs from
approximately Eastridge Avenue/Eucalyptus Avenue to Cactus Avenue, because the
railroad and existing I-215 were realigned in this area sometime between 1989 and
1994. The railroad tracks were evident in its current configuration as evidenced on
the 1994 and 2002 aerial photographs. No structures were apparent within Segment
4 between Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to the north and Cactus Avenue to the
south in the 1938 through 2002 aerial photographs.
• Proposed March Field Station – The proposed March Field Station appeared as
vacant land in the 1938 aerial photograph. In the 1953 aerial photograph, three
rectangular structures were apparent at the approximate location of the proposed
March Field Station and a railroad spur was evident between the buildings. Only
one of the three rectangular buildings was apparent on the proposed March Field
Station in the 1967 through 2002 aerial photographs.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 27 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• Surrounding Area (1938) – Vacant land was apparent in the immediate vicinity of
Segment 4 in the 1938 aerial photograph. A commercial size structure was
apparent west of the Corridor immediately north of Highway 60. Agricultural land
(hay stacks) was apparent east and west of the Segment 3 alignment, south of
Highway 60, followed by vacant land.
• Surrounding Area (1953) – Commercial structures were apparent to the east and
west of Segment 4 to the north and south of Highway 60. Highway 395 was
reconfigured and was apparent east of the Corridor. Vacant land bounds Segment 4
to approximately Eucalyptus Street. Structures were apparent immediately west of
the Corridor to the north of Eucalyptus Street. Structures were located further west
of Eucalyptus Street. According to a 1953 topographic map, these structures were
associated with March Field Radio Range Station. Several structures and the old
railroad alignment were apparent south of Eucalyptus Street and east of the
alignment to Alessandro Boulevard. A residential development was apparent east of
Highway 395 from Eucalyptus Street south to Alessandro Boulevard. A commercial
structure was apparent at the southeast corner of Highway 395 and Alessandro
Boulevard. Three rectangular structures were apparent to the north of Cactus
Avenue, immediately east of the current railroad alignment. A railroad spur was
apparent between these buildings. The current Cactus Avenue was not evident.
• Surrounding Area (1967) – The immediate vicinity was similar to that apparent in
the 1953 aerial photograph. However, the radio range station was not evident,
additional structures were apparent east of the existing railroad alignment south of
Eucalyptus Street, and two of the rectangular structures were no longer evident to
the north of Cactus Avenue (immediately east of the existing railroad alignment).
The existing Cactus Avenue was apparent.
• Surrounding Area (1977) – The immediate vicinity was similar to that apparent in
the 1967 aerial photograph. Evidence of commercial development was apparent
north of Eucalyptus Avenue to the west of Segment 4. Large structures were
apparent further east of the railroad alignment, beyond Highway 395.
• Surrounding Area (1989) – The immediate vicinity was similar to that apparent in
the 1977 aerial photograph with increased commercial structures evident to the east
and west of the Corridor, north of Eucalyptus Street. In addition, a commercial
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 28 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
structure was apparent at the southwest corner of Eucalyptus Street and the
alignment.
• Surrounding Area (1994) – The southern portion of Segment 4 was the only portion
shown in the 1994 aerial photograph and was similar to that apparent in the 1989
aerial photograph. However, the railroad tracks had been realigned and the existing
alignment was apparent.
• Surrounding Area (2002) – The immediate vicinity was similar to that apparent in
the 1989 aerial photograph.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the former structures and railroad
spur south of Alessandro Boulevard potential environmental concerns, based on
unknown historical usage and association with March Air Force Base (MAFB), now
March Air Reserve Base (MARB). No other environmental concerns were apparent on
the aerial photographs reviewed.
3.1.5 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
• Corridor – The existing railroad alignment between Cactus Avenue and
Eschscholtzia Avenue (further south) were not apparent in the 1938 through 1989
aerial photographs because the railroad and existing I-215 were realigned in this
area sometime between 1989 and 1994. The railroad alignment was evident in its
current configuration as evidenced on the 1994 and 2002 aerial photographs. No
structures were apparent within Segment 5 between Cactus Avenue to the north,
and Cajalco Road to the south in the 1938 aerial photograph. However, structures
were apparent immediately south of Cactus Avenue and immediately west of the old
railroad alignment. These structures would have been located within the existing
railroad alignment at that location as evidenced in the 1953 through 1989 aerial
photographs. In the 1994 and 2002 aerial photographs, the new railroad alignment
was apparent and no structures were present at that location.
• Proposed Ramona Station – The proposed Ramona Station appeared as vacant
land in the 1938 through 2002 aerial photographs.
• Surrounding Area (1938) – Vacant land was apparent to the east and west of
Segment 5. Scattered residences were apparent to the east of Highway 395.
Highway 395 appeared as a two-way highway and was not shown in its present-day
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 29 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
configuration. MAFB (now MARB) was apparent in the distance to the east of
Highway 395 to approximately Oleander Avenue. Vacant land was evident to the
west of Segment 5 and scattered residences were evident to the east, beyond
Highway 395.
• Surrounding Area (1953) – By 1953, the area to the west of Segment 5 was
developed with numerous residential and commercial size structures that appeared
to be associated with MAFB, from approximately Cactus Avenue and south to
approximately Oleander Avenue. Warehouse size buildings in this area appeared to
adjoin the Corridor to the west. The old railroad tracks followed by Highway 395
were apparent east of the existing railroad alignment, beyond which was vacant land
associated with MAFB. Three aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), an airfield, and
other structures associated with MAFB were apparent beyond this vacant land.
ASTs were evident west of the Corridor near the northwest corner of Oleander
Avenue and Highway 395. Vacant land and scattered residential and commercial
structures were apparent to the east and west of the railroad alignment to Cajalco
Road.
• Surrounding Area (1967) – Highway 395 appears to have been widened. The
immediate vicinity to the east and west of the Corridor was similar to that apparent in
the 1953 aerial photograph, with an area west of the Corridor developed with a
residential area (referred to as Arnold Heights). Commercial development was
evident near the intersection of Oleander Avenue and Highway 395. No structures
were apparent on the proposed Ramona Station parcels.
• Surrounding Area (1977) – The immediate site vicinity was similar to that apparent
in the 1967 aerial photograph. However, the residential and commercial structures
south of the Arnold Heights residential area were no longer apparent and the area
appeared to be mostly vacant. Evidence of the existing sewer plant located west of
the Corridor and north of Oleander Avenue was apparent. ASTs and a pond (dry)
were evident at this sewer plant.
• Surrounding Area (1989) – The immediate site vicinity was similar to that apparent
in the 1977 aerial photograph. However, the area south of the Arnold Heights
residential area was now developed with the existing cemetery, and the pond at the
sewer plant appeared to be filled. The proposed Ramona Station parcels appeared
to be vacant land.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 30 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• Surrounding Area (1994 and 2002) – The northern portion of Segment 5 was
bound by fewer structures due to a reconfiguration of I-215 on- and off-ramps at
Alessandro Boulevard and Cactus Avenue. The existing March Field Air Museum,
east of Highway 395, was apparent across from the existing cemetery. Increased
development was apparent east of Highway 395. The existing Cajalco Expressway
was apparent and the proposed Ramona Station parcels appeared to be undergoing
grading. No structures were apparent west of the Corridor in the vicinity of the
Cajalco Expressway. In 2002, a commercial development was apparent south of
Cajalco Road.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the commercial structures
associated with MAFB (now MARB) formerly located on Segment 5 and the immediately
adjoining railroad tracks potential environmental concerns, based on their apparent
association with MAFB and unknown usage. No other environmental concerns were
apparent on the aerial photographs reviewed.
3.1.6 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74)
• Corridor – No structures were apparent within Segment 6 between Cajalco Road to
the north, and 4th Street (Highway 74) to the south, with the exception of the railroad
tracks and a Passenger and Freight Depot (as identified on the Sanborn Maps,
Section 3.3) located immediately north of 4th Street to the east of the alignment in
the photographs reviewed.
• Proposed Downtown Perris Station – Two commercial size structures were
apparent immediately north of 4th Street (Highway 74) through 1953. A portion of
the southernmost structure and the structure to the north of it were apparent on the
proposed Downtown Perris Station in the 1967 through 2002 aerial photographs.
• Surrounding Area (1938, 1953 and 1967) – Vacant land bounded Segment 6 to the
east and west with scattered residences in each direction along the Corridor south to
downtown Perris. Commercial size structures were evident immediately east of the
Corridor through the downtown Perris area and south to 4th Street (Highway 74).
The area west of the Corridor appeared to be predominantly residential in use.
• Surrounding Area (1967) – In 1967, five ASTs were apparent west of the Corridor
at Rider Street. The remaining vicinity appeared similar to that apparent in the 1953
aerial photograph.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 31 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• Surrounding Area (1977, 1980, 1989, 1994, and 2002) – Industrial size buildings
were apparent west of Segment 6 at Van Buren Boulevard and Orange Avenue.
The remaining vicinity appeared similar to that apparent in the 1967 aerial
photograph. Increased development was apparent north of the downtown Perris
area south of Harvell Street to the east and west of Segment 6 in the 1994 aerial
photograph. Increased development occurred in 2002 to the east and west of the
Corridor.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, no environmental concerns were
apparent on the aerial photographs reviewed.
3.1.7 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
• Corridor – With the exception of the railroad tracks, no structures were apparent
within Segment 7 between 4th Street (Highway 74) to the north and I-215 to the
south-southwest in photographs reviewed from 1931 to 2002.
• Proposed South Perris Station - The proposed South Perris Station appeared to
be a graded parcel of land in the 1938 through 2002 aerial photographs.
• Surrounding Area (1938) – Segment 7 was bound to the east and west by
commercial and residential structures at its northern end through the downtown
Perris area. The alignment changed direction to the southeast near Commercial
Street. Vacant land was apparent to the north and south of the alignment from
Commercial Street to I-215. The immediate vicinity surrounding the proposed South
Perris Station appeared to be used for agricultural purposes. Mapes Road bordered
the northern portion of the proposed South Perris Station and appeared to be
unpaved. Case Road and Watson Road, located south of the proposed South Perris
Station, were present and appeared to be unpaved. An unpaved road under
construction, oriented in a north-south direction east of the proposed South Perris
Station, appeared in the general area of the current I-215 layout. Structures were
apparent within areas of graded land farther to the south, east and north of the
proposed South Perris Station and appeared to be associated with agricultural
farms. The San Jacinto River, crossing Segment 7 toward its southern end, was
apparent and appeared to be unlined.
• Surrounding Area (1953) – The immediate vicinity surrounding Segment 7 was
similar to that apparent in the 1938 aerial photograph. However, a large pond
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 32 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
(shown on topographic maps as a sewer disposal pond) was shown north of the
Corridor, north of Ellis Avenue. A roadway in the general area of I-215 was apparent
east of the proposed South Perris Station and appeared to be paved. Bonnie Road
was partially evident bordering the southern portion of the proposed South Perris
Station.
• Surrounding Area (1967) – The northern portion of Segment 7 was similar to that
apparent in the 1953 aerial photograph. The remaining portion of Segment 7 was
shown traversing through agricultural and vacant land to its southern end. Additional
sewer disposal ponds were apparent north of Ellis Avenue. Perris Canal was
apparent, oriented in a southwest-northeast direction west of the South Perris
Station. The Perris Canal appeared to be used to redirect water from the San
Jacinto River, which on the 1967 photograph appeared to be dry. New on- and off-
ramps appeared to have been constructed east of the proposed South Perris
Station, which directed vehicles from the original alignment of the freeway to Case
Road, south of the proposed South Perris Station. Bonnie Drive appeared as an
unpaved road.
• Surrounding Area (1980) – The northern portion of Segment 7 was similar to that
apparent in the 1967 aerial photograph. Commercial structures were apparent along
Commercial Street to the north. Commercial structures were also apparent south of
Ellis Avenue immediately adjoining the northern side of the Corridor. A small cluster
of buildings was apparent at the southeast corner of Case Road and the freeway.
The freeway appeared to be widened to a four-lane freeway. A large building
appeared southeast of the South Perris Station, and to the east of I-215.
• Surrounding Area (1989) – The immediate vicinity surrounding Segment 7 was
similar to that apparent in the 1980 aerial photograph. A cluster of buildings was
apparent to the southwest of the proposed South Perris Station, south of Case Road
and north of Watson Road, at the existing Perris Valley Water Reclamation facility.
Retention and/or settling ponds were apparent surrounding the buildings.
• Surrounding Area (1994) – A pile of what appeared to be construction material was
evident southeast of the proposed South Perris Station and east of I-215. A large
water feature was apparent northeast of the proposed South Perris Station and east
of I-215. The construction of buildings was apparent south of the water feature
located east of I-215. The existing Perris Valley Water Reclamation facility
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 33 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
appeared to have expanded to the east with what looked to be large coagulation
tanks and other water features.
• Surrounding Area (2002) – The Perris Valley Water Reclamation facility appeared
to have added retention ponds south of the Corridor; however, the northeastern
most part of the facility now encroached upon the Study Area. New structures were
apparent east of the proposed South Perris Station and I-215. Large buildings with
circular parking areas were apparent on land northeast of the proposed South Perris
Station and just south of the large water feature.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, with the exception of the reclamation
facility at the southern part of the Study Area, no environmental concerns were apparent
on the aerial photographs reviewed.
3.2 HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW
Kleinfelder obtained information regarding historical topographic maps of the Site
vicinity from 1901 through 1980 (EDR, 2008b). The topographic maps reviewed for this
assessment are listed below in Table 5. Copies of the maps are included in
Appendix A.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 34 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 5
Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed
Year Quadrangle Series Scale
1901 San Bernardino 15 minute 1:62,500
1901 Southern CA Sheet 1 60 minute 1:250,000
1901 Elsinore 30 minute 1:125,000
1901 (2 maps) Riverside 15 minute 1:62,500
1943 Riverside Vicinity 7.5 minute 1:31,680
1943 Perris 15 minute 1:62,500
1947 (2 maps) Riverside 15 minute 1:50,000
1953 (3 maps) Riverside East 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1953 Steele Peak 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1953 (3 maps) Perris 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1954 San Bernardino 15 minute 1:62,500
1954 San Bernardino South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1967 (4 maps) Riverside East 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1967 San Bernardino South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1967 (3 maps) Perris 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1967 Steele Peak 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1973, photo revised
from 1967 San Bernardino South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1973, photo revised
from 1967 (4 maps) Riverside East 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1973, photo revised
from 1967 (3 maps) Perris 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1973, photo revised
from 1967 Steele Peak 7.5 minute 1:24,000
1980, photo revised
from 1967 San Bernardino South 7.5 minute 1:24,000
3.2.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue
• Site – On the 1901 topographic maps, the railroad alignment was visible and
designated as the Southern California Rail Road (San Bernardino and Temecula
Line). On the 1943 topographic map, the rail corridor was designated as Atchison
Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF), which remained visible through the 2002
topographic map. Segment 1 was not depicted on the 1947 and 1953 topographic
maps provided by EDR.
On the 1901 through 1980 topographic maps, the proposed Citrus Connection was
shown as vacant land and land used for agricultural purposes. Structures were not
shown on the proposed Citrus Connection parcel in the historical topographic maps.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 35 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
A stream, referred to as “Springbook Wash” was shown traversing the southern
portion of the proposed Citrus Connection and Corridor.
The proposed Palmyrita Station parcel was shown as undeveloped land on the 1901
map and was shown as agricultural land (groves) on the 1954 through 1980
topographic maps. A residential size structure was depicted at the southwestern
corner of the proposed Palmyrita Station parcel on the 1954 map. The northern half
of the existing building at the proposed Palmyrita Station was depicted (among the
groves) on the 1967 and 1973 topographic maps. The 1980 topographic map
depicts the existing structure on the proposed Palmyrita Station parcel and
agricultural groves. No other structures were shown on the topographic maps
provided for Segment 1.
• Surrounding Properties – The immediate vicinity was depicted as vacant land on
the 1901 and 1943 maps. By 1954, the immediate vicinity was used predominantly
for agricultural purposes with residential size structures shown adjoining the Corridor
east of the proposed Citrus Connection , and west of the proposed Citrus
Connection . The 1967 through 1980 maps depicted agricultural land in the vicinity
of Segment 1 with some commercial size facilities west of the proposed Citrus
Connection and south of Citrus Street.
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, other than agricultural land depicted
on portions of the proposed Citrus Connection and Palmyrita station parcels, no
environmental concerns were apparent along the Corridor or on the surrounding
properties that suggest evidence of environmental conditions of concern.
3.2.2 Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue
• Site – The rail Corridor, encompassing the proposed UCR Station, was shown on
1901 through 1973 topographic maps, but no structures were located within
Segment 2. Railroad designations are described in detail under Segment 1. The
proposed UCR Station was in an area referred to as Lemona. The 1947 and 1953
topographic maps depicted the proposed UCR Station as agriculture (groves);
however, it was depicted as vacant land thereafter. The 1980 topographic map
provided by EDR does not cover Segment 2.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 36 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• Surrounding Properties – The immediate vicinity was depicted as vacant land on
the 1901 and 1943 maps. The Box Springs Mountains were shown to the east.
Gage Canal was shown crossing the northern portion of Segment 2 near
Indianapolis Avenue. University of California Citrus Experiment Station was shown
south of the segment. By 1947, scattered residential development was shown, with
an area referred to as Canyon Crest Heights located north of Linden Avenue. In
addition, some agricultural groves were depicted adjoining portions of the Corridor.
The 1953 map was similar to the 1947 map. Two oil tanks were depicted
immediately west of Segment 2, north of Linden Street, and north of Canyon Crest
Heights. The UCR campus was shown south of Canyon Crest Heights.
In 1967, increased residential development was depicted in the immediate vicinity.
The oil tanks shown on the 1953 map were no longer shown and a commercial
building was in their place. Watkins Avenue was depicted south of the proposed
UCR Station, beyond which was the UCR campus.
On the 1973 map, the vicinity appeared generally as it did on the 1967 map with
some increased residential development. The vicinity was not depicted on the 1980
map provided by EDR.
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, the former oil tanks west of
Segment 2 at Linden Avenue represent a potential environmental concern to the
Corridor, as does agricultural usage in the vicinity of the UCR Station. No other
environmental concerns were apparent on the topographic maps reviewed.
3.2.3 Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive)
• Site – The rail Corridor was shown on the 1901 through 1973 topographic maps, but
no structures were located within Segment 3. Railroad designations are dictated
under Segment 1. The 1943, 1954, and 1980 topographic maps provided by EDR
do not cover Segment 3. Segment 3 was depicted within an area of undeveloped
land and land used for residential purposes within Box Springs Canyon. The 1947
and 1953 topographic maps showed Segment 3 as agriculture (groves).
• Surrounding Properties – The immediate vicinity was depicted as vacant land on
the 1901 and 1943 maps. A few scattered residences were shown on the 1943
map. In addition, Highway 395 and Highway 60 were shown west of Segment 3.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 37 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
The Box Springs Mountains were shown to the east-northeast. Agriculture (groves)
was shown surrounding the alignment on the 1947 and 1953 topographic maps.
In 1953, scattered residences were depicted in the vicinity of Segment 3.
Commercial buildings near Highway 60 were shown at the southern end of
Segment 3.
The 1967 and 1973 maps depict increased residential developed in the vicinity of
Segment 3 north of the northern end, and to the west.
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, with the exception of adjacent
agriculture (groves), no environmental concerns were shown along the alignment or on
the surrounding properties.
3.2.4 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue
• Site – The railroad Corridor was shown on 1901 through 1973 topographic maps,
but not shown in the current alignment from approximately Alessandro Boulevard to
Cactus Avenue because the alignment was reconfigured some time between 1989
and 1994. A residential size structure may have been located within the Corridor
(or immediately adjacent) north of Alessandro Boulevard on the 1947 map. No
structures were depicted within Segment 4 on the 1953 through 1973 maps.
Segment 4 was not shown on the 1943, 1954, or 1980 topographic maps provided
by EDR.
• Surrounding Properties – The immediate vicinity was depicted as vacant land on
the 1901 map. On the 1947 map, residential size structures were shown west of the
northern end of Segment 4 to the north and south of Highway 60. Vacant land was
depicted in the vicinity of the Segment 4 up to approximately the Box Springs area,
where numerous residences were shown to the east of Highway 395 (near
Cottonwood Avenue, and north of Alessandro Boulevard). The vicinity south of
Alessandro Boulevard was shown as vacant land to approximately Cactus Avenue
(not shown on the 1947 map). Camp Haan military reserve (later attached to MARB)
was located immediately south of Segment 4.
On the 1953 map, the vicinity was similar to that shown on the 1947 map with
additional structures shown at the northern end of the Corridor north of Highway 60,
and additional residences shown east of I-215 in the Edgemont area (formerly
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 38 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
labeled as the Box Springs area). In addition, residences were depicted immediately
west of Segment 4 between Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard.
Unnamed roads associated with the MARB were located south of Segment 4 and
west of what was depicted as the Escondido Freeway. A pipeline was shown
crossing the Corridor to the north of the approximate Cactus Avenue location (not
shown on the 1953 map).
On the 1967 map, the area in the vicinity of Segment 4 was similar to that shown on
the 1953 map. Although no residences were shown in the Edgemont area (east of
Highway 60), this area was depicted as a developed, urban area. The residences
immediately west of the Corridor between Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro
Boulevard were shown. A sewage disposal facility was depicted further west of
Segment 4 at the western terminus of Cottonwood Avenue. Commercial size
structures were shown at the southeast corner of Alessandro Boulevard and I-215.
A pipeline was shown crossing the Corridor to the north of Cactus Avenue (shown).
A railroad spur, branching from the tracks within the Corridor, was shown to the west
of the Corridor. No structures were depicted in the vicinity of this railroad spur.
On the 1973 map, the northern end of Segment 4 was similar to the 1967 map. Six
commercial size structures were shown west of Segment 4 along Fischer Road. A
few smaller commercial size structures were located immediately east and west of
the Corridor to the north of Eucalyptus Avenue. The previously noted sewage
disposal facility was shown at the western terminus of Cottonwood Avenue west of
Segment 4, and a sewage pond was shown at this location. A pipeline was shown
traversing in an east-west direction immediately north of the sewage disposal facility
approaching the Segment 4 Corridor at Cottonwood Avenue; however, the pipeline
was not shown crossing or paralleling the Corridor. Residences were still depicted
west of Segment 4 between Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard, and
the Edgemont area was depicted as a developed, urban area. The area southeast
of Alessandro Boulevard and Highway 395, and the area south of the Corridor
between Alessandro Boulevard and Cactus Avenue were generally the same as
what was depicted on the 1967 map.
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, no environmental concerns were
shown along the Corridor or on the surrounding properties.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 39 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
3.2.5 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
• Site – The rail Corridor was depicted within the Corridor with no structures or
improvements shown on the topographic maps from 1901 through 1973. Railroad
designations are detailed under Segment 1. Segment 5 was not shown on the 1943,
1954, and 1980 topographic maps provided by EDR.
• Surrounding Properties – The immediate vicinity west of Segment 5 was depicted
on the 1947 map with numerous unnamed roads west of Segment 5. These roads
were shown as part of Camp Haan associated with the MAFB (now MARB) from
approximately Cactus Avenue on the north to approximately Oleander Street on the
south. Further south of Camp Haan was a Forest Service Fire Station and vacant
land to Cajalco Road, with a few scattered residences shown. No structures were
shown in the immediate vicinity east of Highway 395. However, this area was
shown as part of the MAFB. Vacant land was shown east of Highway 395 south of
the MAFB to approximately Cajalco Road with a few residences shown.
The 1953 map depicted numerous structures immediately west of Segment 5 from
Cactus Avenue to just south of Eschscholtzia Street (shown east of Highway 395).
Further south was a residential area referred to as Arnold Heights shown as part of
the MAFB. Mostly vacant land adjoined the Corridor to the south of Van Buren to
Cajalco Road with a few scattered residences. March Field and numerous
structures beyond, associated with MAFB, were located east of Highway 395.
Vacant land predominantly bounded Highway 395, south of MAFB, with scattered
residences along Nandina Avenue, Oleander Avenue, Markhem Street, and
Patterson Avenue.
The 1967 and 1973 maps depicted the area in the vicinity of Segment 5 generally
the same as was shown on the 1953 map. Additional structures were apparent
adjoining the west of the Site between Nandina Avenue and at Oleander Avenue.
Increased residential development was apparent east of Highway 395 from
Oleander Avenue south to Markham Street. A well was shown immediately west of
the Corridor between Perry Street and Martin Street. A pumping station was
depicted at the southeast corner of Highway 395 and Morgan Street.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 40 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, with the exception of Camp Haan, no
environmental concerns were shown within the Corridor or on the surrounding
properties.
3.2.6 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74)
• Site – The rail Corridor within Segment 6 was shown beginning on the 1901 map.
Railroad designations are described in detail under Segment 1. The 1943
topographic map depicted the railroad paralleling Highway 395 from Cajalco Road
south to 4th Street. Based on the scale of the map, it was unclear whether structures
were located within the Corridor or adjacent to the Corridor through the downtown
Perris area. A station building was located within the Corridor immediately north of
4th Street, as depicted on the 1953, 1967, and 1973 maps. The 1943, 1954, and
1980 topographic maps provided by EDR do not cover Segment 6.
• Surrounding Properties – Vacant land was shown in the vicinity of Segment 6 on
the 1901 topographic map. Downtown Perris was depicted with numerous streets;
however, due to the scale of the map, details of the properties within the downtown
area were not shown.
The 1943 map depicted the immediate vicinity of Segment 6 as vacant land with
scattered residences from Cajalco Road to the downtown Perris area. Numerous
structures were shown in the vicinity of the Corridor throughout the downtown area
to Highway 74.
In 1953, the immediate vicinity was depicted primarily as vacant land with scattered
residences from Cajalco Road south to Nuevo Road. The Val Verde Tunnel crossed
beneath Highway 395 between Morgan Street to the north and Rider Street to the
south. Numerous residences were depicted south of Nuevo Road to the east of
Highway 395. A high school was shown at the northeast corner of San Jacinto
Avenue and ‘D’ Street. A gas tank was depicted south of San Jacinto Avenue west
of Perris Boulevard, outside of the Study Area. The downtown Perris area was
depicted as a developed urban area. However, few structures were shown in this
area.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 41 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
The 1967 map depicted vacant land primarily in the immediate vicinity of Segment 6
with scattered residences from Cajalco Road to Nuevo Road. A pumping station
was shown at the southeast corner of Highway 395 and Morgan Street. Granite
Spur branched from the railroad tracks within the Corridor to the west. Val Verde
Tunnel crossed Highway 395 immediately south of Granite Spur. Structures
associated with Mayer Farms were depicted to the west of the Corridor immediately
north of Orange Avenue. A large structure was shown to the west of the Corridor
south of Orange Avenue. Numerous structures were located adjoining the Corridor
near San Jacinto Street. The downtown Perris area was depicted as a developed,
urban area.
The properties in the immediate vicinity of Segment 6 were depicted generally the
same way as shown on the 1967 map.
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, no environmental concerns were
shown within the Corridor or on the surrounding properties.
3.2.7 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
• Site – The rail Corridor within Segment 7 was shown on the 1901 through 1973
topographic maps, but no structures were shown located within Segment 7. Railroad
designations are described in detail under Segment 1. The San Jacinto River
crossed beneath the tracks just northwest of Murrieta Road. The 1943, 1954, and
1980 topographic maps provided by EDR do not cover Segment 7.
• Surrounding Properties – The northern most portion of Segment 7 in 1901 was
shown in the downtown Perris area, where numerous roads were depicted.
However, because of the scale of the map, details regarding structures were not
shown. In 1943, numerous structures were depicted in the downtown Perris area in
the vicinity of Segment 7 to approximately 8th Street. Scattered residences and
vacant land were depicted along the remaining portion of Segment 7 to the southern
end.
On the 1953 map, the northern portion of Segment 7 was depicted in the developed
urban area of downtown Perris. Scattered residences were shown in the vicinity of
8th Street and Commercial Street. A sewage disposal pond was shown north of
Segment 7 north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goetz Road. A commercial size
structure was depicted adjoining the Corridor at the intersection of Highway 74 and
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 42 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Ellis Avenue. The remaining vicinity along Segment 7 was depicted as vacant land.
The San Jacinto River was shown as an unlined river crossing Segment 7 northwest
of Murrieta Road.
On the 1967 and 1973 maps, the vicinity was similar to that shown on the 1953 map
with increased development near 8th Street and Commercial Street. Additional
sewage disposal ponds were depicted north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goetz Road
north of the Study Area. The sewage disposal facility located north of Ellis Avenue
and east of Goetz Road is located in a crossgradient direction from the Corridor is
not considered an environmental concern solely based on its presence on the
topographic map. An additional commercial size structure was shown near the
intersection of Highway 74 and Ellis Avenue. The San Jacinto River was depicted
as a channelized river. The remaining areas in the vicinity of Segment 7 were
shown as vacant land.
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, no environmental concerns were
shown along the Corridor or on the surrounding properties.
3.3 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps provide historical land use information for some
metropolitan areas and small, established towns. Kleinfelder requested a search of
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps by EDR (EDR, 2008d). Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for
the years 1890, 1892, 1896, 1907, 1914, 1926, and 1929, were available for portions of
Segment 6 and Segment 7 of the Corridor. Available Sanborn maps are included in
Appendix A. The following is a summary of the Sanborn maps reviewed.
3.3.1 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74)
• 1890 – The 1890 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 6 from 3rd Street
south to 4th Street. A Passenger and Freight Depot building was located within the
Corridor to the north of 4th Street. A main track and side track were shown. Vacant
land and ‘D’ Street were shown to the east. Development along the east side of ‘D’
Street included a hotel, offices and commercial facilities. A grain warehouse was
located adjoining to the east of the proposed Downtown Perris Station near 3rd
Street and included a portable charcoal boiler. A machinery cleaning area was
depicted within this grain warehouse. The vicinity to the west of Segment 6 was not
shown.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 43 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• 1892 – The 1892 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 6 from 1st Street on
the north to 4th Street on the south. National Manufacturing Company Works was
shown within Segment 6 immediately north of 2nd Street and included a pipe dipping
tar furnace, a boiler, forge, shears, a punch, and rolls. A hand printing building was
shown on the south side of 2nd Street. An old depot building was located within
Segment 6 between the main and side tracks to the south of 2nd Street. A
Passenger and Freight Depot was shown as a larger structure north of 4th Street.
Wise and Knight’s Roller Mill appeared to be located on a portion of Segment 6
immediately north of 3rd Street. South of the mill was the Wise and Knight’s Lumber
Yard, followed by a Fashion Livery facility. The Fashion Livery facility included a tin
shop, hardware and stove area, drawing area, and offices. Further east was ‘D’
Street, followed by commercial/retail facilities.
• 1896 – The 1896 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 6 from 1st Street on
the north to 4th Street on the south. National Manufacturing Company Works (as
shown on the 1892 Sanborn map) was no longer present in 1896. A vacant hay
warehouse was shown at this location north of 2nd Street within Segment 6. A
carpentry facility was shown as occupying the hand printing facility in 1896. The
Wise and Knight’s Roller Mill and Lumber Yard were no longer shown. The
Passenger and Freight Depot was shown immediately north of 4th Street within
Segment 6. Fashion Livery and additional commercial/retail development were
depicted immediately east of Segment 6.
• 1907 – The 1907 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 6 from 4th Street
north to 1st Street. The Passenger and Freight Depot was shown north of 4th Street
within Segment 6. A vacant depot was shown to the south of 2nd Street within the
Corridor. The vacant hay warehouse depicted north of 2nd Street in 1896 was no
longer shown on the map. Vacant land was shown immediately east of the Corridor.
Colton Grain & Milling Company had a grain warehouse adjoining the Corridor
between 3rd and 4th Streets. A hay storage shed was shown between ‘D’ Street and
the Corridor. Development along the east side of ‘D’ Street included a house, hay
storage, vacant suites, a dance hall, and a billiard facility.
• 1914 – The 1914 Sanborn maps depicted that portion of Segment 6 from 2nd Street on
the north to 4th Street on the south. The Passenger and Freight Depot was shown to
the north of 4th Street within the Corridor. Vacant land was shown immediately east of
the Corridor followed by a garage north of 3rd Street, and Colton Grain & Milling Co’s
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 44 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Grain Warehouse No. 3 between 3rd and 4th Streets. Oil storage was shown at the
north end of the warehouse building. ‘D’ Street was shown east of the Warehouse and
development along the east side included drug and grocery stores, a restaurant,
offices, a bank, and two pool facilities. The vicinity to the west of Segment 6 was not
shown.
• 1926 – The 1926 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 6 from San Jacinto
Avenue on the north to 4th Street on the south. Union Oil Company of California was
shown straddling the property within the Corridor immediately south of San Jacinto
Avenue and the property immediately east of the Corridor. Four 10,000-gallon ASTs
were shown at the Union Oil Company of California facility. An ice house was shown
adjoining the side track to the east to the north of 2nd Street. The Passenger and
Freight Depot was shown within Segment 6 immediately north of 4th Street. A gasoline
station was shown adjoining Segment 6 immediately north of 4th Street followed by
Globe Grain & Milling Company Warehouse No. 3 to the north. A machinery cleaning
area, steam boiler and fuel tank were shown immediately north of this warehouse
building. Vacant land was shown east of the Corridor from San Jacinto Avenue to 1st
Street in the remaining areas followed by ‘D’ Street. The east side of ‘D’ Street was
shown as developed with a repair garage between 2nd and 3rd Street. A gasoline
station was shown at the southeast corner of 3rd Street and ‘D’ Street. Commercial
facilities were shown east of ‘D’ Street from 3rd to 4th Street. The vicinity west of the
Corridor was shown immediately north of 4th Street. A railroad pump house and two
water ASTs occupied Segment 6 immediately north of 4th Street. Vacant land followed
by ‘C’ Street, vacant land and residences was located west of the Corridor.
• 1929 – The 1929 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 6 from San Jacinto
Avenue on the north to 4th Street on the south. Union Oil Company of California was
still shown as on the 1926 Sanborn map. An ice house was shown along the side track
within Segment 6 to the north of 2nd Street. The Passenger and Freight House was
shown within Segment 6 north of 4th Street. An automobile repair facility and gasoline
station were depicted east of the Corridor at the northwest corner of 1st Street and ‘D’
Street. A garage repair facility was shown east of the Corridor north of 3rd Street. A
gasoline station with repair facilities and Globe Grain & Milling Company Grain
Warehouse No. 3 were shown east of Segment 6 immediately north of 4th Street.
Commercial/retail facilities were shown along the east side of ‘D’ Street. A gasoline
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 45 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
station was shown at the southwest corner of 3rd Street and ‘D’ Street. The vicinity west
of Segment 6 was not shown on the 1929 Sanborn map.
Based on a review of historical Sanborn maps, the former grain warehouse facilities
including a machinery cleaning area, oil storage and fuel area immediately east of the
proposed Downtown Perris Station, the former gasoline station and repair facilities
immediately north of 4th Street and east of the alignment, the Union Oil of California
facility north of the proposed Downtown Perris Station, and the former lumber yard
along the east side of the alignment represent environmental concerns due to their
proximity to Segment 6. No other environmental concerns were shown along the
Corridor or on the surrounding properties that suggest evidence of an environmental
concern.
3.3.2 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
• 1890 – The 1890 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 7 from 4th Street
(Highway 74) south to 6th Street. A main track and side track were shown within the
Corridor. No structures were shown within this portion of Segment 7. ‘D’ Street was
shown east of the Corridor. Development along the east side of ‘D’ Street included
restaurants, drug and grocery stores, a hotel, and vacant suites. Vacant land was
shown to the east between 5th and 6th Streets. The vicinity to the west of Segment 7
was not shown.
• 1892 and 1896 – The 1892 and 1896 Sanborn maps depicted that portion of
Segment 7 from 4th Street on the north to 7th Street on the south. No structures
were depicted within the Corridor. No railroad tracks were shown south of 6th Street
on the 1892 Sanborn map. Vacant land was shown east of Segment 7, followed by
‘D’ Street and commercial/retail facilities primarily located between 4th and 5th
Streets. The vicinity west of the Corridor was not shown on these maps.
• 1907 – The 1907 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 7 from 4th Street
south to 7th Street. An oil storage area was shown immediately south of 6th Street
along the Corridor. Railroad tracks were not shown continuing south of 6th Street on
this map. Vacant land was shown in the remaining areas of Segment 7. A general
merchandising warehouse building was shown at the southwest corner of 4th Street
and ‘D’ Street. Two offices and a store were shown between the Corridor and ‘D’
Street. Development east of ‘D’ Street included stores, restaurants a hotel, vacant
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 46 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
suites, and a general warehouse building. The vicinity west of Segment 7 was not
shown.
• 1914 – The 1914 Sanborn maps depicted that portion of Segment 7 from 4th Street
on the north to 7th Street on the south. Two ASTs were shown immediately south of
6th Street within the Corridor. The railroad tracks were shown to split near 7th Street
and the Corridor branches to the southeast. The Perris Valley Supply Company’s
Roller & Fee Mill occupied the land between the tracks that had branched off.
Vacant land and commercial/retail facilities adjoined the Corridor to the east,
followed by ‘D’ Street and commercial/retail facilities. A lumber company was shown
east of the Corridor south of 7th Street. The Perris Valley Lumber Company was
shown adjoining to the west of the main railroad tracks within the Corridor,
immediately south of 4th Street and west to ‘C’ Street. The remaining vicinity west of
the Corridor was not shown.
• 1926 – The 1926 Sanborn maps depicted that portion of Segment 7 between 4th
Street on the north to 8th Street on the south. No structures were shown within the
Corridor. The main and side tracks branched away from each other at 7th Street.
The San Jacinto Branch was shown to continue within Segment 7 to the southeast.
Vacant land followed by commercial/retail facilities bounded Segment 7 to the east,
followed by ‘D’ Street and additional commercial/retail facilities. A vacant lumber
company was shown adjoining the Corridor to the east between 7th and 8th Streets.
Perris Valley Lumber Company was shown within the Corridor immediately south of
4th Street and west to ‘C’ Street. Vacant land was depicted west of ‘C’ Street.
Holloway & Spittler Roller & Fee Mill was shown adjoining the west of the Corridor
south of 7th Street.
• 1929 – The 1929 Sanborn map depicted that portion of Segment 7 from 4th Street on
the north to 8th Street on the south. Perris Valley Lumber Company occupied the
portion of Segment 7 immediately south of 4th Street and west to ‘C’ Street. No
other structures or facilities were shown within Segment 7. Vacant land, followed by
commercial/retail facilities, was shown east of the Corridor from 4th Street south to
6th Street. Vacant lumber sheds, a water tank, a sign printing facility, and garages
were shown adjoining Segment 7 between 7th and 8th Streets. Vacant land was
shown adjoining Segment 7 south of 5th Street. Perris Valley Cotton Grower’s
Association was shown west of the Corridor south of 7th Street. An oil storage
building was shown between the side track and San Jacinto Branch north of 8th
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 47 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Street (west of Segment 7), and was part of the Holloway & Spittler Roller & Feed
Mill facility west of this portion of Segment 7.
Based on a review of historical topographic maps, the Perris Valley Lumber Company
west of the alignment and south of 4th Street, the two ASTs formerly located south of 6th
Street, and the lumber facilities to the east and west of the alignment near 7th Street
represent environmental concerns to Segment 7. No other environmental concerns
were shown along the Corridor or on the surrounding properties that suggest evidence
of an environmental concern.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 48 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Kleinfelder’s assessment activities included a site reconnaissance. This section
summarizes the findings from the Site reconnaissance.
4.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Ms. Margaret Carroll of Kleinfelder performed a Site reconnaissance of the Study Area
between April 14, 2008 and April 18, 2008. The reconnaissance included a visual
inspection of the Study Area to assist in identifying the presence or likely presence of
hazardous substances or petroleum hydrocarbons under conditions that suggest an
existing release, a past release, or threat of release into structures, soil, groundwater, or
surface water at the Site. Observations of readily apparent environmental conditions
are summarized in Table 6, and color photographs of the alignment are presented in
Appendix B. The Perris Valley Line – Segments 1 through 7 are shown on Plates 2
through 4. Kleinfelder walked and drove the Study Area, including the perimeter and
interior thereof. However, the Fair Isle Station area was only observed from outside the
parcel. In addition, Kleinfelder observed the interior of structures, if access was
available during our reconnaissance. Access was available to the 990 Palmyrita
Avenue building. At the time of the reconnaissance, the weather was sunny and clear.
4.2 SITE OBSERVATIONS
Site observations are described in Table 6. Noted items of environmental concern or
hazardous materials are also shown on Plates 2 through 5.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 49 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate
Reference
Observations
Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue (Photos 1 – 8)
Corridor
Photos 1, 3, and 4
Plate 2
Refuse was observed at various locations along the railroad alignment between
the proposed Citrus Connection and the proposed Palmyrita Station. The
majority of the refuse was observed east of the proposed Citrus Connection and
west of the proposed Palmyrita Station. The refuse included household trash
east of the proposed Citrus Connection , and ceramic tiles and old tires west of
the proposed Palmyrita Station. No evidence of hazardous materials was
observed. A stockpile of gravel and rail ties was observed along the Corridor to
the north of Palmyrita Avenue. A pole-mounted transformer was observed on
the Corridor near the northwestern portion of the proposed Palmyrita Station.
No evidence of leaking or staining was observed in the vicinity of the
transformer. A polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was observed within Segment 1
and appeared to originate from the adjoining proposed Palmyrita Station parcel
to the east. No evidence of staining was observed beneath the outfall of this
pipe. A storm drain was observed at the southwest corner of Segment 1.
Proposed Citrus
Connection
Photo 2
Plate 2
The proposed Citrus Connection is located on one parcel consisting of vacant
land covered with vegetation. A creek was observed at the southern portion
and is situated at a lower elevation than the remaining areas. Unimproved
roads were observed at the northern and southern portions of the proposed
Citrus Connection . Refuse piles were observed throughout the creek area,
with a concentration of trash located within the creek areas near the railroad
tracks to the east and west. No evidence of hazardous substances or
hazardous wastes was observed in the refuse piles.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, underground
storage tanks (USTs), pits, ponds, or lagoons were not observed at the
proposed Citrus Connection parcel.
Proposed Palmyrita
Station
Photos 5 – 8
Plates 2 and 5
The proposed Palmyrita Station consists of vacant land covered with
vegetation. Evidence that the proposed Palmyrita Station was formerly used for
agricultural purposes (i.e., rows and stockpiles of organic material) was
observed. A row of orange trees was observed around the perimeter of the
proposed Palmyrita Station parcel with two rows branching into the interior at
the northern end. A concrete stand pipe associated with the irrigation of the
former orange groves was observed on the northern portion of the parcel
between the orange trees.
A building is located on the parcel and is divided into a northern portion, with an
adjoining office to the north, and a southern portion. The northern portion of the
building consisted of an open warehouse area. A “TCL Powder Coating” room
was observed at the northwestern corner of this portion of the building. Two
openings leading to a basement were observed within the concrete floor of this
room. A small room located in the northeastern corner of this portion of the
building contained a sign labeled “waste ink”.
The southern portion of the building consisted of a warehouse area. Two
pieces of equipment, (one of which was a press, the other unknown), was
observed in the northern end of this portion of the building. Standing liquid, less
than an inch deep was observed in the vicinity of the press. A placard labeled
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 50 of 98 August 25, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6 (Continued)
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate Observations
Reference
“acids” was observed in the general vicinity of this equipment. The building
appeared to have been vandalized, as evidenced by open doors and windows
and electrical conduit and torn construction material observed at various
locations throughout the building.
A basement is located beneath the northern portion of the building. Two rooms
were located in the basement area and were used to house a steam boiler, two
natural gas boilers, equipment, and compressors. The equipment remains in
the basement. Five-gallon buckets labeled as grease and oil as well as
Glutarhyde (Formula 310) were observed in the westernmost room of the
basement. Staining on the floor within the basement was observed. A closet
used to store chemicals, including containers labeled as dimethylene, dimethyl-
propanoline, and potassium sulfite, was observed beneath stairs leading to the
basement. Staining was observed on the floor of the basement. At least three
drains were observed in the basement area; one was located outside the two
basement rooms and two were located within the easternmost basement room.
No staining was observed in the vicinity of the drains. A large sump was
observed within the westernmost room of the basement. Standing liquid was
observed in the sump.
A cooling tower was observed outside the northwestern corner of the site
building. A pad-mounted transformer was observed south of the cooling tower.
Significant staining was observed south of the pad-mounted transformer. The
transformer was labeled as non-polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) containing oil.
A pole-mounted transformer was observed in the southeastern portion of the
site. No staining or leaking was observed.
A loading area was observed at the southeastern corner of the building near the
parking lot. The parking lot contained piles of trash and debris. Sacks of corn
powder were observed in the parking area. No hazardous chemicals or
hazardous wastes were observed in this area. Near the southeastern corner of
the parking lot was a fenced area that appears to have been used to store
chemicals (as evidenced by a hazardous materials placard). A 55-gallon drum
was observed, but the contents are unknown. Some household trash was
observed in this area. A concrete berm was located along the southern end of
the fenced area. Moderate staining was observed within the fenced area and is
considered an environmental condition of concern.
Construction material, including conduit piping, stockpiled asphalt and
stockpiled concrete aggregate, and various signs (including those used for
traffic control) was observed within an area of the parking lot enclosed by a
slotted fence. This area was being used as a staging area for Arizona Pipeline.
At the time of the site reconnaissance, materials were being loaded onto trucks
and taken off-site. This area is not considered to be an environmental concern.
With the exception of staining, noted above, evidence of discolored soil or
water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits, ponds, or lagoons were not
observed at the proposed Palmyrita Station during the Site reconnaissance.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 51 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6 (Continued)
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate Observations
Reference
Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue (Photos 9 – 12)
Corridor
Photos 9 and 10
Plate 2
Segment 2 begins at Columbia Avenue (immediately south of the proposed
Palmyrita Station) and includes the Corridor south to, and including, the
proposed UCR Station, terminating at Mount Vernon Avenue. Several
stockpiles were observed along the railroad between Columbia Avenue and
Marlborough Avenue. The stockpiles consisted of gravel, ballasts, wood, and
railroad ties. Ballasts and railroad ties are typically impacted by petroleum
products or other hazardous materials. Numerous drainage structures (such as
culverts) were observed crossing the Corridor between Columbia Avenue and
Marlborough Avenue. Kinder Morgan petroleum pipeline markers were
observed along the railroad alignment to the north of Spruce Street, which
indicated the petroleum pipeline was located within the Corridor, parallel to the
east side of the railroad tracks.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed along the Segment 2 alignment. A
description of the remaining Segment 2 observations is included in the
proposed UCR Station description below.
Proposed UCR Station
Photos 11 and 12
Plate 2
The proposed UCR station consists of a narrow strip of vacant land from West
Blaine Street at the western end to Mount Vernon at the eastern end. Kinder
Morgan petroleum pipeline markers were observed along the northern portion
of the proposed UCR Station to Valencia Hill Drive, where the pipeline appears
to be redirected south of the alignment. The neighboring residences were
encroaching onto the northern portion of the proposed UCR Station and
included garden areas, a basketball court, and storage of abandoned vehicles.
At least five, pole-mounted transformers were observed along the northern
portion of the proposed UCR Station. Evidence of staining or leaking was not
observed on or beneath the transformers. A Santa Ana Valley Water Test
Station and a 9-inch high-pressure water pipeline are located near the
intersection of the alignment and Valencia Hill Drive. A flood control channel is
located along the southern portion of the proposed UCR Station from Valencia
Hill Drive to Mount Vernon Avenue.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed on the proposed UCR Station site at the
time of the Site reconnaissance.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 52 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6 (Continued)
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate Observations
Reference
Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) (Photos 13 – 15)
Corridor
Photos 13 and 14
Plate 2
Segment 3 begins at Mount Vernon Avenue (east end of the proposed UCR
Station) and continues east then south to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive).
Segment 3 includes the proposed Fair Isle Station. Segment 3 runs eastward
until it changes direction toward the south near Linden Street. Segment 3 then
continues south up to, and including, the proposed Fair Isle Station. Segment 3
traverses through vacant land and land used for residential purposes. Three
55-gallon drums were observed at the base of a ravine location along the
Corridor at Manfield Street. Due to the steep terrain, Kleinfelder was not able to
assess the contents of the drums or the surface area surrounding the drums.
Household trash was observed near the Hyatt School located on the Corridor
south of Manfield Street. In addition, an old rusted pipe was observed. It is
unknown what this pipe was used for. A Kinder Morgan pipeline marker was
observed along the east side of the Corridor near Poarch Road.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed along Segment 3 at the time of the Site
reconnaissance. A description of the observations of the proposed Fair Isle
Station is summarized below.
Proposed Fair Isle
Station
Photo 15
Plate 2
The proposed Fair Isle Station is situated in an undeveloped area at the base of
hills near the existing railroad tracks. Outcrops of rocks and areas of alluvial
deposits were observed. A stream was observed immediately west of the
alignment at the proposed Fair Isle Station.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed at the proposed Fair Isle Station at the
time of the Site reconnaissance.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 53 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6 (Continued)
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate Observations
Reference
Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue (Photos 16 – 19)
Corridor
Photos 16 – 18
Plate 3
Segment 4 begins at Fair Isle Drive and continues south, crossing the freeway,
and continuing south up to, and including, the proposed March Field Station
and terminating at Cactus Avenue. The northern portion of Segment 4 crosses
Highway 60 and I-215 to the south and continues south along the west side of I-
215. Drainage structures (such as culverts) were observed at various locations
crossing Segment 4 from east to west. Kinder Morgan petroleum pipeline
markers were observed along the east side of the railroad tracks and on the
west side of the railroad tracks immediately north of River Crest Drive. A pad-
mounted transformer was observed along the railroad, immediately adjacent to
the west the alignment’s intersection with I-215 and River Crest Drive, south of
a drainage basin. The transformer was labeled as containing non-PCB oil.
Adjacent to the transformer was a City of Riverside sewage pump station.
General household trash was observed at various locations along the Corridor.
Stockpiled soil was observed along the railroad alignment, west of the railroad
tracks, and immediately south of River Crest Drive.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds or lagoons were not observed along Segment 4 at the time of the Site
reconnaissance. A summary of the observations of the proposed March Field
Station is below.
Proposed Moreno
Valley/March Field
Station
Photo 19
Plate 3
The proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station parcels consist of vacant,
graded land, with some shrubs. A debris pile was observed at the northwestern
portion of the station and included ceramic tiles, broken concrete pieces,
ballasts, paper, and asphalt. Ballasts may be impacted with petroleum
hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials. Three drainage areas were
observed along the eastern portion of the parcels. A road was observed
leading eastward. A flood control channel was observed immediately east of
the proposed March Field Station, followed by the Corridor within Segment 4. A
Questar pipeline marker was observed near the railroad tracks indicating that a
high-pressure gas pipeline was located in the vicinity of the Corridor.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds or lagoons were not observed at the proposed March Field Station at the
time of the Site reconnaissance.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 54 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6 (Continued)
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate Observations
Reference
Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road (Photo 20 – 22)
Corridor
Photos 20 – 22
Plate 3
Segment 5 begins at Cactus Avenue and continues south encompassing the
proposed Ramona Station to Cajalco Road. General household trash was
observed at various locations along the Corridor. Drainage channels were also
observed at various locations along Segment 5. An approximate 10-foot square
area of dark staining was observed north of the Cajalco Expressway on the
west side of the railroad tracks and immediately south of a siding. An irrigation
standpipe was observed south of the Cajalco Expressway and south of the
proposed Ramona Station. Rail cars were observed on a railroad spur that was
branching from the main railroad tracks within the Corridor to the south of an
existing construction facility. Stockpiled soil was observed along the Corridor
south of Oleander Avenue.
A high-pressure gas line (evidenced by pipeline markers) was shown in
Segment 5 at the approximate location of the adjacent sewage plant north of
Oleander Avenue. Another high-pressure gas line was shown crossing the
Corridor immediately north of Van Buren Boulevard. In this same area the
March Air Field Museum was observed east of I-215.
With the exception of the dark stained soil described above, evidence of
discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits, ponds or
lagoons were not observed along Segment 5 at the time of the Site
reconnaissance.
Proposed Ramona
Station
Plate 3
The proposed Ramona Station consists of vacant land with low shrubs.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed at the proposed Ramona Station during
the Site reconnaissance.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 55 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6 (Continued)
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate Observations
Reference
Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74) (Photo 23 –30)
Corridor
Photos 23 – 30
Plate 4
Segment 6 begins at Cajalco Road, continues south to 4th Street (Highway 74),
and includes the proposed Downtown Perris Station. General household trash
was observed at various locations along the segment. Drainage channels were
also observed at various locations along Segment 6. A railroad car was
observed on the railroad tracks to the north of Orange Avenue. Three pole-
mounted transformers were observed along the west side of the segment
immediately north of Orange Avenue. No leaking or staining was observed on
or beneath the transformers. Stockpiled soil, which appeared to be associated
with adjacent construction activities, was observed along the west side of the
segment north of Nuevo Road.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed along the Segment 6 alignment during the
Site reconnaissance. Observations of the proposed Downtown Perris Station
are summarized below.
Proposed Downtown
Perris Station
Photo 31
Plate 4
The proposed Downtown Perris Station is situated on four parcels of land that
are owned by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Two
vacant structures were observed on the southwestern parcel. Only a portion of
the southernmost structure appears to be located on this southwestern parcel of
the proposed Downtown Perris Station, and the building was labeled as a
hardware store. The interior of this building was not accessible at the time of
the Site reconnaissance. A second building was observed north of the
hardware store. A rail spur traversed the southwestern parcel along the east
side of this building.
An area of lower elevation (appears as drainage) was observed on the
northwestern parcel of the proposed Downtown Perris Station. The
northeastern parcel was vacant. The southeastern parcel was vacant. A
railroad spur and three stockpiles of soil were observed on the southeastern
parcel of the proposed Downtown Perris Station. No evidence of staining was
observed and no odors noted in the stockpiled soil. The origin of the soil is
unknown to Kleinfelder.
Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation, ASTs, USTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed at the proposed Downtown Perris Station
during the Site reconnaissance.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 56 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 6 (Continued)
Site Observations
Segment, Appendix
B Photo, and Plate Observations
Reference
Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215 (Photos 31 –38)
Corridor
Photos 32 – 35 and 38
Plate 4
Segment 7 begins at Highway 74 and continues south to 8th Street, where in
continues southeast to I-215. General household trash was observed at
various locations along the Corridor. Drainage channels were also observed at
various locations along the Segment 7 alignment. Dark staining was observed
on a wall to an adjoining facility immediately east of Ellis Avenue. The staining
also appeared on the ground, consisting of an area of approximately 3 by 5
feet, within the segment near the base of the wall. A little further east of this
staining was a stockpile of soil and a trench. The trench appeared to be a
deliberately made trench that originated from the adjoining property to the north
(Global Plastics), and extended onto the railroad alignment toward the east.
The soil within the trench appeared to be grayish in color and different from the
surrounding soil. Broken plastic was observed in this area of the Corridor. An
AST was observed as containing dyed-diesel fuel; no staining was observed on
the ground around the AST. Open land to the south of this area is part of the
airfield associated with Perris Valley Airport.
With the exception of the staining in the soil and one AST described above,
evidence of discolored water, stressed vegetation, USTs, other ASTs, pits,
ponds, or lagoons were not observed along the Segment 7 alignment during the
site reconnaissance. Observations of the proposed South Perris Station are
summarized below.
Proposed South Perris
Station
Photos 36 – 37
Plate 4
The proposed South Perris Station consists of vacant land covered with
vegetation. Evidence of discolored soil or water, stressed vegetation,
hazardous materials, ASTs, USTs, pits, ponds, or lagoons were not observed at
the segment during the Site reconnaissance.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 57 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
5.0 RECORDS REVIEW
The purpose of the records review is to obtain and review records that would help to
evaluate whether properties within the Study Area have been identified as having
experienced significant unauthorized releases of hazardous substances or other events
with potentially adverse environmental effects. The EDR database search results are
presented in Appendix C, and regulatory file copies are presented in Appendix D.
Properties of potential environmental concern based on a review of available records
and a review of previous assessments are summarized in Table 8.
5.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
Federal, state and local regulatory agencies publish databases or "lists" of businesses
and properties that handle hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or are the known
location of a release of hazardous substances to soil and/or groundwater. These
databases are available for review and/or purchase at the regulatory agencies, or the
information may be obtained through a commercial database service. Kleinfelder
contracted a commercial database service, EDR, of Milford, Connecticut to perform the
government database search for listings within the prescribed search distances. EDR
compiles the information into a report which includes permits, historical records, and
location information noted as Focus Map IDs. A description of database listings,
associated acronyms, types of information contained in each of the databases
reviewed, and the agency responsible for compiling the data is also included in the EDR
Corridor Study Report, presented in full, in Appendix C. The number of listings
presented by EDR for each database searched is summarized in Table 7 below:
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 58 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 7
Records Reviewed and Number of Listings
Federal Total Listings State and Local Total Listings
NPL 1 HIST Cal-Sites 0
Proposed NPL 0 CA BOND EXP. PLAN 0
Delisted NPL 0 SCH 1
NPL LIENS 0 Toxic Pits 0
CERCLIS 1 SWF/LF 1
CERC-NFRAP 0 CA WDS 4
LIENS 2 0 WMUDS/SWAT 1
CORRACTS 0 Cortese 5
RCRA-TSDF 0 SWRCY 0
RCRA-LQG 1 LUST 17
RCRA-SQG 17 CA FID UST 11
RCRA-CESQG 0 SLIC 0
RCRA-NonGen 1 UST 12
US ENG CONTROLS 1 HIST UST 13
US INST CONTROL 1 AST 2
ERNS 11 LIENS 0
HMIRS 0 SWEEPS UST 11
DOT OPS 0 CHMIRS 17
US CDL 1 Notify 65 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0 DEED 0
DOD 1 VCP 0
FUDS 0 DRYCLEANERS 1
LUCIS 0 WIP 0
CONSENT 0 CDL 7
ROD 1 RESPONSE 0
UMTRA 0 HAZNET 70
ODI 0 AIRS 16
DEBRIS REGION 9 0 HAULERS 1
MINES 1 ENVIROSTOR 1
TRIS 0 Tribal Total Listings
TSCA 0 INDIAN RESERV 0
FTTS 1 INDIAN ODI 0
HIST FITTS 1 INDIAN LUST 0
SSTS 0 INDIAN VCP 0
ICIS 0 INDIAN UST 0
PADS 0 EDR Proprietary Records Total Listings
MLTS 0 Manufactured Gas Plants 0
RADINFO 0
FINDS 26
RAATS 0
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 59 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
EDR utilizes a geographical information system to plot the locations of facilities that are
listed in regulatory databases that had reported spills, leaks, or other incidents.
Kleinfelder reviewed this information to help establish if the Corridor, proposed
connector segment, proposed stations, or nearby properties within the Study Area have
been included in the noted databases and lists. The EDR listings, as available, include
the type of hazardous material, the quantity, and regulatory agency involved.
Kleinfelder reviewed each of the listings to assess whether these properties would likely
pose an environmental concern to the Corridor, proposed connector segment, and
proposed stations (Site). Numerous listings on the EDR database were found not to
pose an environmental concern based on the following, or a combination thereof:
• The listed property was located at a distance where, in Kleinfelder’s opinion, the
facility would unlikely have environmentally impacted the Site.
• The listed property was located in a downgradient or crossgradient direction from the
Site at a distance that would have unlikely posed an environmental impact.
• The listed property was identified in low-hazardous risk databases (i.e., UST,
HAZNET, SQG databases) not on or immediately adjoining the Site and were not
listed in other databases and/or was not listed as having any associated violations.
The listing of a facility on these databases is not indicative of an unauthorized
release.
• The listing of the facility suggested a short-term release had occurred (i.e., from
incidental traffic accidents, or chemicals from illegal drug labs found at residences)
with an associated hazardous materials cleanup.
• The quantity of the substances released was not considered to cause a significant
environmental concern to the Site.
• The listing indicates that the reported release affected soil only that were not or
immediately adjoining the Site.
Based on these criteria, Kleinfelder did not further evaluate these properties, and
therefore, these properties are not discussed. The remaining properties, listed in Table
8, were reviewed by Kleinfelder to assess whether properties within close proximity to
the Site may have had significant environmental releases or incidents which may have
impacted the Site. These listings, which indicate a significant release had occurred
and/or which remain as an open case with the appropriate regulatory agency, were
further assessed by Kleinfelder by requesting a file review with the appropriate
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 60 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
regulatory agency. Further evaluation was made as to whether the indicated release
may be an environmental concern to the Site. A summary of the reviewed regulatory
agency files and properties of concern are included in Section 5.2.
5.2 ADDITIONAL AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
The following additional sources of environmental records were reviewed during this
HMCS. Local regulatory agencies were contacted for reasonably ascertainable and
practically reviewable documentation regarding potential environment impacts present
at the Site and adjoining facilities. Information/responses from the agencies contacted
are included in Appendix D and a summary of the information reviewed is presented
below.
5.2.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District
Kleinfelder visited the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) web
page (www.aqmd.gov) for information regarding permits, equipment type, and notice of
violation (NOV) files for properties within the Study Area. A search of available facilities
within the Study Area was conducted by address and street name within the Study
Area. Numerous listings for facilities within the Study Area were reviewed, but only
those facilities with NOVs (not related to administrative violations) are discussed below.
The following is a summary of the information reviewed. Copies of the available records
are included in Appendix D.
5.2.1.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue
• 990 Palmyrita Avenue, Riverside, California (T&L Powder Coating) – Permits to
Operate were issued to T&L Powder Coating on June 8, 2001 for operation of a
natural gas powder-coating oven (Permit No. F40580), and an approximately 10-foot
wide by 10-foot long by 10-foot high powder coating spray booth enclosure (Permit
No. F40579). The permits are listed as inactive, but the facility is listed as active.
Based on a site reconnaissance by Kleinfelder on April 23, 2008, the building at this
address was vacant. No violations or notices to comply were reported for this
facility.
• 990 Palmyrita Avenue, Riverside, California (Uarco, Inc.) – Permits to Operate
were granted to Uarco, Inc. on July 23, 1992 for operation of two natural gas boilers
(Permit Nos. D59177 and D59178), two flexographic heat set printing presses
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 61 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
(Permit Nos. D59081 and D59082), and four air-dry letter printing presses (Permit
Nos. D59173, D59174, D59175, and D59176). In addition, three Permits to Operate
were granted for the operation of three miscellaneous air-dry printing presses
(Permits D73935 and D73944, issued June 4, 1993; and D84809 dated
August 19, 1994). Each of the reported permits was listed as inactive. No violations
or notices to comply were reported for this facility.
5.2.1.2 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
• 1569 Nandina Avenue, Perris, California (Freeway Building Materials) –
Currently, no permitted equipment is listed for this facility. One NO-V was issued on
August 27, 1998 related to failure to notify SCAQMD of UST excavation activities.
The NOV was corrected and the case closed.
5.2.1.3 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
• 1301 Case Road, Perris, California (EMWD; Perris Valley Water Reclamation
Facility) – Active permits related to waste water treatment equipment, emergency
generators, boilers, and gasoline dispensing equipment were listed for this facility.
Two NOVs were listed. The first was related to fugitive dust from disturbed surface
area in the atmosphere beyond the property line in August 1999. The second was
related to a modification of a boiler associated with the waste treatment equipment in
September 1999. Both violations were corrected and the case closed.
• 336 E. Ellis Avenue, Perris, California (Dick Evans Transportation, Inc.) –
Currently, no permitted equipment is listed for this facility. However, on January 10,
2003, a NOV was issued to this facility related to use of improper parts cleaning
solvent. The violation was corrected as of February 18, 2003.
5.2.2 City of Riverside Building Department
Kleinfelder visited the City of Riverside Building Department website to obtain available
permit information for known site addresses only. Permits were available for review for
the proposed Palmyrita Station parcel address of 990 Palmyrita Avenue, Riverside,
California. The following is a summary of the documents reviewed. Copies are
included in Appendix D.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 62 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• Application for Building Permit issued to Uarco for the construction of a new
commercial building, granted on February 19, 1963. The permit indicates the
building has a basement.
• Permit to Connect to Public Sewer was issued for the Site, dated March 8, 1963.
• Building permit for an addition of a foundation only, dated July 8, 1977.
• An inspection record dated September 6, 1977 indicates an addition of an
approximately 48,000 square foot industrial building.
• A mechanical permit was issued to Uarco Inc for the use of a boiler.
5.2.3 Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
Records were reviewed at the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
(RCDEH) for properties identified in our records search, which potentially represent an
environmental concern to the Corridor, proposed connector, and proposed stations.
Although records were requested and files exist at the RCDEH, the following files were
not able to be located by RCDEH staff: 610 Meyer Drive, MARB; 1301 Case Road
(Proposition 65 disclosure only in file per records description); 13260 Highway 395,
Moreno Valley; 1495 Columbia Avenue (Proposition 65 disclosure only in file per
records description), and 2 South D Street. The following is a summary of the
documents that were available and were reviewed.
5.2.3.1 Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue
• 990 Palmyrita Avenue, Riverside, California (Uarco, Inc.) - An “Application for
Permit to Operate Underground Storage Tank” was reviewed. According to this
application, Uarco Inc. installed a 12,000-gallon capacity gasoline UST in 1963. An
Underground Storage Tank Closure/Abandonment Application, dated May 18, 1987,
indicated that Uarco Inc. would remove a single-wall UST containing oil that was no
longer in use. According to a sketch, the UST was located near the northwestern
corner of the building, approximately 10 feet south of the transformer and 25 feet
west of the building. A remote fill port is shown east of the UST, along the western
wall of the building. Two ASTs are shown directly north of the fill port, against the
west side of the building. Contents of ASTs are not noted. A RCDEH Daily Field
Report dated June 11, 1987 indicated that upon removal of the UST, the backfill
material had a strong odor. The inspector’s notes indicated that aeration on Site
would be permitted. Analytical results for a soil sample collected on June 11, 1987
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 63 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
indicated no detectable concentrations of Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TRPH) using US EPA Method 418.1.
Laboratory reports from Edward S. Babcock & Sons, Inc., dated February 27, 1989,
showed soil samples collected on February 14, 1989 at Uarco Inc. Samples
designated as “990 SW Corner Sample soil at 3 ½ feet”, “Northern tank northern
sample at 4 feet”, “Northern tank southern sample at 4 feet”, and “Right tank
(southern) soil @ 4 feet” were analyzed by EPA 418.1, and were reported to contain
between 30 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 80 mg/kg TRPH. Since there is no
further information in the file regarding this sampling event, it is unclear specifically
the purpose or locations of the samples. However, based on the description of the
samples and a review of the 1987 UST permit drawing, it appears that these
samples may have been collected near the two ASTs depicted in that drawing.
Additionally, a Weck Laboratories, Inc., Laboratory Report dated March 31, 1989
was present in the files for soil samples collected on March 24, 1989 at Uarco. Two
soil samples analyzed by EPA Method 418.1 did not contain concentrations of TRPH
above laboratory detection limits of 4 mg/kg. No other information was present in
the files regarding purpose or location of the samples.
A RCDEH Letter dated May 21, 1989 was also in the file indicating Uarco, Inc. has
met RCDEH requirements “to be considered non-contaminated” based on soil
results. No other information is present in this letter regarding specific locations or
particulars regarding reference to USTs, ASTs, other areas, or the property as a
whole.
5.2.3.2 Segment 4 –Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue
• 20775 Box Springs Road, Riverside, California (Shell Service Station) – During
a Caltrans property acquisition evaluation, a subsurface investigation was conducted
at this facility in June 2002 and it was discovered that a release had occurred from
on-site USTs. In the most recent Quarterly Status and Ground and Surface Water
Monitoring Report (First Quarter 2008) dated April 14, 2008, submitted by Wayne
Perry, Inc., it was indicated that this property is currently a graded and curbed
Caltrans highway right-of-way that was formerly occupied by a Shell Service Station.
Three 12,000-gallon fiberglass USTs, three dispenser islands, a station building, and
a car wash were demolished and removed from the property in December 2003.
Site assessment activities, soil remediation and groundwater remediation have
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 64 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
occurred at this location. Samples were collected from off-site groundwater
monitoring wells and a stream on February 29, 2008. Depth to groundwater ranged
between 8.62 and 24.85 feet bgs and groundwater flow was to the northwest. No
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene,
and Xylenes (BTEX), fuel oxygenates, or other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
were detected in the four off-site wells and creek samples to the east and northeast
of the property (towards the Corridor).
5.2.3.3 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
• 1569 Nandina Avenue, Perris, California (Freeway Building Materials) – This
facility is located east of the Corridor along Segment 5, beyond Interstate 215. A
service station operated at this facility from an unknown period of time to
approximately 1998. Five USTs were removed from the property in 1998 and
contamination was discovered at that time. Site assessment and groundwater
monitoring activities have been ongoing at this facility. A recent groundwater
monitoring report indicates that at the time of the last groundwater sampling event
(December 6, 2007), the water level ranged from 19.17 to 23.64 feet bgs and
groundwater flow was to the southeast (away from the Corridor). TPH as gasoline
was detected up to 3,200 parts per billion (ppb), TPH as diesel up to 65,000 ppb,
benzene up to 28,000 ppb, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MtBE) up to 2,700 ppb,
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) at 8.2 ppb, tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (tAME) up to 360 ppb,
and naphthalene up to 370 ppb. Full-scale remediation is expected using a soil
vapor extraction system once the City of Perris approves it. According to the Pilot
Test and Interim Remedial Action Plan (Geo-Cal, Inc., August 31, 2004) the bedrock
beneath this facility slopes steeply to the north and east, and the groundwater flow
follows the bedrock surface to the east. Contamination is migrating to the southeast
parallel to the inferred groundwater flow direction.
5.2.3.4 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74)
• 24 ‘D’ Street, Perris, California (Perris Auto Repair Center) – Hazardous
Materials Management Permits were issued to Perris Auto Repair Center from 1993
through 2005. According to a Hazardous Waste Generator Inspection Report dated
May 21, 1997, the inspector indicated that the facility needed to secure compressed
gas cylinders and needed to label the waste oil storage tank. The waste oil tank was
reported as in the early stages of developing a leak. An UST Permit for Closure
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 65 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
dated December 9, 2002 was issued for the removal of two USTs. The facility was
listed as having two gasoline USTs and an oil UST. Heavy staining was observed
beneath the northern ends of USTs 2 and 4 greater than 6 feet bgs. The RCDEH
file indicated that the case was referred to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (SARWQCB).
• 101 South ‘D’ Street, Perris, California (B & D Service) – Information reviewed
indicated that three USTs were removed from the property in April 2000.
Groundwater was reported at approximately 60 feet bgs and discolored soil was
observed. According to a June 20, 2000 letter from the RCDEH to Mr. Baljit Sambi,
RCDEH indicated that removal of three USTs at the property is complete. The final
soil sample test results beneath the USTs indicated petroleum hydrocarbon
concentrations below action levels. RCDEH indicated that no further action was
required.
• 102 South ‘D’ Street, Perris, CA (B & D Service [see 101 South ‘D’ Street also])
– According to a March 23, 2000 letter from RCDEH, an inspection was conducted
on March 16, 2000. Although the owner was not present, several drums containing
waste oil were observed without lids. Oil filters were scattered throughout the
facility. Waste oil was observed to be spilled in various areas of the property with
large amounts of waste oil spilled on the northern and western fence lines. It was
indicated that because of the amount of oil spilled, the fence had a coating of oil
blocking its openings.
• 210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris, California (County of Riverside, dba
Perris Fire Station) – Hazardous Materials Management Permits were issued for
the fire station at this location from 1995 through 2007. According to information
reviewed, this facility formerly maintained a 500-gallon gasoline UST and a 1,000-
gallon waste oil UST that were removed in September 1987. An application was
also reviewed which indicated the facility maintained a 1,000-gallon gasoline UST, a
500-gallon waste oil UST, and a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST. In addition, this facility
maintained 5,000-gallon gasoline and diesel USTs. An October 28, 2006
Underground Storage Tank Closure Report indicated that the USTs were located
between a mechanics shop and an aboveground storage tank at the facility.
Discolored soil was discovered at a depth of 13 feet bgs beneath the USTs and at 3
feet below associated dispensers. The EDR report indicated an impact to the
drinking water aquifer due to the release from the facility. Records were not
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 66 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
available at the SARWQCB for review; however, according to Ms. Rose Scott of the
SARWQCB, an attempt to close the case was made and the case is undergoing a
peer review. Ms. Scott recalled that additional assessment at this location did not
reach groundwater, based on her knowledge as the regulatory agency case worker
for this Site.
5.2.3.5 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
• 403 North ‘D’ Street, Perris, California (ARCO Products Company) – This
property is located at the southeast corner of 4th Street and ‘D’ Street in downtown
Perris. According to information reviewed, SECOR submitted a January 15, 1990
letter to Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) Products Company regarding the
removal of one 550-gallon waste oil UST and four USTs ranging in size from 4,000
gallons to 6,000 gallons. Contamination was detected and remediation activities
commenced. Groundwater during remediation activities was encountered between
50 and 61 feet bgs, and groundwater flow was reported to the northeast (away from
the Corridor). ARCO submitted a Final Quarterly Report for groundwater monitoring
activities (Fourth Quarter 1997 dated January 15, 1998). The current phase of
project at that time was listed as closed. A No Further Action Letter was issued to
the facility by RCDEH in October 1997.
ARCO filed an application dated April 1, 2003 to remove four 10,000-gallon gasoline
USTs. An UST removal report was submitted by Delta Environmental Consultants
dated June 20, 2003 and indicated that groundwater was encountered between 50
and 55 feet bgs and groundwater flowed to the northeast. An Underground Storage
Tank Unauthorized Release Report was submitted on June 10, 2003.
• 1301 Case Road, Perris, California (EMWD Perris Valley RWRF) – Kleinfelder
requested records for this facility based on its proximity to the Corridor, as noted
during our Site reconnaissance. As of June 1, 2004, the facility was listed as not
maintaining USTs. The facility was listed as having petroleum ASTs and hazardous
materials greater than 55 gallons. The facility was also listed as a generator of
hazardous waste. Chemicals used at this facility include: aluminum sulfate solution
(Alum); argon; calcium hypchlorite mixture (Oxidizer); chlorine; solvents (distillates
and alkylbenzenes); diesel fuel No. 2; Floc-cite (non-hazardous); unleaded regular
gasoline; lubricating grease; helium; Hotsy Soap; hydrated lime; hydrochloric acid
solution; hydrogen peroxide solution; lubricating oil; Clarifloc polymer; sludge
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 67 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
thickener; liquefied petroleum gas; Simple Green cleaner/degreaser; sodium bisulfite
solution; sodium hydroxide solution; bleach; SoilKlean enzymes; used oil; and
Zymetech cleaner/deodorant.
The facility reportedly had USTs that were installed in 1982. An Underground
Storage Tank Closure Inspection Report for the EMWD Perris Pumping Plant dated
November 17, 1994 indicates that a fiberglass diesel oil UST was removed. No
significant releases or violations were reported at this facility.
5.2.4 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Records were reviewed at the SARWQCB for properties, which potentially represent an
environmental concern to the Corridor, proposed connector, and proposed stations.
The following is a summary of the documents reviewed.
5.2.4.1 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue
• 20775 Box Springs Road, Riverside, California (Shell Service Station) – This
property is located west of the Corridor and is oriented in a northwest to southeast
direction. Three 12,000-gallon USTs, associated dispenser islands, a station
building, and a car wash were removed from this property in December 2003.
Impacted soil was removed from beneath the former USTs and associated piping on
March 31, 2004. An additional UST and associated piping was discovered during
demolition activities beneath the station building. Excavated soil was disposed off
the property. Groundwater monitoring wells were subsequently installed at the
former service station. Analytical results of soil samples collected during installation
of vadose zone wells suggested the majority of soil impacts are in the saturated
zone and are likely a result of the dissolved-phase plume. Groundwater direction
was found to flow in a northwest direction, crossgradient to the Corridor. Recent
results from groundwater sampling performed in May 2006 indicated the presence of
dissolved phase TPH as gasoline (up to 7,100 micrograms per liter [μg/L]), MtBE;
(up to 6,100 μg/L), tert-Butyl alcohol (tBA) (up to 31,000 μg/L), and ethanol (250
μg/L). Additional wells were installed in June 2007. A soil vapor extraction system
operated continuously between July 2004 and May 2005 at this property.
Contamination remains in the area downgradient of the property and crossgradient
of the Corridor.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 68 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• 13260 Highway 215 (Old 215 Frontage Road/Valley Springs Parkway) Shell
Service Station - Five USTs, including two 2,000-gallon, one 3,000-gallon, and one
8,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and one 500-gallon waste oil UST, were removed in
February 1989. Soil assessments were conducted between April 1989 and March
1995, and groundwater sampling began in March 1995. Western Environmental
Engineers Co. (WEECO) conducted a soil assessment in April 2007 and installed
two monitoring wells at that time. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and fuel oxygenates
were not detected in samples. Routine quarterly groundwater sampling was
conducted by WEECO (First Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring and Progress
Report, March 27, 2008). Maximum contaminant concentrations were detected in
groundwater samples from well MW-3 located at the northwestern corner of the
property (closest to the Corridor) for TPH as gasoline at 21,700 ug/L, benzene at
3,789 ug/L, toluene at 41 ug/L, ethylbenzene at 95 ug/L, xylenes at 54 ug/L, and
DIPE at 664 ug/L. MtBE, EtBE, tAME, and tBA were not detected. Groundwater
was estimated flowing to the northwest. Liquid-phase hydrocarbon was not found in
the wells during this event. Historically hydrocarbons have increased since 1995.
Groundwater flow is toward the Corridor and impacts have not been delineated.
5.2.4.2 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
• 610 Meyer Drive, March Air Reserve Base (MARB), California – Current plume
maps show boundaries for contaminated areas of the MARB, formerly MARB, to the
west and south of the Corridor. Remediation and monitoring is ongoing at various
locations associated with the MARB to address source areas. Based on Operable
Unit Site locations, MARB Sites 19, 22, 24, and 43 were identified as being within
500 feet of the Study Area and are part of the Operable Unit 2, ROD site. The
following four sites are part of the closure side of the OU2 ROD, which was
completed in April 2004:
¾ Site 19: West March Sludge Drying Beds - No remedial action required.
Contamination from sludge remains above unrestricted levels.
¾ Site 22: Landfill No. 2, Main Base - Site could not be found. No evidence of
waste was identified.
¾ Site 24: Landfill No. 1, West March, Incinerator Area - Waste and soil was
excavated in 1995 and placed at Site 6. No contamination remains above
unrestricted levels at the site.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 69 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
¾ Site 43: Former Automotive Maintenance Area/ Cal Trans UST Site -Removal
and disposal of fuel-contaminated soil is complete. Removed from the CERCLA
process and site has been closed by RWQCB.
5.2.4.3 Segment 6 – Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74)
• 102 South ‘D’ Street (B&D Automotive) - Four USTs were removed in February
1994. Concentrations of VOCs from UST soil samples ranged from non-detect to
7,600 mg/kg. An initial study was filed with City of Perris. Based on reports and
interviews, neither Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division nor the
SARWQCB has accepted the validity of the preliminary site assessment work plan
submitted. Further, the agency lead has not recommended the site for closure. The
City of Perris Planning Commission finds that since the project shall be conditioned
to conduct the requisite studies and perform any recommended remediation of
measures prescribed by the State Agency, that the hazard can be reduced to a less
than significant level.
• 24 South ‘D’ Street (Perris Auto Repair) - Five USTs with unknown contents were
removed in December 1992 (three 1,000-gallon, one 4,000-gallon, and one 6,000-
gallon). A formal UST Tank Closure Report was not prepared and the content of the
USTs were not documented. Twelve soil samples were collected during the removal of
the USTs. Maximum concentrations included TPH as gasoline (5,700 parts per million
[ppm]), TRPH (30 ppm), toluene (0.890 ppm), ethylbenzene (12 ppm), and total xylenes
(61 ppm). A work plan to complete four soil borings (JB Services, Work Plan, 1993) as
prepared; however, the work does not appear to have been completed. From April
1993 through August 2005, the RCDEH sent several letters to Mr. Nemr Eid
(responsible party) requesting full characterization of impacted soil and possibly
groundwater. Mr. Eid did not meet the requests. The RCDEH transferred the case to
the SARWQCB in August 2005. SARWQCB staff met with Mr. Eid and sent several
letters; however, no site assessment was completed.
The City of Perris recently purchased the parcel for redevelopment. During a visit to
the property by the City of Perris on March 23, 2008, 24 unlabeled 55-gallon drums
were observed (these drums were observed by Kleinfelder personnel during the April
2008 Site Reconnaissance; see Appendix B, Photo 29). In a letter from SARWQCB to
Mr. Michael McDermott of the City of Perris Office of Real Estate Services, dated April
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 70 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
11, 2008, a work plan for site assessment at the property was due by May 9, 2008. At
the time of our records review, this work plan was not yet submitted.
5.2.4.4 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
• 403 North ‘D’ Street, Perris, California (AM/PMTM Mini-mart) – Property is located
on southeast corner of intersection of 4th Street and ‘D’ Street. Based on the
reviewed information, from July 1990 to June 1996, the facility was upgraded, site
assessment and remedial activities took place and the RCDEH issued a no further
action letter dated October 29, 1997. During site demolition in May 2003, four
10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, two dispenser islands, and associated piping were
removed. Assessment and remediation were conducted from November 2004 and
continues through the present. SECOR International Inc. submitted a Well
Installation and Dual-Phase Extraction Event work plan on February 25, 2008 for this
property. However, since groundwater is expected to flow in a northeasterly
direction, away from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental
concern to Segment 6.
5.2.5 State Fire Marshall, Pipeline Safety Office
A request was submitted to the California State Fire Marshal (CSFM) for information
regarding potential pipelines in the vicinity of the Site. According to the CSFM, a 6-inch
(refined product) pipeline owned by Kinder Morgan is located in the vicinity of the
Corridor, proposed connector, and proposed stations.
5.2.6 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
At the time of Kleinfelder’s Site reconnaissance, Kinder Morgan pipeline markers were
observed at various locations to the northeast of the intersection of Villa Street and the
railroad tracks, and at numerous locations along the Corridor. Kleinfelder submitted a
written request to Mr. Don Quinn of Kinder Morgan requesting specific information
pertaining to the Site and whether releases have occurred along the pipeline in the
vicinity of the Site. In a June 5, 2008 letter from Mr. Don Quinn, Manager of Pipeline
Relations, Mr. Quinn provided pipeline alignment maps for Kinder Morgan’s high-
pressure petroleum products pipelines in the vicinity of the Corridor. According to the
letter, the pipeline is a 6-inch pipeline. Mr. Quinn indicated that there are no known
environmental issues concerning the pipeline.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 71 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
5.2.7 Questar Corporation
Kleinfelder spoke with Mr. Jim Dotts of Questar Corporation on August 11, 2008 to
obtain additional information regarding the pipeline that is located in the vicinity of the
Corridor, south of Alessandro Boulevard. According to Mr. Dotts, the pipeline traverses
generally in an east-west direction, but runs along the railroad tracks for approximately
600 feet before crossing the railroad toward I-215. Mr. Dotts indicated the pipeline
formerly contained crude oil approximately 10 years ago. The pipeline was planned for
use as a natural gas pipeline, but Questar may be selling the pipeline. In the interim,
the pipeline currently contains nitrogen. Mr. Dotts is not aware of any incidences
reported along the pipeline. He also indicated that a pipeline integrity test was
performed of the pipeline and to his knowledge the integrity of the pipeline was intact.
5.2.8 Perris Building Department
Kleinfelder visited the Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) website for
address information pertaining to the parcels at and in the vicinity of the proposed
Downtown Perris Station containing observed structures. According to the RCLIS, no
street addresses are available for the parcels with the observed structures. Kleinfelder
then contacted the City of Perris Building & Safety Department and spoke to Ms. Kim
Williford (951-443-1029) for building permit information related to these structures
based on the APNs provided. According to Ms. Williford, permits cannot be searched
by APN, but rather need to be researched by street address. During a visit to the City of
Perris Building & Safety Department, representatives indicated that the structures
located at the proposed Downtown Perris Station were exempt from obtaining building
permits. No other information was provided.
An online search for Ace Hardware store in Perris to obtain a street address was
conducted. An Ace Hardware store is listed at 180 West 4th Street. A further request
for information pertaining to this address was requested via telephone to Ms. Williford.
However, a response has not yet been received.
5.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
Previous environmental reports were provided to Kleinfelder regarding properties in the
vicinity of the Site. A summary of the previous reports follows.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 72 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
5.3.1 Segments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (partial)
• Converse Consultants Inland Empire (CCIE), Phase I Preliminary Site
Assessment, San Jacinto Subdivision, 16 Mile Railroad Alignment, Highgrove
to Perris, California, March 1, 1993. A previous Phase I site assessment was
provided for 16 miles of the AT&SF railroad alignment from Pico Street in Grand
Terrace to Orange Avenue, north of Perris. Alignment properties with the presence
of hazardous materials in either soil or groundwater were identified within an area of
1,000 feet on either side of the alignment. As addresses were not provided for the
alignment, several agency records were not available for review. At the time of
CCIE’s report, the subject property was used as a railway alignment with railroad
tracks on crushed rock aggregate base (ballast). The rails were supported by
creosote-treated railroad ties, embedded into the ballast.
Twelve properties were identified by CCIE as having the potential to impact the
alignment based on environmental concerns. Four of the twelve properties, which
were located on MAFB, now MARB were considered as potential for containing
significant concentrations of hazardous materials; however, they were designated on
the NPL list and characterization was underway. Additionally, five of the 12
properties were outside of the search area corresponding with the Site area for the
subject report.
One property is already listed in Segment 1 of this report under the address of 800
Iowa Avenue, Riverside, California. The remaining two properties were described as
a closed gasoline station at 381 Blaine Avenue, and Bell Grain and Milling at 1791
Highway 215. Both were classified as low and moderate potential for environmental
impact, respectively, with potential sources in soil and groundwater. These two
properties were not listed in the current EDR report for the Site.
5.3.2 Segment 4 – Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue
• Ninyo & Moore, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Alessandro
Station, Riverside County, California, December 22, 2005. A previous Phase I
site assessment was provided for the proposed Alessandro Station, which was
considered for purchase by RCTC. The property is located west of I-215, near the
southeast corner of East Alessandro Boulevard and Brown Street (previously
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 73 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
referenced as Meridian Parkway). At the time of Ninyo & Moore’s report, the
property was vacant land.
Ninyo & Moore noted the property had been vacant land since 1953 and three
elongated buildings in the vicinity that are believed to have been used for
warehousing purposes by the nearby MARB facility. Due to possible uses and lack
of listing in the regulatory databases, these off-site buildings would not be
considered a potential environmental condition to the property. Although the MARB
facility is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the property, due to the distance
and direction of groundwater flow, this facility was not considered a potential
environmental condition. Ninyo & Moore did not identify any potential environmental
conditions and did not recommend further investigations.
• Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. (Bureau Veritas), Phase II Site Investigation
Report, Proposed Alessandro Station, Meridian Parkway, near East
Alessandro Boulevard, Riverside County, California, January 18, 2008. A
previous Phase II Site Investigation Report was provided to Kleinfelder for the
proposed Alessandro Station (see location description in the Phase I summary
above). At the time of Bureau Veritas’s report, the property was vacant land.
Four soil borings were advanced to approximately 20 feet bgs for evaluating
potential subsurface impacts associated with landfill materials that were reportedly
buried beneath the northeastern portion of the proposed Alessandro Station
property. Soil samples from approximately 5 feet bgs were for laboratory analysis.
Samples did not contain detectable concentrations of TPH as diesel fuel and
gasoline, VOCs, and SVOCs. Some Title 22 metals were detected in soil samples;
however, concentrations were all below EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGs). A geophysical survey with ground penetrating radar did not reveal
evidence of landfill material or buried metallic debris. Based on these results,
Bureau Veritas concluded that landfill materials did not appear to be present
beneath the northeastern portion of the property.
5.3.3 Segments 4 and 5
• Ninyo & Moore, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Caltrans Parcel
Numbers 7731-01-01 through 7731-3, Riverside County, California, February
23, 2006. A previous Phase I site assessment was provided for several Caltrans
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 74 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
parcels in an unincorporated area of Riverside County, which were considered for
purchase by RCTC. The Caltrans parcel numbers were referred as to APNs 7730-
01-01, 7731-1-A, 7731-2, and 7731-3. At the time of Ninyo & Moore’s report, most
of the property was vacant land. The southern portion of the property was occupied
by a portion of I-215.
The property contained a railroad track from at least 1953 through at least 1980.
Sometime between 1980 and 1992, the railroad tracks were removed from the site
and were realigned west of the newly constructed I-215. In 1992, the southern
portion of the property was developed as part of I-215; the remaining portions of the
property were vacant. Ninyo & Moore did not identify any recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) and did not recommend further investigations unless the property
was to be redeveloped and/or the soils disturbed, in which case soil samples were
recommended for herbicide and select metals analyses to assess whether the
constituents are present due to historical land uses.
5.3.4 Segment 5 – Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road
• Associated Consulting Civil & Environmental Services, Inc., Remediation
Action Report, Hydrocarbon Fuel Contamination at a Riverside County
Transportation Commission Property Adjacent to Tosco Cajalco (Circle K)
Service Station, January 2008. A release was documented at this location from a
diesel fuel pump left opened in January 31, 2007, which ran down the driveway at
the service station to Cajalco Road and into a clogged storm channel, which then
backed up onto the property. Excavation and off-site disposal was the chosen
remediation approach for this property. Based on the description and lab results, it
appears that the affected soil was assessed, excavated to a depth below impact,
and confirmation samples were collected. Impacted soil (48 tons) was removed on
January 22, 2008 and transported to an off-site disposal facility. Confirmation
samples were below laboratory reporting limits and no further action was
recommended.
5.3.5 Segment 7 – 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215
• Ninyo & Moore, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Perris Wye Property, Riverside County,
California, March 31, 2005. A previous Phase I site assessment was provided for
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 75 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 76 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
the “Perris Wye Property”, which was considered for purchase by RCTC. The
property is located south of the intersection of ‘D’ street and Commercial Street in
the city of Perris, and consists of an arc-shaped section. The property has consisted
of a rail right-of-way (dirt path and tracks removed) without structures from
approximately 1953 through the present.
Ninyo & Moore concluded that there were no indications of RECs in connection with
the site at the time of the Phase I, except for the possible historical herbicide use at
the property. Application of herbicides, including possible arsenic-containing
compounds, was a common historical practice for weed control on rail lines. Based
on this, Ninyo & Moore recommended soil samples be collected along the property
prior to future construction activities.
• Ninyo & Moore, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, APN
327-210-006, Perris, California, dated November 27, 2006. The property is
located on the southeast corner of the intersection between Mapes Road and Case
Road in the city of Perris. It is bound to the south by the BNSF and to the north by
Mapes Road and Bonnie Drive. At the time of Ninyo & Moore’s report, the property
to the north of the property (the current proposed South Perris Station) was noted as
vacant land.
According to the report, the adjoining property to the south of the property was
historically vacant land or used for agricultural purposes from at least 1901 through
2006. No off-site sources of environmental concern were found for this property.
5.4 FACILITIES OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Table 8 provides a summary and description of on-site and off-site properties identified
in each segment of the study area, listed by address, location, and EDR Focus Map ID
(if assigned), and provides an opinion regarding whether these properties are a concern
to the Site. These properties are also shown on Plates 2 through 4, with a
corresponding Focus Map ID number, if provided.
Table 8 Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 1 – Spring Street to Columbia Avenue Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 1 ID On-Site or Off-Site (Distance from Site) Direction from Site GroundwaterGradient Comments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 1 Proposed Citrus Connection Not applicable On-Site Not applicable Not applicable Historically used for agricultural purposes. Y Possible residual pesticides/herbicides as a result of former agricultural use. No releases were listed in the EDR report. Facility is located in a downgradient location from the Site. Based on distance and direction, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Site. 2 Kent Landsberg Paperland 1180 Springs Street Riverside, California 92507 1 120 feet beyond adjoining railroad tracks West Downgradient Listed in the CA FID UST, SWEEPS UST, and HAZNET databases. Had diesel USTs. Listed as a generator of hazardous waste, including waste oil and mixed oil. N 3 Brine Fac, Lily-Tulip Div 800 Iowa Riverside, California 3 400 feet south of Proposed Citrus Connection ; 800 feet west of Corridor South of Proposed Citrus Connection ; West of Corridor Crossgradient/ Downgradient Listed in the WMUDS/SWAT database. Process waste generator. N Based on distance and direction of facility, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern. 4 Standard Register 990 Palmyrita Avenue Riverside, California 92507 4 On-Site (Proposed Palmyrita Station) Not Applicable Not Applicable Listed in the HAZNET database as a generator of photochemicals and photoprocessing waste. Also listed as disposing of asbestos-containing waste. Based on historical documentation, the Proposed Palmyrita Station was historically used for agricultural purposes. Y See “UARCO Incorporated” entry below. 5 UARCO Incorporated 990 Palmyrita Avenue Riverside, California 92507 4 On-Site (Proposed Palmyrita Station) Not Applicable Not Applicable Small Quantity Generator (SQG), no violations found. Historical 12,000-gallon UST (installed 1963). Based on historical documentation, the Proposed Palmyrita Station was historically used for agricultural purposes. Y Possible residual pesticides/herbicides as a result of former agricultural use. The property was developed with the existing building in the mid-1960s. Possible impacts associated with a former UST, remote fill port, ASTs, observed staining, a 55-gallon drum with unknown contents, a cooling tower, and sump. In addition, ACMs and LBP may be present in the on-site building. 6 Astro Seal Inc. Celco Industries 827 Palmyrita Avenue Unit B Riverside, California 92507 7 350 feet East Upgradient SQG, no violations found. Listed in the FINDS and HAZNET databases. Generator of unspecified oil-containing waste, waste oil, mixed oil, unspecified solvent mixture waste, and other inorganic solid waste. N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the distance from the Site, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion this facility is not an environmental concern. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 77 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 2 – Columbia Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 2 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater Gradient Comments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 7 Proposed UCR Station Not applicable On-Site Not applicable Southwest Based on historical documents, the Proposed UCR Station was formerly used for agricultural purposes. Y Possible residual pesticides/herbicides as a result of former agricultural use. 8 U C Riverside Fleet Services/Steam Plant 3401 Watkins Drive Riverside, California 92521 16 ~100 feet Southwest Crossgradient Downgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release from a UST occurred at the facility in May 1995. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. 18 USTs present at facility. Historical gasoline and used-oil USTs. Air emissions reported (1987-2004). Y The facility is located to the southwest of the Corridor and is cross-to downgradient with respect to groundwater flow. In addition, groundwater is expected greater than 50 feet bgs. Although the facility has not received case closure with the regulatory agency, because the release affected soil only and the facility is located cross- to downgradient from the site, Kleinfelder did not request a review of additional regulatory agency records. However, due to the proximity of this facility to the proposed UCR Station, this facility represents a potential environmental concern. 9 West of Mt. Vernon Avenue Not applicable On-Site Not applicable Not applicable Observed stockpiled ballasts and railroad ties near the northeastern portion of Segment 1, south of Columbia Avenue. Y Ballasts and railroad ties are often treated with petroleum hydrocarbon products and pose a potential environmental concern. Although no staining was observed on or in the vicinity of the ballasts and railroad ties, it is possible that staining exists beneath the piles. The ground beneath the piles was not visible at the time of our Site reconnaissance. Segment 3 – Mount Vernon Avenue to Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater Gradient Comments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 10 Proposed Fair Isle Station Not applicable On-Site Not applicable Not applicable Based on historical documentation, the Proposed Fair Isle Station was formerly used for agricultural purposes. Y Possible residual pesticides/herbicides as a result of former agricultural use. 11 Eastern end of Manfield Street Not applicable Adjoining Segment 3 West Downgradient Observed three 55-gallon drums at the time of the site reconnaissance. Y Three 55-gallon drums were observed at the base of a ravine adjacent to the Segment 3 alignment at the Manfield Street eastern terminus. Due to the steep terrain leading to the drums, the contents of the drums were not determined and are presently unknown. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 78 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 4 - Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 3 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 12 Shell Service Station 20775 Box Springs Road Riverside, California 92507 22 200 feet Southwest Crossgradient Gasoline USTs present. The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in August 2002 and drinking water was affected. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. SQG, no violations found. Files were reviewed at regulatory agency. N Groundwater flow was shown to flow to the northwest during site assessment and remediation activities. No TPH as gasoline, BTEX, fuel oxygenates, or other VOCs were detected in four off-site wells and creek samples to the east and northeast of the property (towards the Corridor). Based on this information, at this time, this facility is not considered a significant environmental concern. 13 Reliable Floats Fac. 20760 Box Springs Road Riverside, California 92507 22 200 feet Southwest Crossgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of hydrocarbons was discovered at the facility in February 1997. The release was issued "case closed" status. Preliminary site investigation performed due to Caltrans freeway improvement project. N Based on the distance, direction, and case closure status, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. No releases were reported to have occurred from this location according to the EDR report. Based on this information and, the distance and direction of this facility from the Corridor, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern. In addition, because no releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report, additional regulatory agency file reviews were not conducted for this facility. 14 Communications-Box Springs 10535 Box Springs Road Moreno Valley, California 92388 22 300 feet West Crossgradient to Upgradient Gasoline UST present. N 15 Raceway Ford 5900 Sycamore Canyon Boulevard Riverside, California 92507 23 Adjoining to 100 feet West Crossgradient SQG, no violations found. AST present. Air emissions reported (2002-2004). N Based on the direction and types of databases listed, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor 16 Northbound I-215, South of Fair Isle Drive Not applicable Adjoining East Crossgradient Vehicular accident, reported to have occurred on railroad tracks. Y According to the EDR environmental database report, an accident was reported on the railroad tracks to the south of Fair Isle Drive. Approximately 75 gallons of diesel were released in April 2001. It is possible that residual diesel is present in the vicinity of the railroad tracks at this location. 17 Sycamore Park Fueling 6171 Quail Valley Court Riverside, California 92507 25 350 feet Southwest Crossgradient USTs present. N Based on the distance, direction, and type of databases listed, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. Although substance is unknown, the quantity based on the description provided, does not appear to be significant. In addition, this facility is located in a downgradient location. Therefore, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 18 Dr. Thomas T. Haider, MD 6276 River Crest Drive Riverside, California 92507 27 Adjoining East Downgradient "Caller stated that a white Toyota truck is releasing unknown material from a container on the back of the truck onto the ground." N 19 Congoleum Corp, Kinder Div 6300 Box Springs Road Riverside, California 92507 27 Adjoining West Crossgradient to Upgradient Air emissions reported (1987). N Based on the type of database listed, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 79 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 4 - Box Springs Road (Fair Isle Drive) to Cactus Avenue (Continued) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 3 and 4 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 20 Rain for Rent #36 6400 Fischer Road Riverside, California 92502 29 Adjoining Northeast Crossgradient ERNS: calls made in December 1990 and January 1991 reporting ongoing release from a diesel AST. Y This facility is located approximately 100 feet northeast of and crossgradient from the Corridor. Based on the EDR database report, this facility was listed in the ERNS database. Calls were reportedly made in December 1990 and January 1991 stating that there was an ongoing release from a diesel AST at this facility. Based on its adjoining location to the Corridor, this facility is considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 21 Fischer Road Not applicable Adjoining Northeast Crossgradient Appears to be associated with the Rain for Rent facility listed above. Y According to the EDR environmental database report, this facility was listed in the ERNS database as releasing diesel from an AST at the facility, according to phone calls reporting the incident. The callers indicated the diesel was released from the AST in December 1990 and January 1991 on an ongoing basis. Based on its adjoining location to the Corridor, this facility is considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 22 City of Riverside Department of Public Utility Electric 2221 Eastridge Avenue Riverside, California 92507 30 Adjoining West Crossgradient to Upgradient Air emissions reported (2002-2005). N Based on the type of database listed, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 23 Moreno Shell Service Station 13260 Highway 215 Moreno Valley, California 92553 31 500 feet East Crossgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in February 1989. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. Y Maximum contaminant concentrations were detected in groundwater samples from well MW-3 located at the northwestern corner of the property (closest to the Corridor) for TPH as gasoline at 21,700 ug/L, benzene at 3,789 ug/L, toluene at 41 ug/L, ethylbenzene at 95 ug/L, xylenes at 54 ug/L, and DIPE at 664 ug/L. MtBE, EtBE, tAME, and tBA were not detected. Groundwater was found to flow to the northwest toward the Corridor and impacts have not been delineated. Based on the distance from the Corridor and groundwater flow direction, this former facility represents an environmental concern to Segment 4. 24 Howard Lee Property 13390 Highway 215 Moreno Valley, California Orphan ~500 feet East Crossgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in June 1993. The release was issued "case closed" status. N Based on the distance and direction, and case closed status, this facility is not considered an environmental concern. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 80 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 5- Cactus Avenue to Cajalco Road Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 5 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 25 March Air Reserve Base (MARB) 610 Meyer Drive, Building 2403 March Air Reserve Base, California 92518 ”NPL Region” Various (large area) Corridor crosses facility Various Facility on National Priorities List. One investigation area appears to be within Corridor. MARB is listed in the CERCLIS, FINDS, RCRA LQG, ROD, US ENG CONTROLS, US INST CONTROL, and MANIFEST databases. Available files reviewed at the SARWQCB. According to RCDEH, files available for MARB were not located. Site documents were also located on the EPA’s Superfund website. N Building 2403 is located east of I-215, greater than 1,000 feet from the Corridor. Additionally, current main plume maps reviewed show boundaries for contaminated areas of the MARB to the west and south of the Corridor. These plumes are comprised predominately of solvent or fuel contaminants. Remediation and monitoring is ongoing at various locations associated with the MARB to address source areas. Based on Operable Unit site locations, sites 19, 22, 24, and 43 were identified as being within 500 feet of the Study Area and are part of the Operable Unit 2, Record of Decision (ROD) site. The following four sites are part of the closure side of the OU2 ROD, which was completed in April 2004. Based on the locations of contaminated plumes identified for MARB to the west and south of the Corridor, and the “closed” or “no further remediation required” status of the four sites within 500 feet of the Corridor, MARB does not currently represent an environmental concern to the Corridor. 26 Pulliam Family Trust Nandina Liquor/Texaco 1569 Nandina Avenue Perris, California 92571 33 450 feet East Downgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of diesel occurred at the facility in January 1993 and drinking water was affected. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. Files reviewed at regulatory agencies. N This facility is located east of the Corridor along Segment 4, beyond I-215. A service station operated at this facility from an unknown period of time to approximately 1998. Five USTs were removed from the property in 1998 and contamination was discovered at that time. Site assessment and groundwater monitoring activities have been ongoing at this facility. A recent groundwater monitoring report indicates that at the time of the last groundwater sampling event (December 6, 2007), the water level ranged from 19.17 to 23.64 feet bgs and groundwater flow was to the southeast (away from the Corridor). TPH as gasoline was detected up to 3,200 ppb, TPH as diesel up to 65,000 ppb, benzene up to 28,000 ppb, MtBE up to 2,700 ppb, DIPE at 8.2 ppb, tAME up to 360 ppb, and naphthalene up to 370 ppb. Full scale remediation is expected using a soil vapor extraction system once the City of Perris approves it. According to the Pilot Test and Interim Remedial Action Plan (Geo-Cal, Inc., August 31, 2004) the bedrock beneath this facility slopes steeply to the north and east, and the groundwater flow follows the bedrock surface to the east. Contamination is migrating to the southeast parallel to the inferred groundwater flow direction. Because the groundwater flow is away from the Corridor and the facility is 450 feet from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. SCAQMD records indicate a NOV was issued for failure to notify the agency of UST excavation activities. The NOV was corrected and the case closed. 27 North of Cajalco Expressway, along the rail Corridor Not applicable On-Site Not applicable Not applicable Moderate oil staining was observed during the site reconnaissance. Y The staining was observed on the railroad ballasts in an area along the railroad tracks to the north of the Cajalco Expressway. Because the staining was observed along the railroad tracks, the observed staining is considered an environmental concern. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 81 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 6 - Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 6 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 28 Val Verde Continuation High School Nevada Avenue/Morgan Street Perris, California 92571 37 400 feet East-Northeast Downgradient The property was formerly used for agricultural purposes. Listed in Envirostor database (no further action). N Based on the distance and direction, and no further action status, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 29 California Truss Company 23665 Cajalco Road Perris, California 92570 38 Adjoining West Upgradient AST on site (contents not listed). N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 30 McAnnally Enterprises 23840 Rider Street Perris, California 92370 39 Adjoining West Upgradient Facility under waste discharge requirements. N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 31 Star Milling Company 24067 Water Avenue Perris, California 92570 40 Adjoining West Upgradient Air emissions reported (2002-2005). N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 32 New Davidson Brick Co Inc. Davidson Brick Company 24100 Orange Avenue Perris, California 92570 41 Adjoining West Upgradient Diesel UST on site. Air emissions reported (1987 & 1990). Historical diesel UST. N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 33 The Salvation Army 24201 Orange Avenue Perris, California 92572 41 Adjoining West Upgradient Air emissions reported (1997-2001). N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 34 Harvill Machine, Inc. 24201 Orange Avenue Perris, California 92370 41 Adjoining West Upgradient Historical gasoline USTs. N 35 Mineral Resource Technology Inc. 24200 Orange Street Perris, California 92570 41 Adjoining West Upgradient HAZNET facility. N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 36 Atkinson Brick Company Los Angeles (County), California 43 Adjoining West Upgradient Facility is a mine and a plant. N No releases from this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the type of database listed, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility is not an environmental concern to the Corridor. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 82 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 6 - Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74) (Continued) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 9 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 37 Al's Union/Unocal Al's/Unocal 2 South ‘D’ Street Perris, California 92570 46 Adjoining East Downgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in September 1995 and drinking water was affected. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. Historical gasoline and used-oil USTs. Records were requested for review with the SARWQCB and the RCDEH. According to SARWQCB, records for this facility are located with RCDEH. Although RCDEH indicated they showed a file existed, the file was not located for our review. Y Al’s Union/Union Al’s/Unocal occupied this off-site location. A gasoline release was reported in September 1995, which affected drinking water. Case closure has not been issued. The property was also shown to be occupied by Unocal Bulk Storage on Sanborn Maps. Because this facility had a release that has not been issued case closure by the regulatory agency and because this facility is located adjoining the site, this facility is considered an environmental concern. 38 City of Perris, Bob Glass Gym 101 North ‘D’ Street Perris, California 92570 46 150 feet East Crossgradient Facility under waste discharge requirements. N Based on distance and direction of this facility from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 39 Perris Auto Repair Center 24 ‘D’ Street Perris, California 92570 46 Adjoining East Upgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in January 1993 and drinking water was affected. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. Files reviewed at the regulatory agencies. Y Five USTs with unknown contents were removed in December 1992 (three 1,000-gallon, one 4,000-gallon, and one 6,000-gallon). A formal UST Tank Closure Report was not prepared and the content of the USTs were not documented. Twelve soil samples were collected during the removal of the USTs. Maximum concentrations included TPH as gasoline (5,700 ppm), TRPH (30 ppm), toluene (0.890 ppm), ethylbenzene (12 ppm), and total xylenes (61 ppm). A work plan to complete four soil borings (JB Services, Work Plan, 1993) as prepared; however, the work does not appear to have been completed. From April 1993 through August 2005, the RCDEH sent several letters to Mr. Nemr Eid (responsible party) requesting full characterization of impacted soil and possibly groundwater. Mr. Eid did not respond to the requests. The RCDEH transferred the case to the SARWQCB in August 2005. SARWQCB staff met with Mr. Eid and sent several letters; however, no site assessment was completed. The City of Perris recently purchased the parcel for redevelopment. During a visit of the property by the City of Perris on March 23, 2008, 24 unlabeled 55-gallon drums were observed. In a letter from SARWQCB to Mr. Michael McDermott of the City of Perris Office of Real Estate Services, dated April 11, 2008, it was indicated that a work plan for site assessment at the property is due by May 9, 2008. Based on the proximity of this facility to the Corridor, this facility represents an environmental concern. 40 J.J.'s Carwash 101 South ‘D’ Street Perris, California 92370 46 150 feet East Upgradient Gasoline and diesel USTs. Historical gasoline, diesel, and used-oil USTs. Y Specific information related to J.J.’s Carwash was not available. However, based on information reviewed for this location (see the following listing), this facility is considered an environmental concern. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 83 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 6 - Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74) (Continued) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 9 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 41 B & D Service 101 South ‘D’ Street Perris, California 92570 46 150 feet East Upgradient UST and LUST. Y Information reviewed at RCDEH indicated that three USTs were removed from the property in April 2000. Groundwater was reported at approximately 60 feet bgs and discolored soil was observed. According to a June 20, 2000 letter from the RCDEH to Mr. Baljit Sambi, RCDEH indicated that removal of three USTs at the property is complete. The final soil sample test results beneath the USTs indicated petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations below action levels. RCDEH indicated that no further action was required. Four USTs were removed in February 1994. Concentrations of VOCs from UST soil samples ranged from non-detect to 7,600 mg/kg. An initial study was filed with City of Perris. Based on reports and interviews, neither Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division nor the SARWQCB has accepted the validity of the preliminary site assessment work plan submitted. Further, the agency lead has not recommended the site for closure. The City of Perris Planning Commission finds that since the project shall be conditioned to conduct the requisite studies and perform any recommended remediation of measures prescribed by the State Agency, that the hazard can be reduced to a less than significant level. 42 Mobil B & D 102 South ‘D’ Street Perris, California 92370 46 Adjoining to the Proposed Downtown Perris Station East Downgradient Four USTs with unknown contents. Y According to a March 23, 2000 letter from RCDEH, an inspection was conducted on March 16, 2000. Although the owner was not present, several drums containing waste oil were observed without lids. Oil filters were scattered throughout the facility. Waste oil was observed to be spilled in various area of the property with large amounts of waste oil spilled on the northern and western fence lines. It was indicated that because of the amount of oil spilled, the fence had a coating of oil blocking its openings. 43 Perris GTD Facility 120 East 3rd Street Perris, California 46 300 feet East Downgradient 50 gallons of diesel released from a UST due to equipment failure in March 1987. N Based on the quantity of the release and its downgradient location, not an environmental concern. 44 GTE California Incorporated/Perris Central Office; Gen Tel of Cal, Perris Co.; GTE Perris Svc Tfc 120 East 3rd Street Perris, California 92570 46 300 feet East Downgradient UST. The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of diesel occurred at the facility in July 1987 and drinking water was affected. The release was issued "case closed" status. Air emissions reported (1987-1995). N Based on the distance and direction, and case closed station, not an environmental concern. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 84 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 6 - Cajalco Road to 4th Street (Highway 74) (Continued) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 9 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 45 CDF Station #1; California Dept of Forestry 210 W San Jacinto Avenue Perris, California 92570 46 150 feet West Crossgradient to Upgradient LUST - A gasoline release was reported at this facility, discovered June 7, 2004, and reportedly affected a drinking water aquifer. Maximum MtBE soil concentration was reported at 0.310 parts per billion. Maximum MtBE groundwater concentrations were not reported. The status is listed as "leak being confirmed". Y Because case closure has not been issued, and based on the distance and direction of this facility to the Corridor, this facility represents a potential environmental concern to the Corridor. 46 Riverside County Fire Department 210 W San Jacinto Avenue Perris, California 92370 46 150 feet West Crossgradient to Upgradient Historical gasoline UST. Files reviewed at regulatory agencies. Y CDF Station #1; Calif Dept of Forestry was listed at this facility address (in another EDR listing) as having had a gasoline release in June 2004, which affected drinking water. Case closure has not been issued. According to Rose Scott of the SARWQCB, an attempt to close the case was made and is under peer review. Ms. Scott indicated that additional assessment at this location never reached groundwater. However, based on the distance and direction of this facility to the Corridor, this facility is considered an environmental concern. 47 CDF/Perris Ranger Headquarters/Unit 210 West San Jacinto Avenue Perris, California 92370 46 150 feet West Crossgradient to Upgradient Gasoline and diesel USTs. Y CDF Station #1; Calif Dept of Forestry was listed at this facility address (in another EDR listing) as having had a gasoline release in June 2004, which affected drinking water. Case closure has not been issued. According to Rose Scott of the SARWQCB, an attempt to close the case was made and is under peer review. Ms. Scott indicated that additional assessment at this location never reached groundwater. However, based on the distance and direction of this facility to the Corridor, this facility is considered an environmental concern. CDF Station #1; Calif Dept of Forestry was listed at this facility address (in another EDR listing) as having had a gasoline release in June 2004, which affected drinking water. Case closure has not been issued. According to Rose Scott of the SARWQCB, an attempt to close the case was made and is under peer review. Ms. Scott indicated that additional assessment at this location never reached groundwater. However, based on the distance and direction of this facility to the Corridor, this facility is considered an environmental concern. 48 Riverside County Fire Station 210 West San Jacinto Avenue Perris, California 92370 46 150 feet West Crossgradient to Upgradient Historical diesel UST. N 49 East of C Street, North of 4th Street Not applicable On-Site Not applicable Not applicable Two structures located on the southwestern parcel of the proposed Downtown Perris Station. Y Based on the construction date of these structures, ACMs and LBP are suspected to be present. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 85 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 7 - 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215 Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 9 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification No releases for this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the distance of this facility from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 50 AAA Radiator Service 603 South ‘D’ street Perris, California 92570 50 400 feet East Upgradient UST. N 51 Imperial Tube and Steel 1221 G Street Perris, California 92570 52 300 feet Northeast Crossgradient Air emissions reported (2005). N Based on the distance, direction, and type of database listed, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. No releases for this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the direction of this facility from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 52 C R & R, Inc. 1706 Goetz Road Perris, California 92570 53 100 feet Southwest Crossgradient 2 USTs N No releases for this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the direction of this facility from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 53 Perris Transfer Station and MRF 1706 Goetz Road Perris, California 53 100 feet Southwest Crossgradient Large volume transfer and processing facility for mixed municipal waste. N No releases for this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the direction of this facility from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 54 SD Services 1706 Goetz Road Perris, California 92570 53 100 feet Southwest Crossgradient Facility under waste discharge requirements. N No releases for this facility were listed in the EDR report. Based on this information and the direction of this facility from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 55 Dick G Evans Transportation 336 Ellis Avenue Perris, California 92570 54 Adjoining Northeast Crossgradient Facility under waste discharge requirements. N 56 Home Depot USA HD6875 3150 Case Road Perris, California Orphan Unknown Unknown Unknown SQG, no violations found. This facility is at the approximate location of the Perris Valley Water Reclamation Facility and appears to be erroneously plotted by EDR. N Unknown location. However, based on type of database listed with no violations report, not an environmental concern. 57 BP West Coast Products LLC 1250 403 N ‘D’ Street Perris, California Orphan ~300 feet east East Downgradient 2 LUST cases, one closed. Files reviewed at regulatory agencies. N See following entry. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 86 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern Segment 7 - 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215 (Continued) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 9 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 58 ARCO #1250 403 N ‘D’ Street Perris, California Orphan ~300 feet east East Downgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in June 2003 and drinking water was affected. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. N This property is located at the southeast corner of 4th Street and ‘D’ Street in downtown Perris. According to information reviewed, SECOR submitted a January 15, 1990 letter to ARCO regarding the removal of one 550-gallon waste oil UST and four USTs ranging in size from 4,000 gallons to 6,000 gallons. Contamination was detected and remediation activities commenced. Groundwater during remediation activities was encountered between 50 and 61 feet bgs, and groundwater flow was reported to the northeast (away from the Corridor). ARCO submitted a Final Quarterly Report for groundwater monitoring activities (Fourth Quarter 1997 dated January 15, 1998). The current phase of project at that time was listed as closed. A No Further Action Letter was issued to the facility by RCDEH in October 1997. ARCO filed an application dated April 1, 2003 to remove four 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs. An UST removal report was submitted by Delta Environmental Consultants dated June 20, 2003 and indicated that groundwater was encountered between 50 and 55 feet bgs and groundwater flowed to the northeast. An Underground Storage Tank Unauthorized Release Report was submitted on June 10, 2003. Based on the reviewed information, from July 1990 to June 1996, the facility was upgraded, site assessment and remedial activities took place and the RCDEH issued a no further action letter dated October 29, 1997. During site demolition in May 2003, four 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, two dispenser islands, and associated piping were removed. Assessment and remediation were conducted from November 2004 and continues through the present. SECOR International Inc. submitted a Well Installation and Dual-Phase Extraction Event work plan on February 25, 2008 for this property. However, since groundwater is expected to flow in a northeasterly direction, away from the Corridor, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to Segment 6. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 87 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern 59 B&D Automotive 102 ‘D’ Street Perris, California Orphan Adjoining to the Proposed Downtown Perris Station East Downgradient The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in February 1994. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. Regulatory records reviewed. Y The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of gasoline occurred at the facility in February 1994. The release has not been issued "case closed" status. An initial study was filed with City of Perris. Based on reports and interviews, neither Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division nor the SARWQCB has accepted the validity of the preliminary site assessment work plan submitted. Further, the agency lead has not recommended the site for closure. The City of Perris Planning Commission finds that since the project shall be conditioned to conduct the requisite studies and perform any recommended remediation of measures prescribed by the State Agency, that the hazard can be reduced to a less than significant level. Based on the proximity of this facility to the Corridor and the lack of regulatory resolution of this release case, this facility represents an environmental concern to the Corridor. Segment 7 - 4th Street (Highway 74) to Interstate 215 (Continued) Site of Interest Number Address Focus Map 9 ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 60 West of Ellis Avenue Not applicable Adjoining North Dowgradient A trench was observed originating from an adjoining facility to the north of the Segment 7 alignment, and leading onto Segment 7 toward the railroad tracks. Y Run off would flow from the adjoining facility toward the Corridor; therefore, this observed trench poses an environmental concern to the Corridor. 61 West of Ellis Avenue Not applicable Adjoining North Downgradient Staining was observed on the wall of an adjoining facility to the north of the Segment 7 alignment. The staining appeared on the ground beneath the wall and toward Segment 7. Y Because the staining was observed adjoining the Corridor in Segment 7, this staining poses an environmental concern to the Corridor. 62 336 East Ellis Avenue Perris, California Not applicable Adjoining North Downgradient Listed as having a NOV issued by SCAQMD on January 10, 2003 related to use of improper parts cleaning solvent. The NOV was corrected by February 18, 2003. N Because the facility corrected the SCAQMD NOV, and no additional NOVs were listed for this facility, this facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 88 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern 63 1301 Case Road Perris, California Not applicable Adjoining South Upgradient Due to adjoining location to the Corridor, additional records were requested for review with the regulatory agencies. Records were available and reviewed at the RCDEH. N As of June 1, 2004, the facility was listed as not maintaining USTs. The facility was listed as having petroleum ASTs and hazardous materials greater than 55 gallons. The facility was also listed as a generator of hazardous waste. Chemicals used at this facility include: aluminum sulfate solution (Alum); argon; calcium hypchlorite mixture (Oxidizer); chlorine; solvents (distillates and alkylbenzenes); diesel fuel No. 2; Floc-cite (non-hazardous); unleaded regular gasoline; lubricating grease; helium; Hotsy Soap; hydrated lime; hydrochloric acid solution; hydrogen peroxide solution; lubricating oil; Clarifloc polymer; sludge thickener; liquefied petroleum gas; Simple Green cleaner/degreaser; sodium bisulfite solution; sodium hydroxide solution; bleach; SoilKlean enzymes; used oil; and Zymetech cleaner/deodorant. The facility reportedly had USTs that were installed in 1982. An Underground Storage Tank Closure Inspection Report for the EMWD Perris Pumping Plant dated November 17, 1994 indicates that a fiberglass diesel oil UST was removed. No significant releases or violations were reported at this facility. Because no releases were reported at this facility, it is Kleinfelder’s opinion that this facility does not represent a significant environmental concern to the Corridor. Orphan Summary (i.e. locations not specifically plotted or located by EDR report) Site of Interest Number Address Map ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 64 March AFB (1.25 miles south of) Alessandro, California Orphan Potentially within 0.25 mile of Proposed Ramona Station Unknown Unknown Envirostor: Inactive evaluation site. N See previous MARB discussions under Segment 5. 65 I-215 and Box Canyon Road Moreno Valley, California Orphan Potentially within 0.25 mile of Corridor, unable to locate Box Canyon Road Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of 50 gallons of miscellaneous drug waste ("red phosphorus") occurred in February 2001. N Location unknown. However, based on quantity and type of substance released, not an environmental concern. 66 Morton Street & Box Springs Road Moreno Valley, California Orphan ~500 feet Northeast Crossgradient Abandoned drug lab waste. N Based on distance, direction and type of substance reported, not an environmental concern. 67 I-215, 30 mi South of Riverside, Near Junction SR 74 Near Riverside, California Orphan Unknown Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that an unauthorized release of 100 gallons of diesel occurred in April 1996. A waterway was involved. N Unknown location. Appears to be a traffic accident. Based on type of released and quantity, not an environmental concern. 68 Ramona Expressway on Ramp to Northbound 215 Perris, California Orphan Potentially within 500 feet of Corridor East Downgradient The database report indicates that four 55-gallon drums of asphalt were dumped onto land as a result of a truck accident in May 1988. N Based on type of release, not an environmental concern. 69 Interstate 215 Cross of Nandina Perris, California Orphan Potentially within 200 feet of Corridor East Downgradient The database report indicates that 200 gallons of diesel were spilled while transferring diesel from one tank to another in April 1992. N Unknown location. However, based on quantity of release and direction of the accident from the Corridor, not an environmental concern. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 89 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern 70 Building 3000 - Off-Base Location (MARB) Perris, California Orphan Unknown Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that approximately 145 gallons of insulating oil were released as a result of vandalism in July 1994. A waterway was involved. N Based on the quantity released, not an environmental concern. The release appears to have occurred on a roadway as a result of a vehicular accident.. Because the diesel would have spilled onto paved areas and based on the quantity spilled, this release is not considered an environmental concern. 71 Cajalco Road at I-215 Perris, California Orphan Potentially within 200 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that 20 gallons of diesel were released as a result of a traffic accident in February 2004. N 72 East Ellis & Case Road Perris, California Orphan Potentially within 100 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that 20 gallons of antifreeze were released in June 1992. A waterway was involved. N Based on the quantity release, not an environmental concern. 73 ‘D’ Street & San Jacinto Road Perris, California Orphan 250 feet East Downgradient The database report indicates that 35 gallons of diesel were released from a tank truck in March 2003. N Based on the distance and direction from the release occurrence, this release is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 74 SB 215 North of Central Avenue Exit Riverside, California Orphan Likely within 100 feet of Corridor East Upgradient The database report indicates that 100 gallons of diesel were released in May 1993. N Although the release likely occurred within approximately 100 feet of the Corridor, since it occurred on the SB I-215, it is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. 75 SB 215 on the Eucalyptus Off Ramp Riverside, California Orphan Likely within 100 feet of Corridor East Downgradient The database report indicates that 200 gallons of diesel were released in September 2000. N Release occurred on the Eucalyptus off-ramp and downgradient of the Corridor. Therefore, this release is not considered an environmental concern to the Corridor. Orphan Summary Site of Interest Number Address Map ID Distance from Site Direction from Site Groundwater GradientComments Environmental Concern (Y or N) Justification 76 Northbound I215 North of Van Buren on Ramp Riverside, California Orphan Likely within 100 feet of Corridor East Downgradient The database report indicates that 100 gallons of diesel were released in November 1996. A waterway was involved. N Appears to have occurred on the roadway. Based on direction and quantity released, not an environmental concern. 77 4400 Northbound 215 Freeway Riverside, California Orphan Potentially within 100 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that 60 gallons of diesel were released in February 1999. N Appears to have occurred on the roadway. Based on quantity released, not an environmental concern. 78 March Air Reserve Base West of Heacock St. Riverside, California Orphan Potentially within 500 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that 800 gallons of sewage were released in February 2003 and 250 gallons were recovered. N Based on the type of release, time of the release, and unknown location, not an environmental concern. Also see previous MARB entry under Segment 5. Based on the type of fuel released, this release is not an environmental concern. Also see previous MARB entry under Segment 5. 79 March AFB Riverside, California Orphan Potentially within 500 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that 100 gallons of jet fuel were released in March 1991. N 80 N/B I-215 at Central Avenue Riverside, California Orphan Potentially within 500 feet of Corridor East Upgradient The database report indicates that 250 to 2,000 gallons of diesel were released in May 1995. N Appears to have occurred on a roadway. Not an environmental concern. 81 SB 215 at Central Avenue Riverside, California Orphan Potentially within 500 feet of Corridor East Upgradient The database report indicates that 135 gallons of diesel were released in September 1990. N Appears to have occurred on a roadway. Not an environmental concern. 82 Cactus & I-215 on March AFB Property Riverside, California Orphan Potentially within 500 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates that 20 gallons of drug lab waste were released in May 1991. N Based on the type of release and quantity report, not an environmental concern. 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 90 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Table 8 (Continued) Environmental Sites of Interest Property of Environmental Concern 92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 91 of 98 October 31, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder 83 March AFB 22nd CSG-CEF Riverside County, California Orphan Potentially within 500 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates 10,500 gallons of jet fuel were released in May 1991. N Based on the type of fuel released and the quantity report, this release is not an environmental concern. Also see previous MARB entry under Segment 5. 84 NB I-215 Just South of Fair Isle Drive Unincorporated County Area, California Orphan Likely within 100 feet of Corridor Unknown Unknown The database report indicates 75 gallons of diesel were released in April 2001. "The accident occurred on the railroad tracks…" Y Because the release occurred "….on the railroad tracks…," this release is considered an environmental concern to the Corridor at the southern end of Segment 3. 85 Kinder Morgan Pipeline Not applicable Adjoining Varies Varies A Kinder Morgan Pipeline is located adjoining the Corridor. Y Although no releases or environmental concerns have been reported from the Kinder Morgan pipeline, it is possible that soil and/or groundwater contamination may exist at various points in the vicinity of this pipeline. 86 Questar Pipeline Not applicable Adjoining Varies Varies A Questar Pipeline is located adjoining the Corridor. Y Although no releases or environmental concerns have been reported from the Questar pipeline, it is possible that soil and/or groundwater contamination may exist at various points in the vicinity of this pipeline.
6.0 EVALUATION
6.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
In determining the significance of properties of potential environmental concern in a
particular study area, the criteria to consider, as they relate to hazardous materials and
public safety, are presented in a document titled “Appendix G: Environmental Checklist
Form” of the CEQA Guidelines. The following is a list of projects/situations that would
require consideration of potential hazardous materials/public safety impacts.
1. Projects that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
2. Projects that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.
3. Projects that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
4. Projects that would be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
5. Projects located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
6. For projects within the vicinity of a private airstrip, projects resulting in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
7. Projects that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
8. Projects that would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
These criteria were compared with each of the findings of this study to determine their
impact significance to the proposed project. The results of this comparison are
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 92 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
presented in Section 6.2. It is our understanding that the Corridor and proposed
stations will not involve activities associated with Items 3 and 7 above. Additionally,
Items 5 and 6 are outside the scope of the hazardous materials study. For this reason,
these criteria are not addressed in this study. The remaining criteria are addressed in
the following section.
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based on the above criteria and the results of this HMCS, potential environmental
impact sites/issues have been identified in the Study Area, and are discussed below in
association with the relevant criteria among those criteria discussed in the above
section. The pertinent criteria identified in Section 6 above include Criteria 1, 2,
4, and 8.
1. Projects that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. A Kinder
Morgan high-pressure petroleum pipeline runs through the Study Area primarily in a
north-south direction. According to Mr. Don Quinn with Kinder Morgan, no known
environmental concerns have been associated with this pipeline. While no releases
from the pipeline have been reported, it is possible that soil and/or groundwater
contamination may exist at various points in the vicinity of the Kinder Morgan
pipeline. A Questar pipeline crosses the Study Area and traverses generally in an
east-west direction. According to Mr. Dott of Questar, the pipeline runs along the
railroad tracks for approximately 600 feet before crossing the railroad toward I-215.
Mr. Dott indicated the pipeline formerly contained crude oil approximately 10 years
ago, but currently contains nitrogen. Although Mr. Dott indicated that no known
releases have occurred along this pipeline in the vicinity of the Study Area, it is
possible that soil and/or groundwater contamination may exist in the vicinity of the
pipeline. If environmental conditions are encountered, they may need to be
addressed prior to or during construction of the PVL Project.
2. Projects that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment. Of the sites, or areas, discussed in
Section 5 of this study, most have had reported releases of hazardous substances to
soil and/or groundwater. A summary of the status of each address or area
discussed in Section 6 is presented in Table 8 in Section 5.4, as well as a
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 93 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
justification for whether the property is considered a potential environmental
concern.
4. Projects that would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. At least
one UST, located in the Study Area (proposed Palmyrita Station, Segment 1) is
located on the Site and is under the jurisdiction of RCDEH. The UST has been
reportedly removed from the Site. In addition, off-site facilities within the Study Area
currently have, or had, USTs. Appendix C contains a listing of sites containing
registered USTs, LUST facilities, and other facilities, which fall under Section
65962.5. The potential exists for soil and groundwater contamination to be present
at any UST site, regardless of whether a release has been reported.
8. Projects that would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Urban area near Segment
3 and 4 have the potential for a wildfire. Plate 1 has shaded areas with high
potential as provided by RCTC and Land Management Agency.
Additionally, the following potential impacts were noted that may affect the Site.
a. Based on the construction date of the buildings located within the Corridor (i.e.,
the proposed Palmyrita Station building at 990 Palmyrita Avenue and the
structures located at the proposed Downtown Perris Station), the potential exists
for ACMs and LBP to be present in the buildings.
b. Possible impacts associated with former agricultural use at the proposed Citrus
Connection , proposed UCR, proposed Fair Isle, and proposed Palmyrita
Stations exist.
c. Possible impacts from observed areas of staining at the proposed Palmyrita
Station, historical usage of the existing cooling tower, 55-gallon drum with
unknown contents, and sump located in the basement.
d. Possible impacts from ballasts and railroad ties that may be impacted with
petroleum hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 94 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
7.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
In accordance with the significance determination criteria and sites of potential
environmental impacts presented in Section 6, the following mitigation measures are
recommended:
• In general, documented soil and groundwater contamination located at sites within the
Study Area should be addressed by the individual responsible parties. Remediation
goals are based on cleanup levels designed to protect water quality. However,
residual contamination may present non-water quality risks to the environment, such
as human health, or create a condition of pollution or nuisance not addressed by the
regulatory agency cleanup requirements. Residual contamination may be of particular
concern during subsurface construction activities, when the contaminant pathway is
often the most direct and shortest. Therefore, it is recommended that a risk
assessment be performed at all sites within the Study Area where contamination has
been identified or is discovered during construction activities, and at which soil is to be
disturbed, to address non-water quality risks posed by any residual contamination, and
to establish appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., natural attenuation, active
remediation, engineering controls) that would be protective of human health and the
environment. All assessment and remediation activities should be conducted in
accordance with a work plan, which is approved by the regulatory agency having
oversight of the activities.
• During construction activities, it may be necessary to excavate existing soil within the
Study Area, or to bring fill soils into the study area from off-site locations. In areas that
have been identified as being contaminated or where soil contamination is suspected,
appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of excavated soil. Characterization of
the soil is necessary prior to any excavation or removal activity. Contaminated soil
should be properly disposed at an off-site facility. Fill soils also should be
characterized to check that imported soil is free of contamination.
• Based on the findings of the HMCS pertaining to the proposed Palmyrita Station, it is
Kleinfelder’s opinion that liquids be removed from the sump in the basement;
chemicals, petroleum products, and the 55-gallon drum be removed from the property;
and further assessment be conducted in the vicinity of the identified environmental
concerns.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 95 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
• A hazardous building materials survey should be performed at buildings in the Study
Area prior to demolition or renovation activities. This type of survey typically addresses
LBP, ACMs, and PCBs in electrical equipment, mercury switches, and heating/cooling
systems. Such a survey should be conducted under the direct supervision of a State
of California certified asbestos consultant and US EPA lead assessor. Prior to
demolition or renovation work which would disturb identified ACMs, LBP, or other
hazardous materials, a licensed abatement removal contractor should remove and
properly dispose of the hazardous material(s) in accordance with applicable local,
state and federal regulations. A California certified consultant should prepare a bid
specification document, perform abatement project planning, site and air monitoring,
oversight and reporting activities.
• The drums located in the ravine in Segment 3 (eastern terminus of Manfield Street)
should be assessed for content and disposed off-site in accordance with applicable
guidelines.
• In the event that USTs, not identified in this study, or undocumented areas of
contamination are encountered during redevelopment activities, work should be
discontinued until appropriate health and safety procedures are implemented. A
contingency plan should be prepared to address contractor procedures for such an
event, to minimize the potential for costly construction delays. In addition, either the
RCDEH or the SARWQCB, depending on the nature of the contamination, should be
notified regarding the contamination. Each agency and program within the respective
agency has its own mechanism for initiating an investigation. The appropriate program
should be selected based on the nature of the contamination identified. The
contamination remediation and removal activities should be conducted in accordance
with pertinent local, state, and federal regulatory guidelines, under the oversight of the
appropriate regulatory agency.
• Collection of soil and/or groundwater samples should be performed to further evaluate
the significance of potential environmental concerns resulting from off-site adjoining or
nearby properties, show on Table 8 as having an Environmental Concern (yes noted
on Table 8).
• Ballasts and/or railroad ties that are identified as contaminated with hydrocarbons or
some other hazardous materials should be removed of and disposed of properly at an
off-site facility.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 96 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
8.0 REFERENCES
D.E. Beaudette and A.T. O'Geen, 2008. California Soil Resources Lab Online Soil
Survey, http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/node/27, June 9.
City of Riverside Public Utilities, 2007. Water Quality Report 2007.
Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 2003. Geologic Map of the Riverside East/South ½ of San
Bernardino South Quadrangles, Riverside County, California: Dibblee Geology
Center Map #DF-109: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa
Barbara, California.
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), 2007. State of California
Department of Conservation, Regional Wildcat Map, W1-7, December 18.
Earth Tech, 2003. Installation Restoration Program, 5-Year Review Report for Former
March Air Force Base and March Air Reserve Base, Riverside County, California,
September.
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), 2008. West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin
Management Plan 2007 Annual Report, June; personal conversation with Mr.
John Daverin.
EMWD, 2007. Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 2008a. The EDR Radius Map with
GeoCheck®, Perris Valley Line Corridor Study, Riverside, CA, Inquiry Number:
02233361.1r, June 9.
EDR, 2008b. EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, Perris Valley Alignment,
Palmyrita Station, Ramona Station, and South Perris Station, Riverside and
Perris, CA, Inquiry Numbers: 2200947.42200956.4, 2200977.4, and 2200978.4,
April 25.
EDR, 2008c. The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Perris Valley Alignment,
Riverside, CA 92507, Inquiry Number: 2208252.4, May 1.
EDR, 2008d. The EDR Certified Sanborn® Map Report, South Perris Station, Mapes
Road/Bonnie Drive, Perris, CA 92570, Inquiry Number: 2207354.1s, April 29.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. FEMA Map Service website:
http://msc.fema.gov/. FEMA Map 0602600005A dated January 6, 1983, May 20.
GeoTracker, 2008. RWQCB Service website: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/.
MARB, 2005. Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone Study, August
http://www.march.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060809-061.pdf
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 97 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 2007 Groundwater Basin Reports, Chapter IV, West
San Jacinto Basins, September.
Morton, Douglas M., 2001, 2002, and 2003. Geologic Map of the Riverside East 7.5'
Quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 01-452, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California,
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of01-452/.
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) - National Cartography and Geospatial Center (NCGC). NRCS
Service website: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/.
USGS, 1980, Photorevised from 1967. Riverside East Quadrangle, California –
Riverside County, 7.5 Minute Series, 1:24,000.
Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), 2007. Fall 2007 Cooperative Well
Measuring Program, October.
Wilbur Smith and Associates, 2008. Final Report, Perris Valley Line Freight Study
presented by San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee, May 14,
http://www.rctc.org/downloads/11.SW.PVL%20Freight%20Study.pdf.
Additional sources may be referenced separately in the report text.
92666-4F/SDI8R051_Final-rev.doc Page 98 of 98 October 31, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
PLATES
LAKE PERRIS
I-215
A STNUEVO RDWOOD RD ELLIS AVER A M O N A E X Y
HEACOCK ST
VAN BUREN BLVC A S E R D
DAY ST
MAPES RDKRAMERIA AVEC AVELASSELLE ST
DUNLAP DR
GOETZ RD
IRIS AVESPRING STBARTON ST
A
A
V
E
UNA ST
P A S S A G E R D
B AVER IO R D WATSON RDNANDINA AVEJOHN F KENNEDY DRTONEY STM O U N T A I N L N WATER AVEEUPHEMIA RDB
A
V
E
March AFBMarch AFB
ColtonColton
Loma LindaLoma Linda
RiversideRiverside
PerrisPerris
Moreno ValleyMoreno Valley
NuevoNuevo
Lake ElsinoreLake Elsinore
Cartography By: R. Alvarez Date: 08/01/08
Site Vicinity Map
Perris Valley Line
Hazardous Materials Study
Perris Valley Corridor
Riverside County, Ca
Project Number: 92666 File Name: PVL_sitemap
Plate
1www.kleinfelder.com
0 9,000 18,000 27,000 36,0004,500
Feet
Riverside County
Water
High Probability Fire Area (HPFA)
The information included on this graphic representation has been
compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties,
express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or
rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended
for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a
construction design document. The use or misuse of the information
contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the
party using or misusing the information.
Segment 1
Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4
Segment 5
Segment 6
Segment 7
Prado Flood Control Basin
Lake Elsinore
Perris Reservoir
Lake Mathews
Vail Lake
Lake Hemit
Railroad Canyon Reservoir
Santiago Reservoir
A r r o y o T r a b u c o
T e m e c u l a C r e e k
Proposed
Citrus Connector
Proposed
Palmyrita Station
Proposed
Ramona Station
Proposed Downtown
Perris Station
Proposed
UCR Station
Proposed Fair Isle
Oaks Station
Station Name
Segment Number
Legend
Proposed South
Perris Station
Roads
Highways£Proposed March
Field Station
Mar c h Ai r
Res er v e Bas e
Mar c h Ai r
Res er v e Bas eHwy 60Ri ver sid eRiverside
1
RESOLUTION NO. 11-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF
PROJECT BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2009011046), ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Perris Valley Line project is a proposed rail extension that would
extend 24-miles of commuter rail service from the existing Riverside Downtown Station to south
of the city of Perris in western Riverside County using a 3-mile segment of the existing
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (“BNSF”) main line and connecting to the San Jacinto Branch
Line (“SJBL”) with the proposed Citrus Connection (an approximately 2,000-foot long curved
rail segment that connects the BNSF to the SJBL for approximately 21 miles extending south to
the city of Perris), thereby extending commuter rail service into the Interstate 215 corridor (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq. (hereinafter, “the State CEQA
Guidelines”), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s Local Guidelines
(collectively, “CEQA”), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the “Commission”)
is the CEQA lead agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the Commission prepared an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project and circulated the IS/MND for
public review and comment in January 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Commission held two public outreach workshops in June 2008, a public
information meeting in February 2009, and two public hearings in February 2009 to accept
comments from the public on the IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the Commission, in accordance with CEQA, decided to discontinue the
IS/MND process and instead prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) in
order to analyze all potentially adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Commission solicited comments, including details about the scope and
content of the environmental analysis, as well as potential feasible mitigation measures, from
responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public, in a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the
Draft EIR which was distributed on July 14, 2009, and circulated for a period of at least thirty
(30) days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082(a); and
WHEREAS, the Commission received approximately 5 comment letters in response to
the NOP, which assisted the Commission in focusing the scope of the issues and alternatives for
analysis in the Draft EIR; and
2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15082(c) and 15083, the Commission held a scoping meeting on July 28,
2009 at the Moreno Valley Towngate Community Center to gather public comments on the
Project, the NOP, and the potential impacts that the Project would have on the physical
environment; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092 and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15087, the Commission initiated a public review period for the Draft EIR on
April 5, 2010 by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning
and Research and publicly circulating the Draft EIR to state agencies, other affected agencies,
adjacent cities and counties, members of the public, and parties who had submitted a written
request for a copy; and
WHEREAS, the public comment period on the Draft EIR closed on May 24, 2010; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the Commission consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and
others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, three public hearings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIR for
the Project on April 14, 2010, April 22, 2010, and May 17, 2010; and
WHEREAS, during the official public comment period, the Commission received
approximately 38 written comment letters on the Draft EIR as well as numerous oral and other
comments; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (the
“Final EIR”), which includes revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR and written responses
to all comments received on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the Commission
provided copies of its written responses to all public agency comments received during the 45-
day public review period for the EIR at least 10 days prior to the Commission’s consideration of
the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were fully
analyzed in the EIR and all feasible mitigation measures were imposed to reduce those impacts
to a less than significant level; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Commission has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA have been satisfied by the Commission in
connection with the preparation of the EIR, which fully analyzes the Project’s potentially
significant environmental effects as well as feasible mitigation measures; and
3
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project fully analyzes both the
feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid the Project’s potentially significant
environmental impacts and a range of potentially feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or
reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Commission pursuant to
this Resolution are based upon all oral and written evidence in the administrative record as a
whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the Commission finds are
less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 below; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the Commission finds are
potentially significant but can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the
imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, are described in Section 3
below; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative environmental impacts of the Project identified in the EIR
are described in Section 4 below; and
WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes identified in the EIR are described in
Section 5 below; and
WHEREAS, growth inducing impacts identified in the EIR are described in Section 6
below; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 7 below; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which sets forth the
mitigation measures to which the Commission shall bind itself in connection with the Project, is
adopted in Section 11 below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Commission has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including
but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings
and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, reflects the
independent judgment of the Commission, and is fully adequate for purposes of making
decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made or information presented during or after the EIR’s
public review period has produced any significant new information requiring recirculation of the
EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section
21092.1 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
4
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2011, the Commission conducted a duly noticed public meeting
on the Project at which time the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes to extend 24 miles of commuter rail service, known as the Perris
Valley Line (PVL), from the existing downtown Riverside Downtown Station to the cities of
Moreno Valley and Perris in western Riverside County. In the city of Riverside, the PVL would
connect to the existing Riverside Downtown Station from the existing Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) right-of-way. From the BNSF, the PVL would operate on a new curved rail segment
known as the “Citrus Connection,” which would connect the BNSF and the San Jacinto Branch
Line (SJBL). The Citrus Connection would be constructed on property that would be located
north of Citrus Street and Springbrook Wash in the city of Riverside. The eastern end of the
Citrus Connection would link to the existing 21-mile SJBL alignment and extend south to the
city of Perris. The Project would provide rail upgrades, such as new ballast and welded rail,
would add a second track along a portion of the existing San Jacinto Branch Line, and would
also include support facilities, including station areas and a Layover Facility. Once built, the
Project’s commuter rail services would be operated by the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority.
B. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]”
Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public
agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects.”
Pursuant to section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Commission may only
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any
significant environmental effects if the Commission makes one or more of the following written
finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding:
5
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in
the EIR; or
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public
agency other than the Commission, and such changes have been adopted by such
other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or
3. Specific economic, social, legal or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Notably, Public Resources Code section 21002 requires an agency to “substantially
lessen or avoid” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that
“substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy
section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83
Cal.App.3d 515, 521 (“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible
project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public
agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”); Las Virgenes
Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309
(“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to
a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”).)
The Public Resources Code requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. An
agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible”
to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091 adds “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility.
(See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.) Project
objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego
(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the
extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners
Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of
mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d
1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any
development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to
the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such
decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed,
and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not
required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a
6
reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside
agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves]
within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc
Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
C. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
As more fully explained below, this document contains the written CEQA findings
required by CEQA. The Commission has determined that based on all of the evidence in the
administrative record as a whole, including, but not limited to the EIR, written and oral
testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of comments, and the responses to
comments, that the Project will have no potentially significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts. More specifically, all of the Project’s potential environmental impacts are less than
significant or less than significant with mitigation as set forth below:
No Impact or Less than Significant Impact that Do Not Require Mitigation
The Project has been found to have no impact or a less than significant impact to the
following resource areas:
• Aesthetics: Scenic Vistas, Scenic Highways, Visual Character and Quality
• Agricultural Resources: Convert Viable Farmland, Existing Zoning or Williamson Act
Contract, Forest Land and Timberland
• Air Quality: Applicable Air Quality Plan, Violate Air Quality Standards, Criteria
Pollutants, Sensitive Receptors, Odors
• Biological Resources: Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife, Local Policies
Regarding Biological Resources, Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan
• Geology And Soils: Seismic Hazards, Soil Erosion, Geologic Hazards, Expansive Soils,
Septic Systems
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Conflict with Applicable Plan for Greenhouse Gas
Reduction
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials;
Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials; Hazardous Materials Near Schools; Airport
Hazards; Private Airstrip Hazards
• Hydrology/Water Quality: Water Quality Standards; Groundwater; Drainage and
Erosion; Drainage and Runoff; Runoff; Water Quality; Housing and 100-Year Flood;
Structures and 100-Year Flood; Dam Inundation; Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow
• Land Use and Planning: Division of Established Community, Land Use Plan
Consistency, Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan
7
• Mineral Resources: All thresholds of significance
• Noise and Vibration: Temporary Noise Increase, Airport Noise, and Airstrip Noise
• Population & Housing: All thresholds of significance
• Public Services: All thresholds of significance
• Recreation: All thresholds of significance
• Traffic and Transportation: Air Traffic Patterns, Hazards Due to Design Features,
Emergency Access, Alternative Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems: Wastewater, New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, New or Expanded Stormwater Facilities, Water Supplies, Capacity of
Wastewater Facilities, Landfills, Solid Waste
Potentially Significant Impacts that Can be Avoided or Reduced to a Less than Significant
Level through Implementation of Mitigation Measures
The Project has been found to have a less than significant impact, following the
imposition of feasible mitigation measures, to the following resources areas:
• Aesthetics: Light and Glare
• Biological Resources: Sensitive Species, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands
• Cultural Resources: Historical Resources, Archeological Resources, Paleontological
Resources, Human Remains
• Hazardous and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials Sites, Emergency
Evacuation Plan, Wildland Fires
• Noise and Vibration: Permanent Noise Increase, Noise Generation, Groundborne
Vibration and Noise
• Traffic and Transportation: Increase Traffic, Exceed Levels of Service
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the Commission to prepare and adopt a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures
have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The
Commission adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project in
Section 11 of this Resolution.
8
SECTION 2
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies have “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact.
Nevertheless, these findings fully account for all resource areas, including resource areas that
were identified in the EIR to have either no impact or a less than significant impact on the
environment. The Commission hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts
of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation
Measures:
A. Aesthetics
1. Scenic Vistas (Threshold 4.1-1): Any structures required for the Project would
be visually consistent with existing visual landscape and thus would not significantly alter the
visual landscape or impair scenic views. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant
impacts on scenic vistas. The visual landscape where the Citrus Connection will occur is of
existing public roads and railways and also features commercial, industrial, and residential land
uses. (Draft EIR1, pp. 4.1-7 to 8.) The Citrus Connection will closely resemble existing
conditions and would not significantly alter the visual landscape. (Ibid.) A portion of the Project
also involves upgrading the existing track along the SJBL alignment and adding a double track in
certain segments (depicted in Figure 2.4-3 of the Draft EIR), which entails ground-level changes
only and thus does not significantly alter the visual landscape. (Ibid.)
The Project also includes construction of several radio towers, including the CP Citrus
Radio Tower, the Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower, and CP Marlborough Radio Tower.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.) Box Springs Mountain Reserve is to the southeast of these towers;
however, these towers have thin profiles and their shelter would not exceed the height of existing
structures in the areas, and thus their development would not introduce any new visually
impacting elements near Box Springs Mountain Reserve. (Ibid.) Visible about one mile west of
the CP Eastridge Radio Tower is the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, but given existing
conditions and the tower’s thin profile, the tower is consistent with the visual landscape and no
new visually impacting elements would be introduced. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-10 to 11.) The
Riverside National Cemetery is viewable from the CP Oleander Radio Tower, but the tower’s
thin profile is similar to existing telephone poles and would therefore be consistent with the
visual landscape and not introduce any significantly adverse scenic impacts around the Riverside
National Cemetery (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11.) Likewise, Motte Rimrock Reserve can be seen to the
west of the CP Nuevo Radio Tower, but based upon existing conditions and the tower’s thin
profile, the tower would be consistent with the visual impacts and no new significant impacts
would result. (Ibid.) There are no scenic vistas near to any of the other communication towers
that would be constructed for the Project (East Maintenance Facility, the South Perris Station
Communication Shelter and Tower, and the Control Point Mapes Radio Tower) and thus no
impact would occur from their construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.)
1 Cites to the Draft EIR throughout this Findings document are to the Draft EIR, as revised and as incorporated as
part of the Final EIR.
9
Additionally, the Project involves four stations: the Hunter Park Station, the Moreno
Valley/March Field Station, the Downtown Perris Station, and South Perris Station and the
Layover Facility. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-7 to 4.1-10.)
• The Hunter Park Station would be constructed at one of three sites adjacent to the
SJBL alignment and south of the Citrus Connection. Box Springs Mountain Reserve
abuts the existing SJBL alignment and can be seen southeast from the proposed
station locations, but Hunter Park cannot be seen from any of the proposed stations
due to intervening development. The views around the proposed Station consist of
roads, agricultural land, industrial buildings that are equal or greater in height than the
proposed Station and thus no new visually impacting elements near Box Spring
Mountain Reserve or Hunter Park will be introduced from this Station. (Ibid.)
• The Moreno Valley/March Field Station is near the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness
Park and was approved as part of the Meridian Business Park Plan in 2003. This
Station will not introduce any new visually impacting elements near Sycamore
Canyon Wilderness Park. (Ibid.)
• The Downtown Perris Station is part of the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility that is
currently under construction adjacent to the SJBL alignment in downtown Perris.
Located to the north are Russell Stewart Park, Metz Park, Foss Field Park, and Banta
Beatty Park, all of which are not visible from the proposed Downtown Perris Station.
The views around the Station consist of light industrial, agricultural, and residential
structures, and the city of Perris has also approved plans to revitalize downtown in the
area surrounding the Multimodal Transit Facility. Given the existing conditions and
the planned construction, the Station would not introduce any new visually impacting
elements and would not negatively impact scenic vistas in the area. (Ibid.)
• There are no scenic vistas identified near to the South Perris Station and the Layover
Facility and thus no impact would result. (Ibid.)
Landscape walls are incorporated into the Project design. Landscape walls will be
constructed at Highland Elementary and also at Hyatt Elementary as depicted in Figure 4.1-4 of
the EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 to14.) Also, RCTC will fund another landscape wall at Nan
Sanders Elementary School. (Ibid.) The walls will be located within the PVL ROW adjacent to
the school properties. Although these landscape walls are not mitigation for any potentially
significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13), they are nonetheless being provided as Project features
in response to concerns and requests from the community and the local school district.
The landscape wall near Highland Elementary School will be located between two of the
noise mitigation barriers. This location will create a continuous 3140 foot long wall between
Spruce Street and Blaine Street. The height of the wall will vary between 9 and 13 feet. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.1-13.) The views from Highland Elementary School of Highland Park to the northeast
and Box Springs Mountain Reserve to the east will not be impacted by the wall that would be to
the west of the school. The height of the wall, as a general concern, would not exceed the height
of existing structures and therefore would not obstruct scenic views of the park and reserve for
either the school or neighboring residential properties, or substantially degrade the existing
10
visual landscape of the area. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 to 13.) Furthermore, the wall placed along
the eastern edge of Hyatt Elementary will not exceed the height of existing school buildings and
thus would not significantly alter the visual landscape or impair scenic views of the Box Springs
Mountain Reserve, which is adjacent to the railroad and the school. (Ibid.) A landscape wall is
also intended for Nan Sanders Elementary School, but ROW constrictions at the school require
that the Commission provide funding for the design and construction of the wall, instead of
constructing the wall itself. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14.) This wall would block views of the ROW as
well as views of I-215. These views, however, are not identified as significant views for this
area of the Project because the rail alignment along this portion of the Project site is not
considered a valuable scenic resource and thus impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
2. Scenic Highways (Threshold 4.1-2): The Project intersects the segment of the
SR-74, which is eligible for designation as a state scenic highway, as well as the Ramona
Expressway. The city of Riverside has also established three Scenic and Special Boulevards that
fall within the Project area: Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough Avenue, and Alessandro Boulevard.
The Project, however, does not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited
to tress, rock croppings, and historic building within the applicable state scenic highways. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.1-16 to 19.)
The Project intersects the segment of the SR-74 that is eligible for designation as a state
scenic highway, as well as the Ramona Expressway. The city of Riverside has also established
three Scenic and Special Boulevards that fall within the Project: Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough
Avenue, and Alessandro Boulevard. Neither Palmyrita nor Marlborough Avenues are visible
from the Citrus Connection and no new visually impacting elements would be introduced by the
Connection to detract from the views along these Avenues. As concerns the SJBL alignment,
which involves upgrading the existing track and thus involves only ground-level changes,
proposed development would resemble existing conditions and would not introduce new visually
impacting elements to the area or detract from the scenic views of Palmyrita Avenue,
Marlborough Avenue, Ramona Expressway, or SR-74. The Hunter Park Station option involves
station buildings that would not exceed the height of existing structures in the area, and thus any
proposed development for this portion of the Project would be consistent with existing
conditions and would not introduce new visually impacting elements that would detract from the
scenic views along Palmyrita and Marlborough Avenues. The Moreno Valley/March Field
Station is part of the approved Meridian Business Park Specific Plan, which has indicated that
Alessandro Boulevard would not be negatively impacted by the development of this Station
option. The Downtown Perris Station is visible from SR-74, but the existing and planned urban
view from SR-74, the addition of this Station would not introduce new visually distracting
elements to the area or negatively affect the future designation of SR-74 as a State Scenic
Highway. The South Perris Station and Layover Facility are located within the viewshed of SR-
74, but they would be consistent with existing conditions and would not introduce new visually
impacting elements around SR-74, nor would the implementation of this portion of the Project
affect the future designation of SR-74 as a State Scenic Highway. The Palmyrita Station
Microwave Tower and CP Marlborough Radio Tower are located along Palmyrita Avenue and
Marlborough Avenue, respectively, near the SJBL alignment, but the Towers have a thin profile
and would blend in with existing conditions and thus not introduce new visually detracting
elements along Palmyrita and Marlborough Avenues. CP Oleander Radio Tower is about 1.7
miles north of the intersection of Ramona Expressway and I-215, and the CP Nuevo Radio
11
Tower is about 3 miles south. But, the thin profile of the Towers would blend in with the visual
landscape and would therefore not detract from the scenic view of the Expressway. The South
Perris Station Communication Shelter and Tower and CP Mapes Radio Tower may be visible to
drivers along the SR-74, but the South Perris Shelter Station Communication Tower would blend
in with existing conditions and would therefore not introduce any new visually detracting
elements around SR-74. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 to 4.1-19.)
No trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings are located near the Citrus
Connection, the SJBL alignment, the Hunter Park Station options, the South Perris Station and
Layover Facility, the Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower, the CP Marlborough Radio Tower,
CP Oleander Radio Tower, CP Nuevo Radio Tower, the South Perris Station Communication
Shelter and Tower and the CP Mapes Radio Tower. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 to 4.1-19.)
The Perris Depot is an historic building located in the vicinity of SR-74 and the
Downtown Perris Station option. No trees or rock croppings are located in the area, however.
The proposed development of the Downtown Perris Station would not alter, impair, or diminish
the qualities for which the historic Perris Depot is valued and any proposed development would
in fact be consistent with existing conditions. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-17 to 18.)
There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the East Maintenance Facility, the CP
Citrus Tower, and the CP Eastridge Radio Control Tower, and no impacts will result. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.1-18.)
3. Visual Character and Quality (Threshold 4.1-3): Project does not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As discussed
previously, the proposed tracks, stations, Layover Facility, communication towers, and landscape
walls within the PVL corridor would conform to the current land use of the area and blend in
with existing development. The proposed development would serve only to upgrade the current
railways and construct buildings that are of a similar height to the surrounding structures.
Therefore, the visual character and quality of the area within the PVL corridor would not be
affected by these proposed developments. Replacing two bridges along the SJBL alignment is
also a component to the proposed Project. These existing bridges, which span the San Jacinto
River at MP 20.70 and MP 20.80, would be replaced in-kind. Since they would have a similar
visual character as the original bridges, the current look and quality of the area within the PVL
corridor would not be degraded. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-19.)
B. Agricultural Resources
1. Convert Viable Farmland (Threshold 4.2-1): The Project does not involve the
conversion of Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-
agricultural uses and thus no significant impact will result from the Project on such resources.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-6 to 11.)
Farmland designations for the relevant portions of the Project are based on maps
provided by the Riverside County Land Information System (2008) and the CDC’s FMMP
(2006). The SJBL alignment and Downtown Perris Station are not subject to the applicable
regulations because they are not designated as farmland and therefore would not involve
12
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The California LESA Model for a corridor
project was used to evaluate if significant impacts would occur as a result of the implementation
of the Project (see Appendix D). The total LESA score for each of the three corridor options
(see Table 4.2-3) was less than 39 points, which indicates that the conversion of farmland is not a
significant impact, regardless of which Hunter Park Station is selected. The Project is also
occurring on sites that have already been slated for development in the future, as set forth in the
pertinent portions of the Riverside County General Plan, the city of Riverside General Plan, and
the city of Perris General Plan. To illustrate, the Citrus Connection is located on land designated
as Farmland of Local Importance, but the area is now approved for a warehouse/distribution
center, and thus the development of the Project is not altering the planned land use of the area.
The land considered for the three Hunter Park Station options was previously designated as
Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance, those options are located in an area that has
been approved for Business/Office Park development and is now designated for light industrial
uses. Given the change in the land use designation of the area for the proposed stations, the three
options would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance
to non-agricultural uses. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station is part of the approved
Meridian Specific Plan and there it was determined that the site for this station was no longer
designated as farmland. The South Perris Station and the Layover Facility is on land was
designated as Farmland of Local Importance but is now approved for Public and Community
Commercial Land Use designations, and also involves vacant land that will be developed
pursuant to the approved Riverglen and Green Valley Specific Plans, and thus the station and
facility would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of State/Local
Importance to non-agricultural uses. The Project would therefore not have any significant impact
on agricultural resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-7 to 4.2-11.)
2. Existing Zoning or Williamson Act Contract (Threshold 4.2-2): The Project
does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or with Williamson Act contracts.
There are no Williamson Act contracts affecting land involved in the Project. Any development
on the Project sites is also consistent with existing zoning land uses, as explained in pages 4.2-1
through 4.2-10 of the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-11.)
3. Forest Land and Timberland (Threshold 4.2-3): No components of the Project
would convert existing designated Farmland to non-agricultural use, nor would any impact to
forest land result. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on forest land or timberland
resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-12.)
C. Air Quality
1. Applicable Air Quality Plan (Threshold 4.3-1): The Project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. The Project is included in the
Southern California Area Government’s 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, which
indicates that the Project’s operational emissions meet the transportation conformity
requirements imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”). The SCAQMD manages the South Coast Air
Basin, which is the Basin in which the PVL Project is located. Therefore, the proposed Project
would have less than significant impacts in this regard. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14.)
13
2. Violate Air Quality Standards (Threshold 4.3-2): The Project does not violate
any existing air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts in this regard.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 to 28.)
CO Intersection Analysis: Vehicle exhaust is typically the primary source of CO
emissions in an urban setting. CO concentrations are generally analyzed at intersections because
if impacts are less than significant in close proximity to the congested intersections, then impacts
will also be less than significant at more distant sensitive receptor locations. The SCAQMD
recommends a hot-spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when volumes-to-capacity
ratios are increased by two percent at intersections with a Level of Service (“LOS”) of C or
worse. Four intersections were accordingly analyzed at the proposed Downtown Perris Station
where a large amount of parking is expected and thus a significant number of vehicle trips are
expected to be generated. Table 4.3-7 of the Draft EIR shows the Project’s CO concentrations
for AM and PM peak hour periods (one and eight hour periods), and demonstrates that the
Project would not have a significant impact upon local concentrations due to mobile source
emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur at any other locations in the study area
because the conditions yielding CO hotspots would not be worse than those occurring at the
analyzed intersections. As a result, the sensitive receptors included in the analysis would not be
significantly affected by the CO emissions generated by the net changes in traffic that would
occur under the Project. Because the Project does not cause an exceedance or exacerbate an
existing exceedance of an Ambient Air Quality Standard, the Project’s localized operational air
quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.3-14 to 4.3-18.)
CO Parking Lot Analysis: There would be four stations with parking lots, and CO
concentrations were evaluated for the largest parking lot (880 spaces) because if impacts are less
than significant at the largest parking lot, then impacts would also be less than significant at each
of the smaller parking lot locations. The maximum offsite CO concentration at any sensitive
receptor around the 880-space parking lot perimeter was determined to be 7.9 parts per million
and 5.6 parts per million for the one and eight hour averaging periods, which occurred at a
distance of 100 meters from the proposed parking lot. At the model default of 25 meters, the one
hour and eight hour concentrations were 7.2 and 8.0 parts per million (see Table 4.3-8). These
worst case scenarios are below the NAAQS of 35 parts per million and 9 parts per million for the
one and eight hour averaging periods. They are also below the CAAQS one hour concentration
not exceeding 20 parts per million, and the eight hour concentration of 9 parts per million. The
Project’s local operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-
12 to 4.3-18.)
PM2.5 and PM10: The Project is in an area designated nonattainment for PM2.5 and
PM10 and although it is not an exempt project under 40 CFR section 93.126, only projects
considered to be a Project Of Air Quality Concern (“POAQC”) are required to undergo a
PM2.5/PM10 hot spot analysis pursuant to section 93.126(b). The Project is not POAQC, as
discussed on page 4.3-19 of the EIR, and a quantitative PM2.5/PM10 analysis is therefore not
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 to 20.)
14
Mobile Source Air Toxics – Health Risk Assessment: Projects with low potential MSAT
effects, like the Project here, may analyze MSATs qualitatively. To estimate the localized
MSAT effect of the new train service, a health risk assessment (“HRA”) was conducted
following CEQA air quality guidelines. The HRA takes into account the effects of air toxic
contaminants on human health. Diesel, PM2.5 and PM10, and acrolein were selected for analysis
as the U.S. EPA identifies them as part of a group of priority MSATs. The HRA calculates a
health risk index based on the emissions from diesel locomotives currently being used by
SCRRA/Metrolink on other rail lines, as well as the running and idle times of the engines. This
estimate is conservative since engines used by the Project completion year will be required to
meet stricter U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. SCAQMD, in its CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, identifies an excess individual cancer risk of one in one million to be
minimal, and risk levels of up to ten in one million are considered less than significant. The
chronic hazard indexes for these two toxics are also calculated to determine the likelihood of
chronic health effects due to exposure. Per SCAQMD, a hazard index less than 1.0 is considered
acceptable. The results of the HRA are shown in Table 4.3-9 of the EIR and appears in full detail
as Air Quality Technical Report B located in Appendix C of the EIR. Table 4.3-9 shows that
there would be no exceedances of the impact thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants arising
from the operation of the Project. As requested by the SCAG TCWG, prior to construction, the
Commission would submit a project review form for the PM2.5 and PM10 hot spot analysis to
TCWG for their concurrence with the finding that the proposed Project would not be considered
a project of air quality concern with respect to PM2.5 or PM10 emissions as defined by 40 CFR
93.123(b)(1). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-20 to 21.)
Supplemental Baseline Analysis: Under SCAQMD procedures, no air quality assessment
of intersections is required for the “Baseline”2 condition. Thus, for these conditions, there are no
air quality metrics (i.e. maximum pollutant concentrations) available to describe traffic-related
air quality. As a result, the metric utilized here to describe “Baseline” conditions is the traffic
LOS, which measures the level of intersection congestion. Traffic congestion has a major
influence on potential increases in pollutant concentrations at the microscale (sidewalk) level.
Consequently, the SCAQMD LOS screening procedures were used as the tool to select those
intersections where more detailed mobile source air quality analysis could be appropriate. Based
on SCAQMD screening procedures, intersections with a LOS of C or better are not of concern
with respect to air quality. As a result, those intersections which would be considered a LOS D
or worse were selected for comparison. (Final EIR at 0.2-10 to 0.2-16.)
For the No Build + Project scenario3, SCAQMD screening criteria recommends a detailed air
quality analysis for signalized4 intersections exhibiting an LOS D or worse and an increase of
2% or more in volume to capacity ratio (v/c) ratio when measured from the “No Build” to the No
Build + Project condition. For the PVL environmental documents, four intersections meeting the
SCAQMD criteria were selected for a detailed air quality analysis. These selected intersections
would have the greatest potential to have an adverse air quality impact due to the large amount of
expected parking, project-generated trips and projected traffic growth. (Ibid.)
2 “Baseline” represents traffic intersection conditions in 2008 when the data collection effort was undertaken.
3 Conditions in 2012 opening year of the PVL project; therefore, this condition includes the PVL project, No Build
projects, and changes to the roadway network since 2008.
4 Unsignalized intersections are generally not analyzed for air quality impacts because such locations are not
characterized by lengthy queuing.
15
For the Baseline + Project scenario5, SCAQMD screening criteria were also utilized to determine
the number of intersections that would potentially require a detailed analysis. SCAQMD mobile
source analysis criteria are designed to measure the differences between the No Build and No
Build + Project scenarios. However, the criterion was also applied for the Baseline and Baseline
+ Project scenario in order to facilitate a qualitative comparative assessment between the No
Build + Project scenario and the Baseline + Project scenario. Because the comparative
assessment only requires the use of the LOS for selected traffic intersections, no detailed air
quality analysis was performed as a result of the selection of intersections under this analysis
scenario. (Ibid.)
Hunter Park Station
Baseline Scenario
For the Hunter Park Station, the PVL traffic analysis for the three location options (Palmyrita,
Columbia, and Marlborough) resulted in the analysis of four signalized intersections. Only one
of these four intersections operated at LOS D or worse during the PM peak period. LOS D
represents the point at which a traffic intersection starts to experience some noticeable decrease
in operational efficiency. These inefficiencies could result in an increase in pollutant
concentrations nearby. The Baseline traffic intersection with an overall LOS D Condition is
shown below (ibid.):
• Iowa Avenue @ Center Street - LOS D
Baseline + Project Scenario
Under all of the analyzed station location options, only one of the four intersections would
display a LOS D or worse and an increase in volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of two percent or
more, meeting the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis (ibid.):
• Iowa Avenue @ Center Street - LOS E
None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a
detailed analysis. (Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
Under SCAQMD criteria, a quantitative assessment is recommended for signalized intersections
operating at LOS D or worse while having an increase in volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of at
least two percent. Under the “No Build + Project” scenario two intersections met the SCAQMD
criteria for detailed mobile source air quality analysis for the proposed Hunter Park Station
location.
• Iowa Avenue @ Center Street - LOS E
• Iowa Avenue @ Columbia Avenue - LOS D
5 Assumes that only the PVL project is overlaid on 2008 Baseline Conditions; therefore, this condition excludes No
Build projects and future changes to the roadway network.
16
None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a
detailed analysis. (Ibid.)
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
The Baseline + Project scenario indicates that one intersection would meet the criteria for a
mobile source air quality analysis as compared to the No Build + Project scenario, for which two
intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria for mobile source analysis. (Ibid.)
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Baseline Scenario
Four signalized intersections were analyzed for the traffic study at the proposed Moreno
Valley/March Field station location. Only one of these four studied intersections near this station
operated at LOS D or worse during the PM peak period. The Baseline traffic intersection with a
LOS D Condition is shown below (ibid.):
• Cactus Avenue @ Valley Spring Pkwy/Old SR-215 – LOS D
Baseline + Project Scenario
Only one of the four intersections analyzed in the traffic study displayed a LOS of D or worse
and an increase in V/C ratio of two percent or more, meeting the criteria for a mobile source air
quality analysis, as recommended by SCAQMD.
• Cactus Avenue @ I-215 SB Ramp – LOS D
None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a
detailed analysis. (Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
Following SCAQMD screening criteria, a quantitative assessment is recommended for signalized
intersections operating at LOS D or worse while having an increase in volume-to-capacity ratio
(v/c) of at least two percent. Under the “No Build + Project” scenario one of the four studied
intersections would meet the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis.
• Cactus Avenue @ I-215 SB Ramp – LOS F
None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a
detailed analysis. (Ibid.)
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
The Baseline + Project scenario indicates that one intersection would meet the criteria for a
mobile source air quality analysis. The No Build + Project scenario also indicates one
intersection that would meet the SCAQMD criteria for mobile source analysis. (Ibid.)
17
Downtown Perris Station
Baseline Scenario
Six signalized intersections were analyzed for the traffic study at the proposed Downtown Perris
station location. One of the studied intersections near this station operated at LOS D or worse
during the PM peak period. The Baseline traffic intersection with a LOS D Condition is shown
below (ibid.):
• San Jacinto Avenue @ Perris Blvd – LOS D.
Baseline + Project Scenario
Two of the six analyzed traffic intersections displayed a LOS of D or worse and an increase in
v/c ratio of two percent or more, meeting the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source air quality
analysis.
• SR-74/W. 4th Street @ Navajo Road – LOS D
• San Jacinto Avenue @ Perris Blvd – LOS D.
None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a
detailed analysis. (Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
Following SCAQMD screening criteria, a quantitative assessment is recommended for signalized
intersections operating at LOS D or worse while having an increase in volume-to-capacity ratio
(v/c) of at least two percent. Under the “No Build + Project” scenario four of the six studied
intersections would meet the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis.
• SR-74/W. 4th Street @ Navajo Road – LOS D
• SR-74/W. 4th Street @ D Street – LOS F
• San Jacinto Avenue @ Perris Blvd – LOS D
• San Jacinto Avenue @ D Street – LOS D
None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a
detailed analysis. (Ibid.)
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
For the Baseline Conditions + Project scenario, two intersections would meet the criteria for a
mobile source air quality analysis as compared to four intersections under the No Build
Conditions + Project scenario. Since the initial air quality assessment, one additional intersection
was included with those selected for the No Build Conditions + Project scenario because
conditions for this intersection have since changed (a traffic signal has since been installed at this
location). As a result, the intersection, SR-74/W. 4th Street @ C Street – LOS D would now meet
the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source analysis. (Ibid.)
18
South Perris Station
Baseline Scenario
At the proposed South Perris Station location, no signalized intersections would meet the
SCAQMD LOS D air quality screening analysis criteria. The relocated Mapes Road and Station
Access Road intersection, which would be improved as part of the PVL project, does not
currently exist and therefore, would be analyzed based on future conditions only. (Ibid.)
Baseline + Project Scenario
Intersections built or modified as a result of the project (such as the relocated Mapes Road) do
not have an existing condition for comparison of V/C ratios. Consequently, the SCAQMD
criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis is not applicable. However, in the future
condition, the newly created Mapes Road @ Station Access Road intersection would operate at a
LOS C. As a result, it is not an intersection of concern with respect to air quality. (Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
Intersections modified as a result of the project would not have a “No Build” condition for
comparison of V/C ratios. Consequently, the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source air quality
analysis is not applicable. However, in the future condition, the newly created Mapes Road @
Station Access Road intersection would operate at a LOS C. As a result, it is not an intersection
of concern with respect to air quality. (Ibid.)
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
For the Baseline + Project scenario and the No Build + Project scenario no intersections would
meet the SCAQMD criteria such that they would require a detailed mobile source air quality
analysis. In addition, the newly created Mapes Road @ Station Access Road intersection would
operate at a LOS C. As a result, it is not an intersection of concern with respect to air quality.
(Ibid.)
Construction-Related Impacts: Construction is a source of fugitive dust and exhaust
emissions that can have substantial temporary impacts on local air quality causing exceedance of
CAAQS for PM10 and/or PM2.5. Dust emissions would result from earthmoving and use of
heavy equipment, as well as land clearing, ground excavation, and cut-and-fill operations.
However, as most standard dust prevention measures would significantly reduce the level of soil-
related dust, a major portion of dust emissions for the proposed Project would be caused by
construction-related vehicle traffic. Construction emissions from vehicular exhaust would result
from the movement and operation of vehicles related to construction activities. Emissions would
be generated by both off-site and on-site activities. Off-site emission producing activities include
construction work crews traveling to and from the work site. They also include on-road
emissions from delivery trucks and dump trucks in addition to locomotive emissions from freight
deliveries. Onsite emission producing activities include the operation of off-road construction
machinery and vehicles. Pollutants of interest with respect to construction exhaust emissions
include: CO, NOx, ROC, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and CO2. To assess construction emissions, daily
average emissions were calculated for all construction activities. These emissions were then
compared to the SCAQMD daily construction emission pollutant thresholds shown in Table 4.3-
11 of the EIR. Table 4.3-11 demonstrates that, based upon the cumulative evaluation of the
19
reasonable worst-case construction day, the construction of the Project would not result in
exceedances of the SCAQMD CEQA daily construction emission limits. Significant adverse
impacts therefore would not occur. Even so, in accordance with existing air quality regulations,
the following Best Management Practices (“BMP”) will be implemented to control localized
emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-23 to 4.3-28):
• BMP AQ-1: All land clearing/earth-moving activity areas will be watered to
control dust as necessary to remain visibly moist during active operations.
• BMP AQ-2: Streets will be swept as needed during construction, but not more
frequently than hourly, if visible soils have been carried onto adjacent public
paved roads.
• BMP AQ-3: Construction equipment will be visually inspected prior to
leaving the site and loose dirt will be washed off with wheel washers as
necessary.
• BMP AQ-4: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers,
according to manufacturers’ specifications, as needed to reduce off-site
transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road
surfaces.
• BMP AQ-5: Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads will not exceed 5 mph.
• BMP AQ-6: All equipment will be properly tuned and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
• BMP AQ-7: Contractors will maintain and operate construction equipment so
as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in
loading and unloading queues would have their engines turned off when not in
use, to reduce vehicle emissions.
• BMP AQ-8: Establish an on-site construction equipment staging area and
construction worker parking lots, located on either paved surfaces or unpaved
surfaces subject to soil stabilization.
• BMP AQ-9: Use electricity from power poles, rather than temporary diesel or
gasoline powered generators.
• BMP AQ-10: Use on-site mobile equipment powered by alternative fuel
sources (i.e., ultra-low sulfur diesel, methanol, natural gas, propane or
butane).
• BMP AQ-11: Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes,
but is not limited to: (1) consolidating truck deliveries (2) utilizing the existing
rail freight line for materials delivery.
20
• BMP AQ-12: Construction grading on days when the wind gusts exceed 25
miles per hour would be prohibited to control fugitive dust.
Overall, Riverside County and the study corridor are forecasted to have substantial
increases in population and employment over the coming decades. The general result of such
growth would be increased travel on the existing roadway network, demand for additional
capacity on those existing facilities, demand for new roadways, as well as additional demand for
transit services. The cumulative impacts of increased transportation demands would likely be
degradation of air quality as the volume of travel continues to expand, conversion of land use
from agriculture/vacant to residential and commercial development, a corresponding reduction of
habitats as land uses change, and increased demands on public facilities. The Project would help
reduce these impacts as it would reduce some long-distance trips now made by cars resulting in a
corresponding improvement in air quality. Indeed, the introduction of commuter rail service
provides an ongoing opportunity for reducing vehicular trips. The proposed rail service would
result in a net decrease in CO, ROC, and SOx emissions. In addition, SCRRA/Metrolink will be
replacing engines over time and the next generation trains would meet USEPA Stage III
requirements, which have up to 40% lower emissions characteristics than the current fleet. As
these new engines are incorporated into the fleet, air quality benefits would increase. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.3-23 to 4.3-27.)
3. Criteria Pollutants (Threshold 4.3-3): The Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is
non-attainment under any applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and thus no
mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-28 to 29.)
Threshold 4.3-3 asks whether the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant in a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors). Table 4.3-12 of the EIR (on page 4.3-28) shows the air quality impacts
that would occur during operation of the proposed Project. The Project would result in decreased
emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, SOx PM 2.5 and PM 10 . Nitrogen
oxide emissions would increase, but the increase would be less than significant. With the
reductions in these pollutants, the Project would produce a cumulative net benefit to the region’s
air quality. Also, as passenger rail ridership increases over time and the diesel engines continue
to meet EPA’s more stringent emission standards, there would be ongoing and increasing air
quality benefits. Moreover, the Project is included in SCAG’s 2008 Adopted RTIP (Project ID
RIV520109), which indicates that the Project’s operational emissions meet the transportation
conformity requirements imposed by USEPA and SCAQMD. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-28 to 29.) The
Air Quality Technical Report B in Appendix E contains a more detailed analysis.
4. Sensitive Receptors (Threshold 4.3-4): The Project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant and
no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.)
Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups
include hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For the
Project, the sensitive receptors closest to the alignment are: Highland Elementary School,
21
Highland Park, UC-Riverside Child Development Center, Hyatt Elementary School, Nan
Sanders Elementary School, and the city of Perris Senior Center. An analysis of the potential for
impact to sensitive receptors is performed in circumstances where CO pollution could be
expected to occur, such as at parking facilities where extensive idling could occur and at
intersections where a large volume of automobiles and trucks could be expected. None of these
sensitive receptors are located near the intersections that are projected to have the most potential
for future congestion (see also the traffic analysis in Chapter 4.11 of the EIR). In addition, these
receptors would not be close to any of the proposed parking lots. The CO hot spot analysis
evaluated the potential impacts to these sensitive receptors and calculated the pollutant
concentrations. Generally, pollutant concentrations decrease as distance from the pollutant
source to a receptor increases. Therefore, because analysis determined that there would be a less
than significant impact at the sensitive receptors closest to the congested intersection, impacts to
receptors located further away from these intersections (such as the sensitive receptors listed
above) would also be less than significant and would not require analysis. Because none of the
specific sensitive receptors would be near any of the congested intersections, impacts are less
than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.)
An HRA of sensitive receptors near the proposed PVL station parking lots was also
conducted. The HRA identified residential receptors located close to the proposed station
parking lots. Specifically, the parking lot for the proposed commuter rail station at Palmyrita
Avenue (one of the Hunter Park Station options) would be located approximately 35 meters (115
feet) south and east of residences, while the Downtown Perris Station would be located
approximately 65 meters (215 feet) east of a row of homes. At these locations, where receptor
distances are nearest to the pollutant source, the proposed station parking lots will not generate
significant CO concentrations, and any impact would be less than significant. Other receptors
located even farther away (such as St. James Catholic School and Perris Elementary School in
Perris) would also experience less than significant impacts. A health risk assessment for diesel
emission from PVL locomotive operations was also considered. Air quality modeling was
conducted to predict maximum concentrations of air toxic pollutants. The resulting health risk
assessment indicated that the “health risk” to sensitive receptors within the Project corridor
would be substantially below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the potential
health risk from train operations would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.)
As shown in the Tables 4.3-7, 4.3-8, 4.3-9, 4.3-10, 4.3-11, and 4.3-12 of the EIR, the
potential Project-related emissions are below all established thresholds of significance for
pollutant concentrations and health risk assessments and no potentially significant impact will
occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.)
5. Odors (Threshold 4.3-5): The Project would not create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people and thus impacts will be less than significant and no
mitigation is required. The emissions related with this Project are odorless and thus the level of
Project-related odors is less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-31.)
22
D. Biological Resources
1. Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife (Threshold 4.4-4): The SJBL is
located within Proposed Constrained Linkage Nos. 7 and 19 as identified in the Western
Riverside County MSHCP (“WRCMSHCP”). As concerns Proposed Constrained Linkage No.
7, species identified in this linkage would continue to cross the ROW as they have done
previously when the PVL was in place and, considering the Project improvements proposed for
this area, there is no impact to the continued use of the corridor by the identified species and no
mitigation is necessary. There will be minor short-term impacts to Proposed Constrained
Linkage No. 19 resulting from the replacement of two rail bridges; however, these impacts
would be less than significant as demonstrated in RCTC’s equivalency analysis contained in its
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (“DBESP”) submitted to the
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (“WRCRCA”). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-
24 to 25.)
The Project is not located in an area where native, or migratory, fish are located and
therefore fish would not be impacted by the Project. However, the MSHCP does identify Cores
and Linkages for wildlife species within western Riverside County. The Linkages are considered
wildlife corridors connecting the identified Core areas. Since the SJBL is located within
Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, there is a concern that
the Project has a potential to impact the continued use of these wildlife corridors. (Ibid.)
Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is located south of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve
area. The only proposed Project work in this area is the rehabilitation of the existing track, and
minor improvements to existing culverts, with no new improvements proposed. The existing
track configuration in this area is on a raised track bed, and has not changed in the preceding 100
years since the SJBL was initially constructed. This area is also located near the I-215/60. The
species that may use this Linkage are bird species and bobcat. These species would continue to
cross the ROW as they have done previously when the PVL is in place. Based on the Project
improvements proposed for this area, there is no impact to the continued use of this corridor by
the identified species, and therefore no mitigation is necessary. (Ibid.)
It should be noted that there is mitigation proposed within the noise section of the EIR to
extend a noise barrier, within the ROW, from Mount Vernon Avenue towards Box Springs
Mountain Reserve area. This noise barrier is proposed to reduce the train noise impacts to the
residential homes adjacent to the Reserve boundary, north of the ROW. With implementation of
this mitigation measure, no impact to the continued use of the Linkage 7 will occur because the
noise barrier would be located adjacent to the residential homes and not impact the open areas of
the Box Springs Mountain Reserve area. (Ibid.)
There is also a landscape wall proposed for the Hyatt School area. Hyatt School is located
within Linkage 7 and concurrently has fencing separating the school property from the ROW.
The landscape wall would replace this fence and therefore not create a new impediment to the
Linkage. Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 is located at the San Jacinto River and the San
Jacinto River Overflow Channel area. The proposed Project work in this area is the replacement
of the two rail bridges. The replacement bridges are designed to allow the same volume of water
beneath them and would therefore continue to allow for wildlife movement under the existing
23
bridges when the water is not present. It should also be noted that this Project is not making any
changes outside of the existing ROW, and therefore the existing Case Road Bridge will not
change as a result of this Project. (Ibid.)
Bridge replacement will require construction equipment to work adjacent to and within
the existing channels. This equipment will be removed from the channels at the conclusion of
every work day. Nighttime wildlife travel in the river channel can continue unimpeded both
during and after construction. Additionally, it should be noted that there is no ROW fencing in
this area so wildlife may continue to cross the ROW without physical barriers. Once construction
is complete the new bridges will have greater clearance underneath than the existing and
therefore have fewer impediments within the Linkage area. (Ibid.)
2. Local Policies Regarding Biological Resources (Threshold 4.4-5): Project will
not have a negative impact on local policies protecting biological species (other than the MSHCP
discussed elsewhere in these Findings and in the EIR) and thus no impact will result. There are
no local policies or ordinances in effect within the County of Riverside, the city of Riverside, or
the city of Perris, other than the Western Riverside County MSHCP (“WRCMSHCP”) and the
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (“SKR HCP”) that protect and address
biological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-25.) The Project would not have an adverse impact on
such policies or plans. (See ibid.)
3. Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
(Threshold 4.4-6): The Project area is within the boundaries of the WRCMSHCP (“MSHCP”),
and the Commission is a Permittee under the MSHCP. The Commission is therefore required to
comply with the provisions of the MSHCP for this Project. Consistent with the requirements of
the MSHCP, RCTC submitted an application for a Joint Projects Review to the Western
Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (“WRCRCA”). As part of that application
process, RCTC prepared and submitted to the WRCRCA a Determination of Biologically
Equivalent or Superior Preservation (“DBESP”), Riparian/Riverine surveys, a burrowing owl
survey and a Narrow Endemic Plant Survey. Based on the aforementioned surveys, RCTC
demonstrated that the Project is consistent with the various provisions of the MSHCP, including
the Riparian/Riverine and Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, and that the Project would not
have negative impacts on Constrained Linkage 7 or any other resources within the MSHCP
criteria area. The Project is also within the SKR HCP fee area, although it is outside the SKR
Core Reserve. Accordingly, a series of species and habitat surveys were performed along the
entire Project route in order to assess the potential for SKR and their habitat. (Draft EIR
Technical Report E, Revised Habitat Assessment Report (2009) at § 4.1.) No SKR were found
in any of those surveys. (Id. at § 5.2.) Nonetheless, and as set forth in Mitigation Measure BR-
14, RCTC will voluntarily pay the SKR HCP mitigation fee as set forth in Threshold 4.4-1
below. In sum, the proposed Project would not conflict with any established Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-22, 25.)
24
E. Geology And Soils
1. Seismic Hazards (Threshold 4.6-1)
Surface Rupture: No known faults intersect the existing rail corridor and thus the
Project would not expose people or structures to a potentially significant impact related to
surface fault rupture. According to the 2007 Interim Revision to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map (CGS, 2007), western Riverside County is a seismically active region. The
Project boundaries themselves are not within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The northern portion of
the PVL corridor is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the San Jacinto fault zone, while
the southern portion of the corridor is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the Elsinore
fault zone. Because no known faults intersect the existing rail corridor, implementation of the
PVL commuter rail service would not expose people or structures to adverse effects related to
surface fault rupture. Therefore, there would be no impacts from a known earthquake fault.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-15 to 16.)
Seismic Ground Shaking: The Project does not intersect fault zones and there would
not be any potentially significant impact resulting from strong seismic shaking and no mitigation
is required. According to the 2007 Interim Revision to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map (CGS, 2007), western Riverside County is a seismically active region. The Project
boundaries themselves are not within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The northern portion of the PVL
corridor is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the San Jacinto fault zone, while the
southern portion of the corridor is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the Elsinore fault
zone. Because no known faults intersect the existing rail corridor, implementation of the PVL
commuter rail service would not expose people or structures to adverse effects related to surface
fault rupture. Therefore, there would be no impacts from a known earthquake fault. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.6-16.)
Ground failure and Liquefaction: Parts of the Project are in areas that are subject to
high potential for liquefaction, but the implementation of industry recommendations for design
and construction activities would make impacts less than significant and no mitigation is
necessary. Portions of the rail corridor are in areas subject to high potential for liquefaction.
Those areas particularly susceptible include the vicinity of the MARB and the proposed March
Field/Moreno Valley Station. Project elements including track, and stations would be designed in
accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and
construction practices and methods per the CBC, County of Riverside, the National Engineering
Handbook, current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. These industry
recommendations will be followed during design and construction activities at the proposed
March Field/Moreno Valley Station. Therefore, there would be no impacts for seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.)
Landslides: One area of the Project is highly susceptible to seismically induced
landslides, but limited track work is proposed for this area. The remainder of the Project is
considered to have low landslide potential, and moreover, engineering and design elements of
the Project would comply with industry standards and thus impacts would be less than significant
and mitigation is not required. The Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan
indicates that the northern portion of the PVL corridor adjacent to the Box Springs Mountain
25
Reserve is highly susceptible to seismically induced landslides (Riverside County, 2003).
Limited track work relating to construction is proposed for this area; therefore, there would be
less than significant impacts during the construction of the PVL. Moreover, while the steep
terrain around Box Springs may be subject to rock fall, igneous tonolite and granodiorite bedrock
generally is not susceptible to landslides. Therefore, the PVL corridor is considered to have a
low landslide potential (Kleinfelder, 2009). Engineering and design would comply with CBC,
Riverside County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook,
AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of engineering recommendations
before and during construction, there would be no impacts during the operations and
maintenance of this within the PVL corridor. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.)
2. Soil Erosion (Threshold 4.6-2): The Project would implement a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, which would reduce or eliminate soil loss, and thus impacts would not
be significant and mitigation is not required. Because the PVL commuter rail service would be
implemented within an existing railroad corridor and adjacent properties, earth moving activities
would be limited to the construction of the proposed stations and associated parking lots,
communication equipment shelters and towers, and Layover Facility. Site preparation and
excavation activities associated with construction of the new facilities may result in soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil because of local precipitation and runoff. In accordance with the
requirements of the SWRCB, which administers the State’s construction stormwater program,
the Project, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, must obtain coverage under the
General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit [CGP]). The CGP requires the preparation and implementation of
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce or eliminate soil loss. The SWPPP
would identify BMPs to minimize erosion and sediment loss. SWPPP requirements are discussed
in the Hydrology/Water Quality section of the report. (see Draft EIR, Section 4.8.2). With
implementation of a Project-specific SWPPP, there would not be a potential for a significant
impact regarding soil erosion. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-16 to 17.)
3. Geologic Hazards (Threshold 4.6-3): The Project would not have any impact
regarding subsidence as it is not located within the “Documented Area of Subsidence.” Also,
the Project’s conformance with industry standards for engineering and construction-related
activities would make impacts less than significant as concerns landslides, lateral spreading,
liquefaction and collapse. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-17.)
The underlying geology of the PVL corridor extends through three geologic units. The
northern portion of the corridor, which includes the Citrus Connection, and Hunter Park Station
options, to the I-215/SR 60 interchange, is underlain by foliated or fractured igneous rocks. A
portion of the PVL corridor extending south from the I-215/SR-60 interchange is underlain by
Pleistoceneage, fine-grained unconsolidated to moderately consolidated sediments. The San
Jacinto River and its vicinity is made up of Holocene-age, fine-grained unconsolidated alluvial
sediments, including stream channel, floodplain, alluvial fan, and lacustrine sediments. Collapse
typically occurs in recent soils, such as Holocene deposits. The PVL corridor is not located
within the “Documented Area of Subsidence,” based on a review of the County of Riverside
Subsidence Map, and therefore, there would be no impact regarding subsidence for the Project.
Project elements including track, bridges, and stations will be designed in accordance with
appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and
26
methods per the CBC, County of Riverside, the National Engineering Handbook, current
AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of the industry standards for
engineering, and guidance recommendations before and during construction, there would be no
impact during the operations and maintenance of this within the PVL corridor. (Draft EIR, p.
4.6-17.)
4. Expansive Soils (Threshold 4.6-4): Expansive soils are present along the SJBL
alignment, but compliance with industry standards for engineering will result in less than
significant impacts and mitigation is not required. Soils within the Project corridor and the
proposed station locations are generally well-drained sandy loams, which do not tend to be
expansive. However, expansive soils (Willow series) are present along the SJBL alignment in the
area around both San Jacinto River bridges and South Perris Station. Changes in soil volumes
due to shrink-swell potential could result in adverse impacts to buildings at these locations.
Impacts from expansive soils associated with the Project in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River
and proposed South Perris Station are reduced to no impact by engineering design based on site-
specific geotechnical and geologic analysis along the PVL corridor. Construction of the Project,
including portions of the SJBL alignment, both bridges and South Perris Station will comply
with CBC, Riverside County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering
Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of the industry
standards for engineering, and guidance recommendations during design and construction, there
would be no impact during the operations and maintenance of this within the PVL corridor.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.6-17.)
5. Septic Systems (Threshold 4.6-5): The Project will not require septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems and thus there is no impact here. A proposed
wastewater connection is proposed at the Layover Facility and thus no septic tanks or alternative
disposal systems are involved in this Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-18.)
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Conflict with Applicable Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Threshold 4.3-
2): The Project will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and thus reduce the amount of CO2, which
is the most abundant GHG in the Project area, and which also indicates a reduction in the less
prominent exhaust-based GHGs. The Project will not result in a potentially significant impact by
the generation of GHGs and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-21 to 23.)
The most prevalent contributors to the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere are
water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CO2 is the GHG most closely linked to passenger car and light
truck emissions, and recent studies have shown that CO2 accounted for approximately 84 percent
of total GHG emissions in California (California Energy Commission, 2006). Since CO2 is the
most abundant greenhouse gas in the Project area, it is assumed that a reduction in CO2 will
indicate a reduction in the less prominent GHGs. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-21 to 23.)
Because climate change is a global effect, it is difficult to ascertain the effects from an
individual Project. Indeed, according to a recent paper by the Association of Environmental
Professionals (Hendrix and Wilson, 2007), an individual Project does not generate enough GHGs
27
to significantly influence global climate change, and thus global climate change is a cumulative
effect. However, for this Project, some baseline quantification of the opportunity to switch from
private vehicle to the PVL was prepared to demonstrate the regional benefits that would accrue
with the PVL. (Ibid.)
The CO2 emissions from the operation of the diesel locomotives is estimated based on
national usage data for commuter rail and compared to the reduction in CO2 emissions resulting
from the diverted ridership to the PVL. In 2009, CEQA included a new section to its guidelines
for determining the significance of GHGs (State CEQA Guidelines §15064.4), which accounts
for the lack of an established method for the calculation of GHGs and allows for the use of a
qualitative assessment to evaluate GHGs, which is the type of evaluation performed for this
Project. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 4.3-10 of the Draft EIR. The existing
and future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projections for the proposed Project were not available.
Therefore, an approximation of reduced VMT (see the Air Quality Technical Report B,
Appendix E) was calculated based on the assumption that the proposed PVL service would
replace the single passenger vehicles driving from South Perris to Riverside to connect to the
existing rail service. The diversion from private car use to PVL ridership is estimated to reduce
VMT by approximately 34 million miles per year in the Project area. This estimate includes
vehicle miles traveled from private homes to the proposed stations. Based on emission factors
from EMFAC2007 in the Project operation year of 2012, the reduction in VMT was calculated to
result in decreased CO2 emissions of about 160,000 lbs per day. As CO2 is the most abundant
GHG found in automobile emissions, a reduction in CO2 indicates a reduction in the less
prominent exhaust based GHGs. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed PVL Project
operations would increase the GHG burden in the region, but would likely result in a quantifiable
reduction in GHG. (Ibid.)
G. Hazards And Hazardous Materials
1. Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 4.7-1):
During construction, the Project would involve the use of small volumes of commercially
available hazardous materials and the use of such substances will be governed by existing
regulations and thus would not adversely affect construction workers or the public. Also, no
hazardous materials will be transported as part of the Project, which concerns a commuter rail
service. The Project will not have a potentially significant impact relative to hazardous materials
and no mitigation is required.
Construction activities associated with the Project would involve the use of small
volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, but the use of these substances is
governed by existing hazardous materials regulations and would not adversely affect on-site
construction workers or the public. As a commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger only. As
such, there would never be an occasion when hazardous materials would be transported on
commuter trains. Any such materials incidental to construction and operational activities,
including routine maintenance, would be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in
accordance with existing federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations, and would not
adversely affect on-site construction workers or the public. Each communication equipment
shelter within the PVL corridor would contain a 250-gallon propane AST. Several arrays of
batteries containing regulated heavy metals would also be located within the equipment shelters.
28
The propane tanks would be used to operate emergency generators in the equipment shelters.
Each of the tanks would be mounted on a concrete pad and permitted through the RCDEH. The
ASTs would also be included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the PVL Project,
which is kept on file with RCDEH. The storage and use of the heavy metals is regulated by
federal, state, and county hazardous materials regulations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-11 to 12.)
The proposed Layover Facility would include portable track pans at each track to catch
drips during emergency fueling. Routine fueling of the trains will not take place within the PVL
Project corridor. Regular or routine fueling will occur outside of the Project area. An SWPPP
will be prepared and put into place during the construction of the entire Project, including the
Layover Facility. As part of the Construction General Permit (CGP) requirements, the SWPPP
will also include BMPs to minimize the potential for leaks and spills during operations. (Ibid.)
Impacts will therefore be less than significant.
2. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 4.7-2): The small
volume of hazardous materials that would be used in compliance with existing regulations, and
the design criteria of the Project, means that impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions relative to the release of hazardous materials will be less than significant.
Construction and operation activities will involve the use of small quantities of hazardous
materials, but the materials would be used in compliance with existing regulations and thus no
potentially significant impacts will occur. Also, The pipelines located within the existing rail
ROW were installed in accordance with the safety requirements of the owners. The pipelines are
buried at a minimum of three feet below ground surface, or deeper if they are closer than 40 feet
to the rail line, and/or are encased. There have been no reported leaks from the previously
mentioned pipelines within or adjacent to the PVL corridor. There would not be an adverse affect
on the environment, on-site workers, or the public during operation and maintenance of the PVL
trains in these areas. Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts through the
implementation of the Project from these pipelines. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-12 to 13.)
Derailment could cause an accidental spill from the SCRAA/Metrolink train engines or
diesel fuel tanks. However, the derailment risk is extremely low risk. Statistics discussed in the
EIR and the PVL track improvements made to the latest standards, as dictated by FRA and
SCRAA/Metrolink design criteria, will further decrease the risk of derailment potential.
SCRAA/Metrolink would also regularly inspect the track to ensure safe operating conditions.
(Ibid.)
Moreover, in response to a number of concerns raised regarding a possible derailment,
the Master Responses to Comments, as incorporated herein, further addressed the risk of a
derailment. As explained in the Master Responses, a derailment generally may include one of
the following; a train leaving the tracks, just one set of wheels leaving the tracks, side swiping
another train, or general damage to a train while on the tracks. Section 4.7, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, in the Draft EIR (discussed above) addressed derailment statistics that
were calculated for the PVL project based on data up to fiscal year 2006/2007. This section
stated that, based on information obtained from the FRA Safety Database
([http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/]) and local resident information, there were 4.5
million freight train miles on SCRRA tracks since 1993, and that there have only been three
29
freight train derailments. This equates to approximately one derailment per 1.5 million train
miles or 0.000000667. In contrast, the derailment risk for BNSF freight trains on the SJBL
alignment is 0.00801, which equates to a derailment approximately once every 124 years.
Since the Draft EIR was submitted to the public for review, additional statistics were calculated
for fiscal year 2007/2008. This updated data also computes the derailment exposure risk on
SCRRA’s lines and then compares this risk to the estimated risk currently experienced by the
SJBL with freight only. First, the SCRRA had 455,684 freight train miles operated over their
lines in fiscal year 2007/2008, and this is assumed to be typical of operations since the start of
SCRRA operations. This yields a freight history of about 6.8 million freight train miles since
1993 (first full year of operation). There have been three main track freight train derailments (not
counting the collision at Chatsworth). Second, this calculates to an exposure ratio of about one
derailment per 2.28 million train miles or 0.00000044. Third, the BNSF operated 11,440 freight
train miles on the SJBL in fiscal year 2007/2008, and this rate of train miles has been consistent
over the years. Since 1993, this would total 171,600 train miles. Fourth, the annual future (after
completion of the project) freight train derailment risk is then the product of 0.00000044 (risk
per train mile) and 11,440 annual train miles, or 0.00502. Fifth, assuming that there have been
two freight train derailments on the main line of the PVL since 1993, the risk is two divided by
171,600 (the total train miles BNSF has operated since 1993) or 0.0000116 per train mile. These
calculations show that the SCRRA derailment risk is 0.00000044, while the BNSF freight train
derailment risk is 0.0000116. The reason for this difference is that, because the SCRRA tracks
are used for commuter rail, the tracks are maintained to high standards of safety and ride quality
due to their role in public passenger transport. The PVL project includes track improvements
throughout its length because a commuter train would be added to the track (see Draft EIR,
Section 4.2.1). These track improvements would upgrade the existing physical condition of the
rail line, which would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and
enhanced operational safety. Therefore, not constructing the PVL project poses a much higher
risk of freight train derailment exposure than constructing the project would.
As the Master Response further explains, the commenters also brought up a third
derailment in BNSF history, which occurred in 1990 near Hyatt Elementary School. Since the
derailment occurred outside of the 17-year window of SCRRA experience, it was not included in
the analyses. However, even if it were included in the derailment calculations, it would increase
the freight train risk factor, further strengthening the argument that the PVL project is a benefit
to the community. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant
impacts and no mitigation is required. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue.
No additional analysis was required and no additional mitigation measures were added.
3. Hazardous Materials Near Schools (Threshold 4.7-3): The Project would not
have the potential for a significant impact relative to the generation of hazardous emissions or
the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of a school or a
proposed school and no mitigation is required.
Construction activities associated with the Project, near the schools, would involve the
use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The use of these substances is
governed by existing hazardous materials regulations. The construction of the Project would not
include power lines or propane tanks within a 1,500-foot setback of the schools, nor would the
30
Project introduce newly constructed high pressure natural gas lines or gasoline lines. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.7-13.)
The Air Quality section of the EIR notes that sensitive receptor sites, including schools
are near mobile source emissions generated from freight trains using the SJBL, and from
vehicles using the adjacent SR-60 and I-215 corridors. It is also noted that most PVL trains
would pass by the schools either prior to the beginning of the school day or after the end of the
day, resulting in less potential exposure to emissions. Simultaneously, vehicle emissions would
be reduced with a shift of modes from private vehicles to the PVL and other reductions in mobile
source pollution through increased vehicular speeds on the major vehicular corridors. Using the
available interim guidance from the FHWA, the Project is categorized as having low potential
emission effects. (Ibid.)
Exposure to MSATs as a risk to schools would result from the siting of a new fixed,
continuously operating point source of pollution, such as a stack from a factory. With an engine
and the proposed train sets for the PVL, exposure to PM10 in diesel exhaust from passing
commuter trains would be limited. The trains would pass by schools very quickly, for only
several seconds along the PVL between stations. For most PVL movements, schools would not
be in session, as most scheduled runs occur either before the start of the school day or after its
completion. Opportunity for exposure to emissions is limited in occurrence and duration and is
therefore no impact. (Ibid.)
Additionally, as further discussed in the Master Responses to Comments, which are
incorporated by reference herein, the RCTC, in response to concerns raised about the proximity
of the rail line to the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline, commissioned a focused technical study
to specifically evaluate potential safety and/or hazard impacts associated with the pipeline.
(Analysis of Safety Issues for the Proposed Commuter Rail Service on the Riverside County
Transportation Commission’s Perris Valley Line in the Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Schools,
dated March 22, 2011 (the “Zeta Tech Report”)). The Zeta Tech report evaluated whether the
addition of commuter rail to the existing line would significantly increase the safety risks in the
vicinity of the Highland Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near the school
(Zeta Tech Report, page 2). The derailment risk analysis examined general derailment risk as
well as derailment risk specific to passenger trains in the context of a derailment energy analysis.
The derailment energy analysis compared the maximum available energy at the time of
derailment of a freight train to that of a passenger train on the Perris Valley Line (Zeta Tech
Report, page 7). This analysis also took into account the mass of a given train as well as the
speed of that train. Ultimately, the Zeta Tech Report concluded that the addition of commuter
rail to the existing railway line would not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of
Highland Elementary School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech
Report, page 7).
Additionally, as further discussed in the Master Responses, incorporated herein, RCTC
commissioned a focused technical study to specifically evaluate the potential risk of derailment
that would result from the proposed project’s addition of commuter trains to the existing Perris
Valley Line. This study considered: (1) whether the addition of commuter rail to the existing
line significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of the Highland Elementary School and
the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school, and (2) whether the addition of commuter rail to
31
the existing line significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary School.
The Zeta Tech Report concluded that the addition of commuter rail to the existing railway line
would not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School
and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). The Zeta Tech
report also shows that the addition of commuter rail to the existing railway line does not
significantly increase the derailment risk at or near Hyatt Elementary School.
4. Airport Hazards (Threshold 4.7-5): The PVL corridor and the Moreno
Valley/March Field Station would be within the airport land use plan of the MARB. The
Moreno Valley/March Field Station is within appropriate zoning uses and thus there is no
impact.
The PVL corridor and the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station are located west of I-
215 and MARB airport, and within the boundaries of the airport land use plan of MARB. The
proposed station would be located predominantly within APZ II, which allows for industrial and
transportation uses. As currently designed, a small southerly segment of the proposed parking lot
associated with the station would be located in APZ I, which prohibits dense concentrations of
people, but allows for parking lots (March JPA 2003). The Riverside County ALUC and the
March JPA reviewed the Commission’s application for the Project and the Riverside County
ALUC determined that the Moreno Valley/March Field Station will be consistent with the airport
land use plan subject to the following conditions: (1) prior to issuing building permits, the RCTC
shall convey an avigation easement to the March Inland Port Airport Authority; (2) any outdoor
lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection
into the sky, and outdoor lighting shall be downward facing; and (3) proscribing (i) any use that
would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with
aircraft operations toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach (other than an FAA-
approved light source); (ii) any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft in
flight; (iii) any use that would generate smoke or water vapor that would attract large numbers of
birds or that could somehow affect safe air navigation within the area; (iv) any use that would
generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft
instrumentation; (v) children’s schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and highly noise sensitive
outdoor residential uses; (4) any ground-level or aboveground water retention or detention basin
or facilities shall be designed to provide for a detention period for a storm that does not exceed
48 hours and must remain totally dry between rain events, nor can no landscaping with
vegetation that would attract birds and that would be incompatible with airport operations,
landscaping must utilize plant species that do not produce seeds, fruits or berries, and trees must
be spaced to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy when mature; and (5) any proposed
use identified on the site plan as a future use shall be reviewed by ALUC for consistency when
proposed for a specific development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15 to 16.)
5. Private Airstrip Hazards (Threshold 4.7-6): The Project is within the Perris
Valley Airport Influence Area, however the only restriction in the Influence Area pertains to
residential development for safety purposes. The implementation of the Project will, therefore,
not result in a safety hazard to the people residing or working near to the airstrip and Project
impacts will be less than significant.
32
The Perris Valley Airport is located immediately south of Ellis Avenue and southwest of
Case Road, approximately 500 feet southwest from the existing rail corridor. The airport is
largely used for skydiving. The PVL corridor lies within the Perris Valley Airport Influence
Area, from west of Goetz Road, along SJBL, to just east of Murrieta Road, including the South
Perris Station. In this Influence Area, only residential uses “are to be limited to areas not in the
actual flight path and to areas where aircraft have gained sufficient altitude so as to no longer
pose a relative safety threat” (city of Perris, 2005). Implementation of the PVL will not result in
a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the Project area. The Perris Valley Airport
is currently drafting a land use plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16 to 17.)
The Riverside County ALUC has reviewed RCTC’s application to ensure zone
compatibility. The ALUC determined that the South Perris Station will be consistent with
airport land use plan subject to the following conditions: (1) prior to issuing building permits, the
RCTC shall convey an avigation easement to the March Inland Port Airport Authority; (2) any
outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or
reflection into the sky, and outdoor lighting shall be downward facing; and (3) proscribing (i)
any use that would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors
associated with aircraft operations toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach (other
than an FAA-approved light source); (ii) any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward
an aircraft in flight; (iii) any use that would generate smoke or water vapor that would attract
large numbers of birds or that could somehow affect safe air navigation within the area; (iv) any
use that would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft
and/or aircraft instrumentation; (v) children’s schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and highly noise
sensitive outdoor residential uses; (4) any ground-level or aboveground water retention or
detention basin or facilities shall be designed to provide for a detention period for a storm that
does not exceed 48 hours and must remain totally dry between rain events, nor can no
landscaping with vegetation that would attract birds and that would be incompatible with airport
operations, landscaping must utilize plant species that do not produce seeds, fruits or berries, and
trees must be spaced to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy when mature; and (5)
structure height shall not exceed 40 feet, and no structure shall be located less than 3,841 feet
from any point on the centerline of the runway at Perris Valley Airport unless the Federal
Aviation Administration has first issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for said
structure. (Ibid.)
H. Hydrology/Water Quality
1. Water Quality Standards (Threshold 4.8-1): The Project would implement
BMPs, to the extent necessary, to ensure that no water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements are violated and thus impacts will be less than significant without mitigation.
The Citrus Connection would use small quantities of wheel lubricators (to reduce squeal)
in a small area and will not contribute to local runoff pollution. This portion of the Project
would not violate water quality standards. The SJBL alignment primarily involves an upgrade of
existing tracks and culverts, and will not appreciably change from existing conditions and will
therefore not result in a water quality violation. A bypass track is also to be constructed, but the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the bypass would be same as existing conditions and
no impacts will result. The relative small size of the Stations would not create a surface large
33
enough to create a significant amount of runoff that would affect water quality. However,
operation and maintenance of the Stations’ parking lots could create polluted runoff and thus the
Commission will install structural BMPs to ensue any pollutants are properly contained. BMPS
may include catch basin inserts and oil/water separators that would stop debris, oil, and other
pollutants from entering the MS4s. The addition of the BMPs will ensure that water quality
standards are not violated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-10 to 12.)
It is anticipated that up to four trains would be stored in the Layover Facility overnight.
Drip pans will be installed to catch any fuel, lubrication, or other liquids coming from the
engines. The train inspection pit will also contain an oil/water separator to ensure treatment prior
to drainage into an MS4. Overall, BMPs will be implemented to ensure that the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Layover Facility does not result in a violation of water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. As a result, no impacts will occur. (Ibid.)
Construction of the bridges will take place during the summer when the San Jacinto River
and San Jacinto River Overflow Channel are dry. Equipment storage, fueling, and construction
staging areas would be located to minimize risks of waste discharge and water contamination,
and the Project-specific SWPPP would identify proper BMPs to control any pollutants. The
bridge replacement would therefore not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. (Ibid.)
2. Groundwater (Threshold 4.8-2): The Project does not involve groundwater
resources and thus impacts would be less than significant. The proposed PVL Project involves
upgrading the existing rail corridor, and adding four stations and a Layover Facility. The
approximate maximum depth of excavation at the proposed stations and Layover Facility is 14
feet below existing grade. Dewatering is not anticipated because groundwater is greater than 50
feet in the Project area. No groundwater resources would be needed for the construction,
maintenance, and operation of the PVL Project. Additionally, it should be noted that the paved
areas at the stations and Layover Facility would not interfere with groundwater recharge because
of the very small size compared to the overall watershed area. Therefore, the PVL Project would
not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with existing groundwater resources
and thus a potentially significant impact will not result. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11 to 12.)
3. Drainage and Erosion (Threshold 4.8-3): The Project will not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern, including through the alteration of a stream or river, and thus
impacts will be less than significant.
Citrus Connection: The current BNSF and SJBL alignments traverse the Springbrook
Wash. The proposed Citrus Connection track would be located north of the Wash, on disturbed
vacant land. The approximately 2,000 feet of new track proposed for the Citrus Connection
would connect the two existing alignments, the BNSF and SJBL, south of where they currently
connect. Although the track will be new in this area, the drainage patterns will not substantially
change. Current drainage is via sheet flow off the vacant land and into Springbrook Wash. With
the installation of the new track, the sheet flow will be slowed by the track but water will be
allowed to percolate through the ballast rock prior to reaching Springbrook Wash. Because the
new construction would not alter drainage patterns, impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.8-12.)
34
SJBL Alignment: The existing drainage pattern of the Project area currently includes the
SJBL alignment. Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of this alignment would
primarily upgrade the existing tracks, selected culverts, and bridges, proposed development
within this segment of the PVL corridor would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the area. The bypass track would be built adjacent to the existing SJBL tracks with an
extension of the existing culverts. This bypass track would not alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site. Impacts will thus be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Stations: The Station are all proposed to be constructed on previously disturbed land that
does not contain defined drainage patterns. The Stations, including the associated parking
structures, are designed to direct local drainage into catch basins that connect into the local MS4.
Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Layover Facility: The proposed Layover Facility would be constructed on previously
disturbed land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. The Layover Facility is designed
to direct local drainage into local catch basins that connect into the MS4. Therefore, impacts will
be less than significant. (Ibid.)
4. Drainage and Runoff (Threshold 4.8-4): The Project would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern, including the alteration of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff, and thus impacts are less than significant.
Citrus Connection: The current BNSF and SJBL alignments traverse the Springbrook
Wash. However, the proposed Citrus Connection track will not affect the existing drainage
pattern. The approximately 2,000 feet of new track proposed for the Citrus Connection would
serve to connect two existing alignments, the BNSF and SJBL south of where they currently
connect. Overall, the operations and maintenance of the Citrus Connection would be the same as
for the SJBL alignment. Since the proposed Citrus Connection would not be located in an area
with a defined drainage pattern, the Citrus Connection would not substantially alter an existing
drainage pattern or substantially increase the surface runoff in the site. Because the new
construction would not alter existing drainage patterns, impacts are less than significant. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.8-13 to 14.)
SJBL Alignment: The existing drainage pattern of the Project area currently includes the
SJBL alignment. Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of this alignment would
primarily upgrade the existing tracks, selected culverts, and bridges, proposed development
within this segment of the PVL corridor would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the area. The bypass track would be built adjacent to the existing SJBL tracks with an
extension of the existing culverts. This bypass track would not alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site. Impacts are therefore less than significant. (Ibid.)
Stations: The Station locations are all proposed to be constructed on previously disturbed
land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. The Stations, including the associated
parking structures, are designed to direct local drainage into catch basins that connect into the
local MS4. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
35
Layover Facility: The proposed Layover Facility would be constructed on previously
disturbed land that does not contain defined drainage patterns such as streams or rivers. . The
Layover Facility is designed to direct local drainage into local catch basins that connect into the
MS4. The buildings planned for the Layover Facility will be raised off the ground approximately
six feet. These raised structures will not create an impermeable surface large enough to
significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area. Parking lots for the Layover
Facility would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the area because the paved lots
do not allow for water infiltration. However, the Layover Facility is designed to direct local
drainage into the MS4, which would control the surface runoff and avoid flooding on or off-site.
Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
5. Runoff (Threshold 4.8-5): The Project impacts would be less than significant
with the implementation of BMPs, where necessary, to ensure that any runoff water would not
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and/or ensure sources of
polluted runoff, if any, have no impact or a less than significant impact.
SJBL Alignment: Along the SJBL alignment are existing drainage structures (culverts)
that allow stormwater flow to pass beneath the railroad tracks. As part of the Project, the culverts
that would be replaced or extended will continue to convey the local stormwater flow beneath
the tracks. These rehabilitated culverts will allow the same amount of water to pass through the
alignment as the old ones. Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJBL
alignment would upgrade the existing tracks and selected culverts, the increase in impervious
area is limited. Therefore, the proposed development within this segment of the PVL corridor
would not create additional runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems. Additionally, the increase of twelve trains per day would cause
minor quantities of oil and lubricants to weep onto the track. These minor quantities are not great
enough to cause a potentially significant increase in polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts are less
than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-14 to 15.)
Stations: The relative small size of the station platforms will not create an impermeable
surface large enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area.
Operation and maintenance of the station parking lots would increase the amount of
impermeable paved surfaces in the area. These surfaces would create additional runoff because
the paved area does not allow for water infiltration. However, engineering designs for each
station include the provision of stormwater detention when required. With these design elements
in place, there will be sufficient capacity within the MS4s to support the Project. Oil and fluid
leaks from parked cars would potentially be added to runoff water as it flows towards the local
MS4s. However, the Commission will install structural BMPs, including catch basin inserts and
oil/water separators that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the MS4s.
With the planned BMPs in place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the stations
would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to the MS4, and thus impacts
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Layover Facility: The buildings planned for the Layover Facility will be raised off the
ground by approximately six feet. These raised structures will not create an impermeable surface
large enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area. The Layover
Facility parking lots would increase the amount of impermeable paved surfaces in the area. This
36
surface would create additional runoff because the paved area does not allow for water
infiltration. However, engineering designs for the Layover Facility include sizing the catch
basins and local drainage structures to have capacity sufficient to accept the additional runoff.
With these design elements in place, there will be sufficient capacity within the MS4s to support
the Layover Facility. Oil and fluid leaks from parked cars would potentially be added to runoff
water as it flows towards the local MS4s. the Commission would install structural BMPs,
including catch basin inserts that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the
MS4s. With the planned BMPs in place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
Layover Facility would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to the MS4,
and impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
6. Water Quality (Threshold 4.8-6): The Project would not otherwise
substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation. Most of the PVL Project consists of an existing rail corridor. It is not anticipated
that any new sources of pollutants would occur as a result of the proposed upgrades. Proposed
new structures for the PVL Project are minimal, and drainage and pollutants would be managed
with appropriate measures that comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the
PVL Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less
than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15.)
7. Housing and 100-Year Flood (Threshold 4.8-7): The Project would not involve
housing and thus no impact will occur here. The Project would enhance transportation
infrastructure by extending commuter rail service to additional portions of Riverside County and
does not include the construction of housing. Therefore, no impacts will occur here. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.8-15.)
8. Structures and 100-Year Flood (Threshold 4.8-8): The Project would not
impede or redirect flows within a 100-year flood hazard area and thus impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 to 19.)
Ten FIRM panels were evaluated to identify flood designations and floodways including
and proximate to the PVL corridor. Four of these FIRM panels were located in a 100-year flood
hazard area (FEMA, 2008). (See EIR Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2.)
FIRM Panel 06065C0065G: The area of Springbrook Wash has a 100-year flood Zone A
designation. A small portion of the alignment, where the alignment passes over the Wash,
between Spring Street and Citrus Street is within this high flood risk area.
FIRM Panel 06065C0727G: A portion of the SJBL alignment at Blaine Street, within the
UCR area, has a 100-year flood Zone A designation. The floodplain boundary ends at the
alignment and is identified east along Blaine Street and curves north at Valencia Hill Drive. Zone
A has a high potential for flood risk.
FIRM Panel 06065C0731G: The University Wash located in Islander Park of the UCR
area has a 100-year flood Zone AE designation. The floodplain boundary starts near Linden
Street and is identified south to Big Springs Road, and is bounded by the alignment along the
eastern boundary. Zone AE is a high risk area.
37
FIRM Panel 06065C1440G: The area adjacent to the west side of the alignment at Metz
Road has a 100-year flood Zone A designation. This flood area is located in Metz Park within the
city of Perris. Additionally, this panel includes the San Jacinto River and associated floodway.
The floodplain boundary for the San Jacinto River is partially within a 100-year flood area,
which includes the railroad bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80). Both bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80)
are mapped within the 6,600-foot wide floodway. Extending from the floodway is a 12,000-foot-
wide floodplain boundary for the 100-year event in Zone AE.
The SJBL alignment, two bridges, the South Perris Station option, and the Layover
Facility are portions of the PVL Project that are located within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Based on the hydraulic analysis presented in the Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report
Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis report, it is expected that the bridges, rail alignment,
station platform, station parking lot, and Layover Facility could be submerged as much as five
feet during the 100-year flood (AECOM, 2009). The SJBL alignment would not add new
structures within the 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flows, and thus
impacts would be less than significant here. The design plans for the bridges would be in
compliance with the NFIP’s No-Rise requirements, a No-Rise Certification would be obtained
for the Project through the RCFCWCD, and thus the proposed bridges would not impede or
redirect flows and impacts would be less than significant. The relative small size of the South
Perris Station option would not create a surface that would significantly impede or redirect flows
in a 100-year flood area. Also, the South Perris Station option and Layover Facility would be in
compliance with the NFIP’s No-Rise requirements. Thus, the proposed structures at the South
Perris Station option and Layover Facility would not impede or redirect flows and no impacts are
anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 to 19.)
9. Dam Inundation (Threshold 4.8-9): The Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. During torrential rainfall or periods of extended rain,
the storage capacity of Mystic Lake would be exceeded and overflow into the San Joaquin River.
The River could swell and potentially flood the surrounding areas. Trains would not run if
flooding occurs and thus commuters would not be exposed to flooding conditions along the
SJBL alignment. Furthermore, development along the AJBL alignment involves upgrading
existing tracks and would not expose new structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death.
Trains would not run if flooding occurred in the PVL corridor and the employee support building
within the Layover Facility would be raised by six feet to remain out of the 100-year floodplain.
People would therefore not be exposed to flooding. The raised structures, however, could be
exposed to significant risk of loss involving flooding, but no impact would result relating to base
flood elevations, regulatory floodway elevations, and floodway width according to the Perris
Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis, Layover Facility
structures. Since Project design plans for the Layover Facility would be compliance with the
NFIP’s No-Rise requirements, and a No-Rise Certification would be obtained for the Project
through the RCFCWCD. Therefore, the proposed Layover Facility would not expose structures
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, and no impacts are anticipated for
this issue area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-20.)
38
10. Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow (Threshold 4.8-10): The Project will not increase
the likelihood of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow and thus impacts will be less than
significant. Because the PVL corridor is not located in close proximity to a coast or ocean,
implementation of the proposed Project would not create or be subject to inundation by seiche, or
tsunami. Additionally, the Project is on a rail corridor originally developed over 100 years ago.
Since current rail operations will continue, and the commuter trains will not increase the current
risk, the implementation of the PVL Project will not increase the likelihood of a mudflow.
Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-20.)
I. Land Use And Planning
1. Division of Established Community (Threshold 4.9-1): The Project would not
physically divide an established community and thus impacts would be less than significant. The
SJBL was constructed in the 1880s, and many of the communities now located within the
vicinity of the railroad were established as a result of the railway facilities (MFA, 2003). The
Citrus Connection would be constructed in an area that is bordered to the south and west by
industrial and transportation facilities and to the north and east by residential and commercial
uses. The proposed Project would operate entirely within an existing rail corridor and its adjacent
parcels will be in an area where the railroad facilities have long been part of the local community
setting. Therefore, the Project would not restrict the movement of people or physically divide an
established community and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-9.)
2. Land Use Plan Consistency (Threshold 4.9-2): The Project is consistent with
existing and planned land uses and is consistent with federal, state, and local land use plans and
policies and thus impacts will be less than significant.
The Project is located in western Riverside County and extends through or adjacent to
several municipalities including the city of Riverside, the city of Moreno Valley, the March Air
Reserve Base, the city of Perris, and Riverside County. Table 4.9-1 of the EIR provides an
overview of the many land uses within and adjacent to the Project area. The Project would be
consistent with existing and planned land uses and is consistent with the county, city, and
Specific Plan policies. The Project is exempt from local land use controls and thus
demonstration of compliance with local land use plans and policies is not required. However, as
set forth below, county and city plans anticipate and support the Project (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-9 to
11):
• The Riverside County General Plan promotes alternative transportation options
within western Riverside County as a means for encouraging concentrated housing
and employment centers, in order to reduce traffic congestion. Rail transit is
envisioned as a travel option that can contribute to higher quality living environments
by reducing auto dependency, concentrating compatible land uses, and relieving
pressure to develop open space, and directing compatible land use activities to
established urban centers. The PVL would be consistent with the alternative
transportation goals outlined in this document.
• The city of Riverside General Plan aims to encourage mass transit to reduce roadway
congestion, air pollution, and non-point source water pollution. Land use planning
39
was structured to support this principle by directing new growth along transportation
corridors.
• The city of Riverside General Plan includes discussion of the PVL as the 22-mile
extension of the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 line. The Land Use and Urban Design Element
of the General Plan focuses on incorporating “smart growth” principles into planning
and development decisions, and focusing development in already urbanized parts of
the city rather than spreading growth to the urban fringes.
• The Hunter Business Park Specific Plan states that existing lead tracks and spurs
serve established industrial plants, and it is the intent of the Specific Plan to
accommodate rail usage where feasible in the designated Land Use Districts. The rail
lines have historically supported facilities at the Hunter Business Park, and are
maintained within the Specific Plan. The proposed station sites are within the Hunter
Business Park, which is 1,300-acre planning area that contains existing
industrial/warehouse facilities, scattered agricultural parcels, and a public park
(Hunter Park). According to the city of Riverside General Plan, the Hunter Business
Park is planned for redevelopment and business/office buildings in order to serve as a
relatively more active employment center, while the Hunter Business Park Specific
Plan (City of Riverside, 2002) describes the location of the rail lines within this area
as excellent opportunities to serve future industrial-transportation-distribution
facilities.
• The city of Moreno Valley General Plan’s Circulation Element states that public
transit in the city of Moreno Valley consists primarily of bus service. It is anticipated
that Moreno Valley would have access to commuter rail service; specifically, a
commuter rail station for the southwest quadrant of Alessandro at I-215 to serve
Moreno Valley residents (City of Moreno Valley, 2006). The PVL would also be
consistent with the city of Moreno Valley General Plan’s Community Development
Element, which encompasses the Land Use Plan of the city of Moreno Valley General
Plan. The city of Moreno Valley General Plan places residential/office and
commercial land uses within land located nearest to the PVL corridor. The properties
are also identified as redevelopment areas, presumably to encourage economic
growth.
• The proposed commuter service to serve the March Planning Area would be
consistent with the March JPA General Plan, and the March JPA would work with
transit providers to ensure that transit programming is oriented to the Meridian area,
which is outlined as an economic center. The Meridian Master Plan places a future
transit center near the PVL, and similarly, the March Specific Plan places a 15-acre
transportation center to accommodate commuter rail service along the PVL corridor.
The proposed station would be a permitted use. The March JPA General Plan
identifies the PVL in its Transportation Element, and acknowledges the need for a
multimodal facility to serve its planning area. It promotes the creation of adequate
regional railway facilities, including the use of SCRRA/Metrolink service along the
SJBL.
40
• The PVL would be consistent with the Mead Valley Area Plan (2003). The Mead
Valley Area Plan identifies the SJBL as a viable regional transportation option for
residents, employees, and visitors to the area.
• Commuter rail service along the existing SJBL is consistent with the Land Use
Element of the city of Perris General Plan, which recognizes the need for future
transportation and infrastructure improvements. The specific plans for Green Valley,
Riverglen, Perris Downtown and the Village Walk District have incorporated the
SJBL by assigning compatible land uses adjacent to the rail corridor, including the
future development of commuter rail station planned for the old Perris Depot area.
The Downtown Specific Plan describes a pedestrian-friendly Downtown Promenade
District of mixed uses, within walking distance of a train station. The Circulation
Element specifically identifies the extension of SCRRA/Metrolink service along the
SJBL. The use of the existing railway would be consistent with existing and planned
land uses, and the implementation of commuter rail service through downtown Perris
would be consistent with specific plan policies to enhance and preserve natural and
man-made features, and to promote alternative transportation to reduce regional
traffic congestion.
3. Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan (Threshold 4.9-3): The Project
would not result in any potentially significant impacts with regard to the MSHCP and the SKR
HCP, which are the two habitat conservation plans in effect in the Project area.
The Project will not conflict with either the MSHCP or the SKR HCP. The Project is
subject to the compliance requirements of the MSHCP, in particular the Urban/Wildlands
Interface Guidelines in the MSHCP. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-11 to 13.) Furthermore, the Project will
voluntarily pay SKR HCP fees to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Authority
(“RCHCA”) (Ibid.; see also Mitigation Measure BR-14.)
SJBL Alignment: By complying with the Guidelines and coordinating with the RCA
(responsible for the MSHCP) and the RCHCA (responsible for the SKR HCP), the Project will
not conflict with any conservation or habitat goals relative to the implementation of the SJBL
alignment. (Ibid.)
Moreno Valley/March Field Station: Two noncontiguous wildlife reserves are in the
vicinity of the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station. The SKR Sycamore Canyon –
March Air Force Base Core Reserve (which coincides with Sycamore Canyon Park and the
MSHCP Existing Core D) is located north and south of Alessandro Boulevard and west of the
PVL corridor outside of the corridor and west of the Moreno Valley/March Field Station.
Through compliance with the Guidelines and coordination with RCA and RCHCA, construction
and operation of the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station option would not impair the
value of wildlife habitat or cause an ecological intrusion into the nearby reserve areas. (Ibid.)
South Perris Station and Layover Facility: MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 19
encompasses the San Jacinto River area, which is located approximately 500 feet west of the
proposed South Perris Station. As previously described, the PVL Project is subject to the
compliance requirements of the MSHCP, in particular its Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines,
41
which provide guidance on addressing the indirect effects on wildlife species when projects are
located in proximity to reserve areas. Through compliance with the Guidelines and coordination
with RCA, construction and operation of the proposed South Perris Station would not impair the
value of wildlife habitat or cause an ecological intrusion of MSHCP Proposed Constrained
Linkage 19. (Ibid.)
J. Noise And Vibration
1. Temporary Noise Increase (Threshold 4.10-4): Project impacts resulting from
temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant and
mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-37 to 39.)
The construction noise assessment indicates that construction activities would not result
in any new significant noise impacts at any nearby noise-sensitive receptors. The conclusions of
the construction noise assessment are based on the use of the FTA construction noise criteria and
they apply to both day- and night-time construction activities. While no significant impacts
would be predicted to occur, construction activities may result in temporary short-term increases
in noise levels, not unlike those typical of common street and utility projects. However, given the
linear configuration of the construction corridor, only small area segments would likely
experience construction noise at any given time. Once grade crossing improvements along with
the excavation and grading of the track base are completed, specialized track equipment would
move continuously along the alignment constructing the new track. The export of soils from the
Project site may also result in increased noise levels along roadways in the immediate Project
area. However, because the amount of exported soils from each location along the PVL
alignment is finite, the site vehicular access would change frequently as construction moves
along the alignment. Therefore, any resulting noise increase would be temporary since no single
roadway segment would be affected for more than a few weeks. According to the FTA manual,
this would not constitute a long period of time for a construction-related activity and, thus, would
not result in any impact. With respect to noise from the construction of the stations, only the
proposed Downtown Perris Station would be located nearby noise sensitive receptors. However,
station construction would only last approximately two months. Any potential increase in noise
levels would be temporary in nature and would generally only occur between about 6 AM and 7
PM, Monday through Friday. The exact hours when Project construction would be allowed are
restricted to the hours described in the local construction noise policies above for the individual
localities. For all construction activities, standard construction noise control measures would be
required to reduce the likelihood of any temporary noise increases. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-37 to
38.) Some night-time work may also have to occur, such as track realignment. This would
require prior approval by the locality in which the night-time activity is to take place. (Ibid.)
Although the overall length of construction for the entire PVL Project would be
approximately 18 months, disturbances at individual receptor locations would not last for more
than several months. Any potential construction noise impacts on schools and churches would be
less than significant since Project construction noise levels would not surpass the FTA
construction noise criteria levels. However, both sporadic and temporary increases in
construction noise above local construction ordinance levels may occur. Any temporary
increases would be based on potential occurrences of atypical events given the inconsistent and
transitory nature of some construction activities and equipment usage. Consequently, the
42
contractor would use standard construction noise control measures such as temporary
construction noise barriers, low noise emission equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures or
particularly noisy equipment to reduce the likelihood of any increases in construction noise
above the local noise ordinance maximum levels. The longest sustained construction period near
sensitive receptors would likely result from station construction and, as mentioned above, would
last approximately two months. However, because of the relative small scale of a typical rail
station, the use of heavy construction equipment would only occur during a short segment of that
two month period. According to the PVL Construction Staging Plan, some nighttime
construction is scheduled to occur specifically for new track layout. Because local codes allow
construction only during day-time hours, any Project-related night-time construction activity
would require the Project to obtain from the municipality written consent for an exemption, or
variance to these codes. (Ibid.)
For mobile construction activities, the delivery of construction materials, such as the rail,
rail ties, ballast, and specialized track equipment, would be accomplished using the existing rail
rather than being delivered by truck. Also, staging yards would be located strategically so as to
limit the travel time for construction crews. These processes would serve to limit the exposure
radius of traffic-related construction noise in sensitive areas. (Ibid.)
The construction activity that would create the most noise and vibration is pile driving
associated with the San Jacinto River bridge replacements, which are adjacent to the proposed
Layover Facility. However, as there are no noise sensitive receptors located within
approximately one mile of the proposed Layover Facility and the pile driving sites, construction-
related noise impacts would not occur. In addition, pile driving would be temporary in nature,
and any site specific pile driving would likely be completed in under a week. (Ibid.)
Other locations along the alignment would also be potentially impacted by construction
noise. To determine whether construction of the proposed PVL Project would result in any noise
impacts to sensitive receptors at these locations, an FTA general assessment procedure for
construction noise was conducted for a representative residential location at 228 C Street in
Perris. This location was chosen because it would be representative of a property which would be
affected by typical track laying construction represented by activities such as culvert
modifications and embankment work as well as track and road crossings construction. In
addition, due to the proposed Perris Station, it would also be affected by construction noise from
station and parking elements, which include earthwork, utility work and landscaping among
others. (Ibid.)
As a result, based on construction noise projections shown in Noise and Vibration
Technical Report C, the combined noise level for two of the noisiest pieces of construction
equipment would result in a construction noise level of 79 dBA at the property line of the
residential home. This would be below the FTA construction noise criteria described in Chapter
12 of the FTA Guidance Manual. It would also be below the 80 dB noise level set by Section
7.34.060 of the Perris General Plan. Therefore, although the total Project construction period is
estimated to last approximately 18 months, because the FTA construction noise criteria level was
not surpassed, potentially significant construction noise impacts will be less than significant.
(Ibid.)
43
2. Public Airport Noise (Threshold 4.10-5): The Project is located near to the
MARB, a public airport, but the Project would not have a potentially significant impact
regarding exposure of people to excessive noise levels and mitigation is not required. One
public airport exists within close proximity to the Project study area. The MARB airfield within
the March JPA area is primarily used by the military and commercial cargo flights. The MARB
airfields are located less than two miles from noise sensitive receptors along the PVL corridor.
However, as shown in Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11, no Project-related noise impacts were
predicted to occur at this nearby location. Therefore, people will not be exposed to significant
noise impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
3. Private Airstrip Noise (Threshold 4.10-6): The Project is located near to a
private airport, the Perris Airport, but no potentially significant Project-related noise impacts will
occur and thus impacts will be less than significant and mitigation is not required. One private
airport, the Perris Airport, exists within close proximity to the Project study area. The Perris
Airport is located across the street from the South Perris Station and Layover Facility. However,
as shown in Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11 of the EIR, no Project-related noise impacts
were predicted to occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-39.)
K. Traffic And Transportation
1. Air Traffic Patterns (Threshold 4.11-3): The Project would not result in a
change in air traffic patterns and thus no impact would result. The Project does not propose any
actions which would result in an increase in air traffic or a change in air traffic patterns, and
therefore, would not create any impacts in this context. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-34.)
2. Hazards Due to Design Features (Threshold 4.11-4): The Project would not
introduce design features that would result in a potentially significant impact regarding hazards.
The proposed Project would involve track upgrades to an existing rail line to allow for commuter
rail service, but would not introduce design features that would increase hazards. The track and
grade crossing improvements are required to bring the existing freight facility up to commuter
rail standards, thereby resulting in safer operations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-34.)
3. Emergency Access (Threshold 4.11-5): The Project would not result in
inadequate emergency access and thus the impact would be less than significant and mitigation is
not required.
The proposed Project would include the closure of two grade crossings to the public:
Poarch Road in Riverside and 6th Street in downtown Perris. The existing grade crossings at
Poarch Road are planned to be closed to the public with access by emergency vehicles only (with
a locked gate). The closure of the Poarch Road crossing would redirect public access to the small
number of residences northeast of the crossing via Watkins Drive. However, these residences are
accessible via Gernert Road. As Poarch Road will remain accessible to emergency vehicles
only, the Project would not result in a change in emergency access to this neighborhood. Closure
of the 6th Street crossing in downtown Perris would also not create inadequate emergency access
as alternate routes (4th and 7th Streets being the nearest) around the closure could be readily
used by emergency personnel. In addition, the northern end of Commercial Street would be
closed to the public (with locked gates) where it intersects with D Street and Perris Boulevard,
44
which would allow access to emergency vehicles only. As Commercial Street will remain
accessible to emergency vehicles, the Project would not result in a change in emergency access.
Local fire stations and other emergency responders would be notified of these permanent
closures to allow for adjustments in their emergency routes and to ensure that adequate
emergency access is maintained. Further, new signals and gates would be installed at 15 grade
crossings by the Project to promote safe traffic flow. The operation of the gates at the crossings
for the passing of a train could potentially delay emergency vehicles for approximately 30
seconds during the presence of a train crossing. However, given that the train crossings would
occur only twelve times each day, and would block the crossing for a total of six minutes during
a 24-hour period, the probability of an emergency vehicle experiencing this delay is slight, and
this measure will not significantly impact emergency access. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-34.)
4. Alternative Transportation (Threshold 4.11-6): The Project would not conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and thus no
impact would occur here. The implementation of the PVL commuter rail service would serve as
an alternative transportation option, help alleviate existing and future congestion in the I-215
corridor, provide bus connections to several RTA bus routes at all stations, implement
improvements at several grade crossings, and provide park-and-ride facilities, all of which would
be aligned with the policies of the Cities of Riverside and Perris to encourage increased use of
public transportation and multi-modal transportation as means of reducing roadway congestion,
to ensure adequate connections among all alternative modes, and to reconstruct existing grade
separations as necessary for the smooth flow of traffic to name a few. Moreover, the PVL
Project was contemplated as one of the 2008 Regional Transportation Planning projects for
Riverside County. (See RTP (2008).) As such, the Project would reinforce, rather than conflict
with, adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.11-34 to 40.)
L. Utilities And Service Systems
1. Wastewater (Threshold 4.12-1): The Project would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirements and thus impacts would be less than significant. The Project’s only
restroom facilities would be located on the trains themselves and at the Layover Facilities. The
toilets and other wastewater collected on the trains would be discharged into the sanitary sewer
connection at the Layover Facility and treated at the PVRWRF. In addition, the Layover Facility
would provide restroom facilities for approximately 70 crew members. The volume of waste
generated by the trains and Layover Facility would not exceed wastewater treatment capacities
established by SARWQCB. Additionally, during construction of the PVL, construction
personnel would use rented portable restrooms and sinks, which would be transported to a
wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment. Impacts would therefore be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.)
2. New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Threshold 4.12-2): The
Project would not require or result in the construction or the expansion of wastewater treatment
facilities and thus the impact would be less than significant. The Project is expected to require
water for landscaping at each of the station sites and at the Layover Facility. The Layover
Facility will require water for maintenance of landscaped areas and the crew restroom facilities.
The quantity of water necessary for the stations is very low since the landscaping will be drought
45
tolerant. The Project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities.
Wastewater will be generated at the Layover Facility, from the restrooms on the trains, and from
the crew facilities. The amount of wastewater that will be generated by the Project is very limited
and no new or expanded treatment facilities are necessary to accommodate this wastewater.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.)
3. New or Expanded Stormwater Facilities (Threshold 4.12-3): The use of
stormwater detention facilities, BMPs associated with the SWPPP, and the replacement or
reconstruction of culverts, impacts relating to stormwater drainage would be less than significant.
In accordance with the requirements of the SWRCB, which administers the State’s construction
stormwater program, the proposed Project, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, must
obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with
Construction Activity (CGP). This CGP requires the preparation and implementation of a
SWPPP to reduce or eliminate soil erosion. The SWPPP will identify BMPs to minimize erosion
and sediment loss. Parking lots will be constructed at each of the four proposed station sites.
During construction of proposed parking lots, run-off water may contain sediments that may
cause environmental effects to the stormwater drainage system. The parking lots at the proposed
stations will consist of an underground drainage system, which will connect to the local
stormwater drainage system. Parking lots at the Hunter Park Station option, March Field/Moreno
Valley Station, and South Perris Station will each have an underground detention facility for
stormwater associated with the drainage system, as a means to slow the influx of stormwater into
the local stormwater drainage system. A stormwater detention basin will also be constructed at
the Layover Facility to facilitate this same purpose. Within the PVL corridor, there are 53
culverts of which approximately 30 would be replaced or reconstructed as part of the Project.
These would be replacements or extensions of existing culverts and therefore there would be no
change in the current stormwater drainage patterns. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-7 to 8.)
4. Water Supplies (Threshold 4.12-4): The Project would use water to comply
with Fugitive Dust Rule 403 during construction. Additionally, the Project would use limited
amounts of water for the Layover Facility and use limited amounts of recycled water for
irrigation for landscaping and maintenance. The limited amount of water needed would make
any potential impact less than significant. During construction of the PVL corridor, water trucks
will supply water to the Project. The use of water trucks is required during construction to
comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403. This water will be supplied by local sources. When fully
operational, the proposed Project would require limited water supplies for landscape irrigation,
an office for approximately 70 employees at the Layover Facility, and maintenance
requirements. The proposed stations and Layover Facility would be landscaped using drought
tolerant and low water demand plants. The irrigation systems at each of the proposed stations and
Layover Facility would use recycled water from the local water providers. The Layover Facility
will connect to an existing EMWD waterline for potable water near Case Road, which is adjacent
to the site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8.)
5. Capacity of Wastewater Facilities (Threshold 4.12-5): The Project would not
involve the generation of enough waste to exceed wastewater treatment capacities and thus
impacts would be less than significant. During construction of the PVL, construction personnel
would use rented portable restrooms and sinks, which would be transported to a wastewater
treatment facility for proper treatment. The toilets and other wastewater collected on the trains
46
would be discharged into the wastewater sewer system at the Layover Facility and treated at the
PVRWRF. In addition, the Layover Facility would provide restroom facilities for approximately
70 crew members. The volume of waste generated by the trains and Layover Facility would not
exceed wastewater treatment capacities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-8 to 9.)
6. Landfills (Threshold 4.12-6): The Project would generate a limited amount of
solid waste and would not rely on landfills to dispose of such waste and thus impacts would be
less than significant. The Project will rehabilitate the existing rail, create a new by-pass track,
and build new stations and a Layover Facility. This work will generate limited solid waste
because the rail and ties that will be removed will be reused within the overall rail system and
not disposed of in a landfill. The remaining work will be new construction which will generate
used concrete forms and other waste. Limited amounts of solid waste would be generated by
employees at the Layover Facility, train passengers and personnel, and maintenance personnel
for the PVL. Although limited amounts of solid waste are anticipated during operation of the
PVL, recycling programs developed by the cities of Riverside and Perris would be implemented
at the proposed stations, and Layover Facility. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9.)
7. Solid Waste (Threshold 4.12-7): The Project would comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, which includes recycling programs
developed by the cities of Riverside and Perris, and thus impacts would be less than significant.
During construction, small quantities of non-recyclable solid waste, in the form of construction
waste and other debris will be generated by the Project. This material would be recycled and
reused to the full extent practicable. Any remaining material would be disposed of at an
approved Class III landfill in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. This includes the
California Integrated Waste Management Act requirements for municipalities to divert 50% of
their solid waste to recycling facilities by 2000. During the operation and maintenance of the
PVL, very small quantities of solid waste (miscellaneous litter and debris from the trains),
proposed stations, and Layover Facility would be disposed at a Class III landfill in compliance
with applicable rules and regulations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9.)
M. Minerals, Population & Housing, Public Services, and Recreation Resources
As set forth in Section 6.0 the EIR and the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study prepared
for the Project, the Project will not result in any potentially significant impacts under any of the
thresholds of significance applicable to Minerals, Population & Housing, Public Services, or
Recreational resources. Accordingly, and as permitted State CEQA Guidelines section 15128,
Section 6.0 of the EIR provides a “statement briefly indicating the reasons that [these resource
areas] were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” Nonetheless, the Notice of
Preparation/Initial Study, the EIR, and other evidence in the administrative record as a whole
provide substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s finding as to these resource areas.
SECTION 3
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Commission hereby finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the
EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the
47
imposition of feasible mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. The potentially significant impacts and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce those
impacts to a less then significant level are as follows:
A. Aesthetics
1. Light and Glare (Threshold 4.1-4): The proposed Project would result in
construction activities along the Project alignment that would generate light and glare.
Finding: The Mitigation Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant
level the Project’s generation of light and glare during construction. The Mitigation Measure
reflects a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project
which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact of generating light
and glare during construction as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AS-1 in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
According to Mitigation Measure AS-1, in order to limit light spill over into residential areas
during construction, light attenuating barriers or directed lighting will be used.
AS-1: To minimize light spill over into residential areas during construction, light
attenuating barriers or directed lighting shall be used.
Supporting Explanation: Portions of the Project would require the addition of lighting
that would comply with local laws. For example, development that occurs within 45 miles of the
Palomar Observatory would implicate Riverside County Ordinance 655. The proposed Citrus,
Connection, bridges, towers, and landscape walls do not require lighting and thus no impact will
ensue for this part of the Project. Construction activities for the SJBL alignment could require
night work, which could mean a potential for light spillover. Mitigation Measure AS-1 would be
implemented to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. Moreover, light
sources from the commuter trains would be mobile and would not exceed the existing light
sources in the area, and thus no potentially significant impact would arise as a result. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.1-19 to 4.1-21.)
The construction of the four stations would provide adequate lighting for safety purposes
and would remain on during operational hours. After the last train of the day, the station and
parking lights would cycle with half of the lights remaining on at a time. The lights at the layover
facility would remain on throughout the night. If construction activities occur at night, the lights
used would be in compliance with applicable ordinances. More specifically, lighting and glare
from the three Hunter Park Station options would be similar to existing light sources and
consistent with the light and glare continuity of the surrounding area, and thus the development
of this station would not result in a potentially significant light or glare impact during the day or
at night. The MorenoValley/March Field Station was already approved as part of the Meridian
Specific Plan and the EIR indicated that this station option would not create a potentially
significant impact regarding light and glare on the surrounding environs. The added light and
glare from the Downtown Perris Station would be consistent with existing lighting sources and
not result in a substantial increase in light and glare. This Station would also be required to
48
comply with city of Perris Ordinance Number 1051 due to the Station’s proximity to the Palomar
Observatory. The South Perris Station and Layover Facility would be required to comply with
Riverside Ordinance 655 due to the proximity to the Palomar Observatory, and the light fixtures
used would adhere to the city of Perris Ordinance 1051. The proposed facilities would not result
in a substantial increase in light or glare and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-20 to 4.1-21.)
B. Biological Resources
1. Sensitive Species (Threshold 4.4-1): Portions of the Project would have a
potentially significant impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.4-19 to 28.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce the potentially
significant impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status species to less than significant levels.
The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or
incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant impact to sensitive species as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines §
15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-17 in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts to sensitive species to a
less than significant level. These measures identify combination, avoidance (through appropriate
construction scheduling), and habitat replacement as mechanisms for protecting biological
resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-26 to 4.4-28.)
• BR-1: The project biologist shall prepare and conduct pre-construction training for
project personnel prior to any ground disturbing activities. At a minimum, the training
shall include a description of the target species of concern, its habitats, the general
provisions of the ESA and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provision of the
MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the ESA, the general
measures that are being implemented to conserve target species of concern as they relate
to the project, any provisions for wildlife movement, and the access routes to and from
project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.
• BR-2: Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be located to minimize the risks
of direct drainage into riparian areas or other environmentally sensitive habitats. The
project specific SWPPP shall identify appropriate construction related BMPs (such as
drip pans, straw wattles, and silt fence) to control anticipated pollutants (oils, grease,
etc.).
• BR-3: Stockpiling of materials shall be limited to disturbed areas without native
vegetation, areas to be impacted by project development or in non-sensitive habitats.
These staging areas shall be approved by the project biologist, and shall be located more
than 500 feet from environmentally sensitive areas.
49
• BR-4: “No-fueling zones” shall be established at least 10 meters (33 feet) from drainages
and fire sensitive areas.
• BR-5: The project biologist shall monitor construction activities at a minimum of three
days per week throughout the duration of the project to ensure mitigation measures are
being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target species of
concern outside the project footprint. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed
describing field conditions and construction activities. The project biologist shall be
empowered to halt work activity if necessary to confer with RCTC to ensure the proper
implementation of species habitat and habitat protection measures.
• BR-6: To avoid attracting predators that may prey upon protected species, the project site
shall be kept clean of trash and debris. Food related trash items shall be disposed of in
sealed containers and removed from the site with regular trash removal, at least weekly.
Pets of project personnel shall not be allowed on site.
• BR-7: If dead or injured listed species are located, initial notification must be made
within three working days, in writing to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in
Torrance California, and by telephone and in writing to the applicable jurisdiction,
Carlsbad Field Office of the USFWS, and the CDFG.
• BR-8: Narrow Endemic Plants have the potential to occur in the areas near the San
Jacinto River. If Narrow Endemic Plants are identified 90% of the population shall be
preserved, as required in the MSHCP.
• BR-9: There is a potential to impact western spadefoot toads with the work on the San
Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel Bridge. A pre-construction survey for
western spadefoot toads shall be conducted prior to site disturbance to determine if
western spadefoot toads are present within the designated construction area. Should
western spadefoot toads be identified within the construction area, the project biologist
shall prepare a relocation program that shall be approved by RCA prior to
implementation.
• BR-10: The MSHCP requires that preconstruction surveys shall conducted within 30
days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take.
• BR-11: If nests are identified at the billboards located on the I-215 corridor, then a
project biologist shall determine if the nests are active. If the biologist determines a nest
to be active, appropriate buffers shall be used until the birds have fledged and the nest
shall be removed with the approval of regulatory agencies.
• BR-12: There is a potential for impacts to southwestern willow flycatchers in the
southern area of the Box Springs Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds,
culvert work proposed for this area shall be completed outside the bird breeding season
(May 15th to July 17th) [Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA) 2004].
50
• BR-13: There is a potential for impacts to least Bell’s vireo in the southern area of Box
Springs Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work proposed for
this area shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (April 10th to July 31st)
(SAWA, 2004).
• BR-14: The project is within the SKR Fee area. RCTC shall pay $500 per acre to the
SKR development outside the existing right-of-way. This fee shall be paid at the time of
the grading permit submittal. The fee will include sites for the Citrus Connection, Hunter
Park Station, South Perris, and Layover Facility (approximately 65 acres).
• BR-15: There is a potential for impacts to California horned lark in the area of the South
Perris Station option and the Layover Facility if the agricultural fields are allowed to
allow. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, the ground preparation work shall be
conducted outside of the bird nesting season (March 1st to July 31st) (County of Santa
Barbara, 2009) and maintained to ensure that no birds then use the area for nesting prior
to construction.
• BR-16: There is a potential for impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher within the
Box Springs Canyon Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work
proposed for this area shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (February 15th
to August 30th) (SAWA, 2004).
• BR-17: Prior to any construction impacts to jurisdictional areas, RCTC shall obtain
permit approval from the USACE, CDFG and the RWQCB. The mitigation for
jurisdictional area impacts will be to purchase mitigation credits for permanent impacts at
a 1:1 ratio (total of 0.085 acres) from a local mitigation bank. The temporary impacts,
0.335 acres, will be mitigated by restoration/enhancement on land owned by RCTC near
or adjacent to the project area.
Additionally, as mitigation, the Commission, as a Permittee under the MSHCP, will comply
with the requirements outlined in the MSHCP, including the need for a 30-day Pre-Construction
Burrowing Owl Survey.
Supporting Explanation (Sensitive Plant Species):
Direct Impacts: The potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species was identified within
the identified San Jacinto River during the initial preparation of the MSHCP. Both the BNSF and
SJBL are highly disturbed and no sensitive plant species were identified during habitat
evaluations. The existing SJBL intersects MSHCP criteria cells, 545, 635, 721, 3276, and 3378
as shown on Figure 4.4-6. Cells 545, 635, and 721 are part of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7,
which is considered a wildlife corridor south of Box Springs Park and north of the freeway.
However, cells 3276 and 3378 are within Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, which is located at
the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. Proposed Constrained
Linkage 19, which in addition to important consideration as a wildlife corridor is identified as
having a potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Because the MSHCP identifies the area as
having a potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species, a habitat evaluation is required as well as
51
bloom period surveys if appropriate habitat is present. See specifically Mitigation Measure
BR-8 below. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-19 to 28.)
Indirect Impacts: There are no indirect impacts to sensitive plant species as a result of the
Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.)
Supporting Explanation (Sensitive Wildlife Species):
Direct Impacts: The Project is outside the SKR Core Reserve areas but is inside the fee
area. Even though no SKR were found during any of the biological surveys of the Project site
(Revised Habitat Assessment Report (2009)), mitigation fees will nonetheless be voluntarily paid
pursuant to the SKR HCP. (See Mitigation Measure BR-14.) The Western spadefoot toad has
the potential to inhabit the San Jacinto River area, near the SJBL. The Project is proposing to
replace the San Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto River Bridge Overflow Channel. In
order to replace the two bridges, there will need to be work conducted from both within the two
channels as well adjacent to the channels. Therefore there is a potential significant impact to the
western spadefoot toad and mitigation, specifically Mitigation Measure BR-9, is required to
reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.)
Indirect Impacts: Through the Box Springs Mountain Reserve, and MSHCP criteria cells
545, 635, and 721, the corridor will stay in the pre-Project configuration with a single rail track.
Only rehabilitation work and minor culvert improvements are anticipated within this area. The
culvert work proposed for the area is minor (e.g., wing walls) and related to reducing the
potential for sediment erosion near the culvert outlets. This culvert work would be subject to
USACE, CDFG, and the RWQCB permitting requirements, as set forth in Mitigation Measure
BR-17. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.)
There are a variety of habitat types adjacent to the ROW within the area. The habitat
types include sage scrub habitat as well as riparian habitat. Based on the potential for sensitive
birds to be associated with these habitats, it is assumed that the following birds will inhabit the
area; coastal California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher and the least Bell’s vireo.
Therefore there is a potential to indirectly impact these birds and mitigation is required to reduce
the potential significant impact to less than significant, specifically Mitigation Measures BR-
12, BR-13, BR-14, BR-16, BR-17. (Ibid.)
Because of the disturbed nature of the ROW and the ongoing maintenance activities of
the active rail corridors, direct impacts to burrowing owls are not anticipated. However, there is
available nesting habitat for the burrowing owls adjacent to the existing ROW’s. Protocol
surveys for burrowing owl both within the corridor and in adjacent areas determined that there
are no owls present. Since there is a potential to indirectly impact burrowing owls, mitigation is
required to reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant, specifically
Mitigation Measure BR-10. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation (Raptor Habitat, Nesting, Foraging): Within the existing
BNSF and PVL rail corridors regular maintenance occurs that greatly limits the growth of any
vegetation, including non-native grasslands, which would be considered foraging habitat. In the
52
area of the Citrus Connection, the undeveloped land is very disturbed from the proposed
development activities on the site. There are non-native grasslands in this area, but the Project
would only impact a small swath of non-native grassland, less than an acre, with the installation
of the ballast rock, ties, and rail. This impact would not be considered significant and therefore
no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-23.)
Further south, along the I-215 corridor, there are a series of large billboards located
within the ROW. Within many of these billboards are raptor nests. It is assumed that the raptors
from these nests utilize the larger undeveloped areas located off of the existing ROW for
foraging. These billboards are planned to be relocated within the ROW, a few feet closer to the
edge of the ROW. There are potential impacts to these raptors and nests and therefore mitigation
is required, specifically Mitigation Measure BR-11. (Ibid.)
The station locations and Layover Facility are proposed on land that is either highly
disturbed (Palmyrita, Marlborough), developed (Downtown Perris), or disturbed land (Columbia,
South Perris, and the Layover Facility). Since the areas are already disturbed, there is a minor
impact to raptor foraging habitat, but this impact would be less than significant and therefore no
mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
2. Riparian Habitat (Threshold 4.4-2): There would be temporary and permanent
impacts to the areas of the Project where culverts would be extended or replaced. There is
sensitive and riparian habitat within the corridor associated with the culverts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-
23.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce temporary and
permanent impacts to riparian habitat to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures
reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project
which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to riparian habitat
identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-17, set
forth above and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce
impacts to sensitive species to a less than significant level. These measures identify
combination, avoidance (through appropriate construction scheduling), and habitat replacement
as mechanisms for protecting biological resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-26 to 4.4-28.)
Supporting Explanation: There are sensitive habitats associated with the sensitive
species identified previously that are adjacent to the existing SJBL. In addition to the areas of
adjacent sensitive habitat, there are very small, dislocated areas of riparian habitat, or
jurisdictional areas, within the corridor that are associated with the culverts that pass beneath the
track bed. These culverts allow stormwater to flow from one side of the track to the other. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 28.)
The Project proposes to extend or replace various culverts on the SJBL ROW.
Additionally, the Project is proposing to replace the existing bridges at the San Jacinto River and
the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. During the jurisdictional evaluation of the culverts and
bridge locations, there was a 50-foot study area identified surrounding each of the culverts
53
evaluated as identified in the Jurisdictional Determination Report (see Technical Report F).
Within this study area there were federally protected wetlands identified within the ROW at only
one work location. At the remaining work areas there were jurisdictional impacts identified for
both USACE and CDFG. Both temporary and permanent impacts would occur, as identified in
Table 4.4-3 of the Draft EIR. The permanent impacts could occur in areas where new culverts
would be placed and temporary impacts would be related to areas affected by construction at the
ends of the culverts and at the bridge locations. However, mitigation would reduce impacts to a
less than significant level. (Ibid.)
A combination of measures designed at education, avoidance, and habitat replacement
(where necessary) will help mitigate impacts on biological resources. Habitat replacement is
necessary where permanent impacts to habitat are unavoidable such as those impacts related to
the culvert improvement work along the Project corridor. Potentially jurisdictional riparian
habitat has developed over the years because of local drainage being focused by the culverts.
Since these areas are fragmented and not connected to either larger habitat areas or part of a
natural riparian system the ecological value is low. The regulatory agencies require appropriate
mitigation for jurisdiction areas prior to issuing permits for the Project, and that performance
standard is set forth in the Mitigation Measures required to reduce biological impacts to less than
significant levels.
3. Wetlands (Threshold 4.4-3): The Project proposes to extend or replace various
culverts on the SJBL Row and is also proposing to replace the existing bridges at the San Jacinto
River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. Federally protected wetlands were identified
at one work station within a 50 foot study area, and there were both temporary and permanent
impacts that would result from the work proposed for the culverts. The permanent impacts could
result where the culverts are added, and temporary impacts could occur as a result of the
construction at the ends of the culverts and at the bridge locations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 28.)
Finding: Mitigation Measures BR-17 would reduce temporary and permanent impacts to
wetlands to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measure reflects a change or alteration
that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to wetlands identified in the EIR. (State
CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-17, set forth above
and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce impacts to
wetlands to a less than significant level. According to BR-17, RCTC would be required to
secure necessary permits from USACOE, CDFG, and RWQCB, resource agencies that will
collectively ensure that all impacts to wetlands are appropriately avoided and/or mitigated
through habitat replacement or otherwise. The EIR also sets forth an enforceable performance
standard that sets a minimum mitigation ratio for any impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 24, 4.4-
28.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project proposes to extend or replace existing culverts on
the SJBL ROW and is also proposing to replace existing bridges at the San Jacinto River and the
San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. A 50-foot study area surrounding each of the culverts
identified federally protected wetlands at only one work location. Both permanent (0.038 acres)
54
and temporary (0.145 acres) impacts to USACOE jurisdictional areas would occur as a result, but
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 24.) Similarly,
both temporary (0.335 acres) and permanent (0.085 acres) impacts to CDFG jurisdictional areas
would occur as a result of implementation of the project, but impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation. (Ibid.)
A combination of measures designed at education, avoidance, and habitat replacement
(where necessary) will help mitigate impacts on biological resources. Habitat replacement is
necessary where permanent impacts to habitat are unavoidable such as those impacts related to
the culvert improvement work along the Project corridor. According to BR-17, the performance
mitigation standard for impacts to jurisdictional areas would be to purchase mitigation credits at
a 1:1 ratio (total of 0.085 acres) from a local mitigation bank. The temporary impacts, 0.335
acres, will be mitigated by restoration/enhancement on land owned by RCTC near or adjacent to
the project area.. Potentially jurisdictional riparian habitat has developed over the years because
of local drainage being focused by the culverts. Since these areas are fragmented and not
connected to either larger habitat areas or part of a natural riparian system the ecological value is
low. The regulatory agencies require appropriate mitigation for jurisdiction areas prior to issuing
permits for the Project, and that performance standard is set forth in the Mitigation Measures
required to reduce biological impacts to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
C. Cultural Resources
1. Historical Resource (Threshold 4.5-1):
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce temporary and
permanent impacts to historic resources to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures
reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project
to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to historic resources identified
in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2 and CR-4
set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts to historic
resources to less than significant levels.
• CR-1: A qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall monitor ground
disturbing construction activities between MP 3.50 and 4.50, and between MP 5.60
and 6.50. These monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert
construction equipment to examine potential resources, assess significance, and offer
recommendations for the procedures deemed appropriate to either further investigate
or mitigate any adverse impacts. CA-RIV-2384, CA-RIV-4497/H and AE-CB-2 sites
shall be avoided during project construction through the establishment of ESA and
delineated by exclusionary fencing.
• CR-2: Replacement of four wood box culverts (MP 1.60, 5.30, 6.11 and 18.10) and
two bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80) along the SJBL alignment shall be mitigated by
detailed documentation according to Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record/Historic America Landscape Survey standards.
55
• CR-4: In the event cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during
construction, ground-disturbing activity will cease in the immediate area. A qualified
archaeologist (cultural resources) and/or paleontologist (paleontological resources)
shall be retained to examine the materials encountered, assess significance, and
recommend a course of action to further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts
to those resources that have been encountered
Supporting Explanation: No cultural resources were identified near the Citrus
Connection; however, sediments within the Citrus Connection are of Holocene age and thus
Mitigation Measure CR-1 would be required to reduce construction impacts to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-10 to 15.)
Five cultural resources were identified near the SJBL alignment. The SJBL Railroad is
considered eligible for listing on the CRGR Criterion 1. The first of the three contributing
segments of the SJBL Railroad within the PVL corridor is located in the city of Riverside from
Marlborough Avenue south of Spruce Street. The second contributing segment is located in the
city of Riverside from Gernert Road south to the Box Springs Overpass, while the third
contributing segment is located in the city of Perris from the “D” Street off ramp of I-215
southeast along Case Road. These three segments retain integrity of location, setting, design, and
workmanship, and are therefore considered to be contributing components to the larger SJBL
Railroad. These three segments contain tracks, wood box culverts, and bridges. Since the
proposed PVL Project will not modify the setting and engineering of the tracks, and the double
track will not be constructed at these locations, the Project will have no significant effect on this
portion of the SJBL Railroad. However, four wood box culverts (MP 1.60, 5.30, 6.11, and
18.10) and two bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80) are unique in their construction and are an integral
part of the segments of the SJBL that retain integrity. Mitigation Measure CR-2 is required to
reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.)
Proposed development in the areas of CA-RIV-2384 and CA-RIV-4497/H involves
upgrading the existing tracks, which would not impact the features of the site, and thus the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJBL alignment at these locations would not
have a potentially significant impact and no mitigation is required. The distance separating AE-
CB-2 from the SJBL alignment (over 52 feet) means that the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the SJBL alignment will not have a potentially significant impact on this site.
CA-RIV-805, a prehistoric site, which according to geological sources contains Holocene and
thus holds the potential for buried cultural deposits, was tested and the testing concluded that no
intact buried deposits are present and that surface artifacts represent the only remnants of the site.
The site is therefore not eligible for CRHR and no impacts will result. (Ibid.)
No historical resources were identified near to the Hunter Park Station options. Nor were
any such resources identified near to the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station, and this
Station was already the subject of the Specific Plan for the Meridian Business Center, which also
determined that there were no impacts here. No historical resources were identified at the South
Perris Station and the Layover Facility. However, sediments in this area are of Holocene age and
thus Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels. No historical resources were identified near the vicinity of the six radio control towers
56
and three microwave tower sites. Nor were any such resources identified near to any of the
proposed landscape walls. (Ibid.)
One historical resource was identified near the proposed Downtown Perris Station, which
is the Perris Depot—currently listed on the NRHP under Criteria A and C. It is located east of
the SJBL ROW and outside of the construction footprint for the Downtown Perris Station. The
platform for the proposed Downtown Perris Station would be at-grade, and located west of the
existing rail line and north of the historic Depot. Because of this designation, construction
activities of the Downtown Perris Station have been planned to avoid altering, impairing, or
diminishing any of the qualities for which the historic depot is valued. Therefore, the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Downtown Perris Station will not
adversely change the significance of this historical resource. (Ibid.)
2. Archeological Resources (Threshold 4.5-2): The proposed Project could have
potentially significant impacts on archeological resources.
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
impacts to archeological resources to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures
reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project
to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to archeological resources
identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-4, set forth
above and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce impacts
to archeological resources to less than significant levels.
Supporting Explanation: No archaeological resources were identified in the vicinity of
the proposed development sites within the PVL corridor. However, there is a potential for buried
prehistoric cultural deposits that could be impacted by ground disturbing activities greater than
four feet and thus Mitigation Measure CR-1 is necessary to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13.)
3. Paleontological Resources (Threshold 4.5-3): Portions of the Project have the
potential to significantly impact paleontological resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-13 to 16.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outline below would reduce potentially significant
impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures
reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project
to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources
identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-3 and CR-4 set forth
in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce impacts to paleontological
resources to less than significant levels.
• CR-3: Ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist at
the Citrus Connection, South Perris Station and Layover Facility. The monitor shall
also be present at locations where excavation is anticipated to be deeper than four
57
feet. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction
equipment to allow for removal of specimens. The monitor shall be equipped to
salvage any fossils unearthed during project construction, and shall be prepared to
collect sediment samples that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil
invertebrates and vertebrates.
To mitigate adverse impacts to any paleontological resources encountered during
construction, recovered specimens shall be identified, prepared for permanent
reservation, and curated at the San Bernardino County Natural History Museum with
permanent retrievable paleontological storage. A report of findings that includes an
itemized inventory of specimens shall accompany the recovered specimens for
curation and storage.
Supporting Explanation: There are no unique geologic features near the PVL corridor.
However, portions of the Project are sensitive for paleontological resources and there Mitigation
Measure CR-3 will be required to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. The Citrus
Connection contains Holocene-age young alluvial fans, which are not significant for
paleontological resources. The SJBL alignment traverses types of sediments that comprise old
and very old alluvial deposits, which have been known to yield paleontological resources. The
Marlborough Avenue option for the Hunter Station consists of old alluvial fan deposits, which
have the potential to produce paleontological resources, although extensive grading and
disturbance to native sediments make uncovering such resources unlikely, and thus there is no
potential for a significant impact here. Construction activities at the Columbia Avenue and
Palmyrita Avenue options include old alluvial fan deposits that may yield paleontological
resources and thus Mitigation Measure C-3 is necessary. The Moreno Valley/March Field
Station, the Downtown Perris Station, and the South Perris Station and Layover Facility are also
mapped as old and very old alluvial fans and thus Mitigation Measure C-3 is necessary here as
well. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-13 to 16.)
4. Human Remains (Threshold 4.5-4): Human remains are not anticipate to be
uncovered during site preparation or construction. However, in the event that human remains are
unearthed, potentially significant impacts could occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 to 16.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
impacts to human remains to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a
change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to human remains identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-5 set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts to human remains to less
than significant levels.
• CR-5: In the event that unanticipated discovery of human remains occurs during
project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the State CEQA
Guidelines shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that upon discovery,
no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
58
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner must be
contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are
determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall identify the Most
Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the
appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods
in accordance with PRC §5097.98.
Supporting Explanation: The Project is not expected to disturb any human remains and
thus no impacts are anticipated, but if human remains are uncovered, then Mitigation Measure
CR-5 will be followed. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 to 16.)
D. Hazardous And Hazardous Materials
1. Hazardous Materials Sites (Threshold 4.7-4): Portions of the Project area may
involve soil that could have a potentially significant impact related to the existence of hazardous
materials.
Finding: Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
impacts involving soil that may contain hazardous materials to less than significant levels. The
Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or
incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts
associated with soil that may contain hazardous materials identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HHM-1 and, if
necessary, HHM-2 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce
impacts associated with soil that may contain hazardous materials to less than significant levels.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.)
• HHM-1: Soil contamination is suspected at the following locations:
o 6400 Fischer Road, Riverside – diesel AST release
o 13260 Highway 215, Riverside – gasoline UST release
o 2 South D Street, Perris – gasoline UST release
o 24 D Street, Perris – gasoline UST release
o 101 and 102 South D Street, Perris – gasoline UST release and waste oil release
o 210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris – gasoline and diesel UST release
Prior to construction, soil characterization shall occur and includes sampling and
analysis, and drilling shall be coordinated with and under the guidance of the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. RCTC shall contract with a
59
qualified environmental consultant to determine if the soil has been sampled,
characterized and disposed of properly according to state and federal regulations.
• HHM-2: If the Palmyrita Avenue site is selected for the Hunter Park Station, but is
not properly remediated prior to acquisition, RCTC shall require the responsible party
to remove and remediate hazardous conditions and materials pursuant to the
requirements of the local, state, and federal regulations. If, prior to acquisition, the
current property owner does not complete proper remediation, the Commission shall
perform the remediation in accordance with a Health and Safety Plan, and in
accordance with the required protocols for the removal and disposal of hazardous
materials. Because of the potential for soil contamination, sampling and disposal
plans shall be implemented prior to Pre-Construction according to a site-specific
hazardous materials investigation work plan.
Supporting Explanation: The HMCS has identified locations of potential environmental
concern within and adjacent to the PVL corridor, which are set forth in Figure 4.7-1 of the EIR
and discussed below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.)
The Citrus Connection and selected Hunter Park Station options at Palmyrita and
Marlborough were historically used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it is possible that
increased amounts of pesticides and/or herbicides are present at these sites. Soil excavation
activities are proposed to take place at this site prior to the construction phase of the Project and,
as such, there may be hazards related to the soil for construction workers and the environment.
Mitigation Measure HM-2 will be implemented, to the extent necessary, if the Palmyrita Avenue
site is selected for the Hunter Park Station to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level. (Ibid.)
According to the EDR contained in the HMCS, approximately 75 gallons of diesel were
released onto the railroad tracks during an automobile accident in 2001, to the south of Fair Isle
Drive. It is possible that residual diesel is currently present on the railroad tracks. Since track
rehabilitation is proposed for this segment, soil would not be disturbed or excavated, and
therefore, the health and safety of the construction workers would not be affected. The health and
safety of the general public and railroad workers would not be affected during the operation and
maintenance of the PVL. Therefore, there would be no impacts from the release by the
implementation of the Project. (Ibid.)
A number of properties adjacent to the PVL corridor were identified as locations subject
to unauthorized releases of substances from USTs and ASTs. The EDR records indicate that the
releases may have impacted soil and groundwater. These releases may have an adverse effect to
workers during excavation and dewatering activities in the construction phase. The following
sites may have negative effects to the health and safety of construction workers during
construction activities of the Project, due to the proposed disturbance or excavation of soil within
the PVL corridor: 6400 Fischer Road, Riverside (diesel AST release); 13260 Highway 215,
Riverside (gasoline UST release); 2 South D Street, Perris (gasoline UST release); 24 D Street,
Perris (gasoline UST release); 101 and 102 South D Street, Perris (gasoline UST release and
waste oil release); 210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris (gasoline and diesel UST release).
(Ibid.)
60
The potential for soil contamination at the sites discussed herein requires implementation
of Mitigation Measure HHM-1, which requires soil sampling to allow for soil characterization to
ensure it is properly handled to mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.)
2. Emergency Evacuation Plan (Threshold 4.7-7): The Project will require
temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to avoid street closures.
Finding: The Mitigation Measure outlined below would reduce potentially significant
impacts from the temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to less than significant
levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required,
or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant
impacts associated with temporary re-routing of emergency response identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HHM-3 set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with the
temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to less than significant levels.
• HHM-3: Prior to construction, RCTC shall prepare a traffic management plan. The
traffic management plan shall be prepared in consultation with local jurisdictions to
determine detour routes, length and timing of any closures, temporary access routes,
signage, coordination with police and fire departments regarding changes in
emergency access routes. An additional component of the plan shall be coordinating
with local emergency response agencies to identify emergency evacuation routes in
the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities. This plan is intended to cover the
requirements of Mitigation Measure HHM-4 and TP-6.
Supporting Explanation: During construction activities, the proposed Project will
require temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to avoid street closures. However,
prior to construction, local emergency services for the Project so that alternative travel routes can
be identified prior to the road closure. Routine operation and maintenance of the PVL corridor
would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans and Mitigation Measure HHM-
3 will be implemented to ensure impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-17.)
3. Wildland Fires (Threshold 4.7-8): The proposed Project may have potentially
significant impacts with regard to incidents involving wildland fires.
Finding: The Mitigation Measure outlined below would reduce potentially impacts with
regard to incidents of wildland fires to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measure
reflects a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project
to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with incidents
involving wildland fires identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HHM-4 set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with incidents
involving wildland fires to less than significant levels.
• HHM-4: See Mitigation Measure HHM-3, above.
61
Supporting Explanation: A section of the PVL corridor, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue to
the I-215/SR-60 Interchange is shown to be in a wildland area that may contain substantial forest
fire risks and hazards. This area of Box Springs Mountain Reserve has been incorporated into a
Wildfire Management Plan, and is under State of California responsibility for fire protection.
Evacuation plans caused to be put into effect by a wildland fire may be affected during
construction activities because the proposed Project will temporarily close streets or grade
crossings. However, routine operation and maintenance of the Project would not interfere with
daily operations at the grade crossings and streets associated with these crossings. Mitigation
Measure HHM-4 will be implemented, which involves the preparation of a traffic management
plant and coordination with local jurisdictions that will reduce potential impacts to emergency
response or evacuation routes for wildland fires to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.7-17 to 18.)
E. Noise And Vibration
1. Noise Generation (Threshold 4.10-1): The proposed Project would generate
noise levels that would be potentially significant.
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
noise impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or
alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with noise generation identified
in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NV-1 and NV-2 set forth
in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with noise
generation to less than significant levels.
• NV-1: Noise barriers shall be constructed at the following locations (based on 30%
Design Drawings):
o NB 1: 10’ high and 530’ long between 264+00 and 269+00
o NB 2: 13’ high and 560’ long between Sta. 269+00 and Sta. 275+00
o NB 3: 9’ high and 680’ long between Sta. 283+00 and Sta. 289+00
o NB 4: 12’ high and 600’ long between Sta. 289+00 and Sta. 295+00
o NB 5: 8’ high and 500’ long between Sta. 298+00 and Sta. 303+00
o NB 6: 8’ high and 800’ long between Sta. 303+00 and Sta. 311+00
o NB 7: 10’ high and 700’ long between Sta. 322+00 and Sta. 330+00
o NB 8: 11’ high and 320’ long between Sta. 331+00 and Sta. 334+00
o NB 9: 13’ high and 1,100’ long between Sta. 324+00 and Sta. 333+00
o NB 10: 13’ high and 210’ long between Sta. 333+00 and Sta. 335+00
o NB 11: 9’ high and 300’ long between Sta. 336+00 and Sta. 339+00
o NB 12: 11’ high and 300’ long between Sta. 339+00 and Sta. 342+00
o NB 13: 10’ high and 400’ long between Sta. 342+00 and Sta. 346+00
• NV-2: Based on the topography and engineering constraints at seven residential
locations and St. Georges Episcopal Church (eight properties total), the use of noise
62
barriers will not provide adequate noise reduction. Improving the sound insulation of
these properties by replacing windows facing the tracks with new sound-rated
windows, as well as caulking and sealing gaps in the building envelope, eliminating
operable windows and installing specially designed solid-core doors, will reduce
noise to below the FTA impact criteria, and to less than significant levels. Sound
insulation for eight properties shall be provided at the following locations:
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine
Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East
Campus View Drive)
o Southwest corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on
Mount Vernon Avenue)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first two homes on
Kentwood Drive)
o Southeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill
Drive)
o St. Georges Episcopal Church
Supporting Explanation: Tables 4.10-p, 4.10-10, and 4.10-11 show the results from
Noise and Vibration Technical Report C of the EIR for the Project, and identify the proposed
mitigation and the number of decibels that the mitigation would reduce noise by. Utilizing FTA
noise impact criteria, the results of the noise study indicate that both moderate and severe noise
impacts would occur at several locations along the proposed PVL corridor. For the 2012
operational year, moderate impacts were predicted at 83 separate Category 2 locations along the
alignment. Of these 83 impact locations, 18 were predicted to be severe. The predicted noise
impacts were located in the UCR area. Noise predictions at Category 3 locations revealed
moderate impacts at three locations which included St. George’s Episcopal Church, Crest
Community Baptist Church, and Highland Elementary School. As a result of the noise
prediction analysis, Mitigation Measures NV-1 and NV-2 were identified and if implemented
would eliminate anticipated noise impacts at noise sensitive properties to a less than significant
level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-27 to 32, 38-42.)
Trains: Under the FTA methodology, noise impacts are projected at several Category 2
land uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) located along the SJBL in
Riverside, north of the UCR campus. The majority of the predicted impacts would be a result of
the train horns being sounded by trains scheduled to pass through areas with sensitive land uses
prior to 7 AM, the demarcation between nighttime and daytime in the calculation of Ldn. Noise
from grade crossing warning devices would only affect homes nearby the intersection and would
be minimal in comparison to the sounding of train horns. Noise impacts are projected at a total of
83 residential locations, all of which would be located in the UCR area. Impacts at 18 of the total
83 residential locations would be characterized as severe. The FTA severe impact designation is
analogous to the CEQA potentially significant impact. Tables 4.10-9 and 4.10-10 present the
findings of the noise analysis and its characterization for Category 2 land uses, along the length
of the SJBL. (Ibid.)
63
Noise impacts are also predicted for three Category 3 buildings. In the UCR area of
Riverside, these impact locations would include the school gymnasium of the Highland
Elementary School, St George’s Episcopal Church, and Crest Community Baptist Church. None
of these impacts would be severe. No impacts on Category 3 buildings were predicted in Perris.
Table 4.10-11 presents the land use Category 3 noise impact predictions. (Ibid.)
Stations and Parking Lots: Noise due to the operation of a train station is primarily
associated with automobile traffic entering and exiting the station drop-off and parking areas.
The noise analysis considered the parking lots at each of the four proposed opening year stations.
The proposed station parking lots would range from approximately 440 to 880 cars. However, all
noise sensitive receptors are located beyond the FTA screening distances (as shown in Appendix
C of Noise and Vibration Technical Report C) for all proposed stations and parking lots. This is
significant since screening distances are conservatively based on the lowest FTA threshold of
impact as indicated in Chapter 4 of the FTA Guidance Manual. As a result sensitive receptors
located beyond this distance would not experience noise disturbance from station or parking lot
operations (see section 4.2 of the FTA Guidance Manual). Noise from station emergency
generators would also not result in any impact from stations as they are not considered to be a
normal operating component of the Project and would only be used in the event of an emergency
(e.g, a power outage). (Ibid.)
Layover Facility: Trains in the vicinity of the Layover Facility in South Perris would be
traveling at low rates of speed and therefore will not be significant sources of noise. In addition,
the proposed Layover Facility (for overnight storage and light, routine maintenance of the trains)
is located substantially further away from noise sensitive resources than 1,000 feet, the FTA
noise screening distance for noise sensitive land uses with respect to noise from a Layover
Facility. As a result, noise impacts related to the Layover Facility will not be significant. (Ibid.)
2. Groundborne Vibration and Noise (Threshold 4.10-2): The proposed Project
could result in potentially significant groundborne vibration.
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
groundborne vibration and noise impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation
Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into,
the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with
groundborne vibration and noise identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NV-3 and NV-4 set forth
in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with
groundborne vibration and noise to less than significant levels.
• NV-3: Ballast Mats: A ballast mat consists of a rubber (such as shredded rubber tires),
cork or other type of resilient elastomeric pad that is placed under the normal ballast, ties,
and rail. The ballast mat shall be placed on a concrete or asphalt layer to be most
effective. Ballast mats can provide 5 to 12 dB attenuation at frequencies above 25 to
30Hz.
64
• NV-4: Resiliently Supported Ties (Under-Tie Pads): This treatment consists of resilient
rubber pads placed underneath concrete ties. A resiliently supported tie system consists of
concrete ties supported by rubber pads. The rails are fastened directly to the concrete ties
using standard rail clips.
Note: Implementation by RCTC of either one of the above described mitigation measures
(NV-3 or NV-4) between Sta. 263+00 and 275+00 will eliminate the 2 VdB impact
predicted in the UCR area of Riverside from train operations from the proposed Project
(affecting a total of 14 homes extending approximately 1,200 feet along the eastern side
of the proposed PVL alignment just south of Spruce Street and north of Hyatt
Elementary School). (See Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5).
Supporting Explanation: Details of the vibration predictions are presented in the EIR in
Tables 4.10-12 (residential) and 4.10-13 (residential) and 4.10-14 (institutional). (Draft EIR, pp.
4.10-32 to 35, 38-42.)
Rail Operations: Utilizing FTA vibration criteria, the results of the PVL vibration study
indicate that future SCRRA/Metrolink rail vibration levels generated under the 2012 operational
year would be generally in ranges below the FTA vibration impact thresholds. However,
vibration impacts would occur along one residential section of the PVL corridor. Affected homes
are located in the UCR area just south of Spruce Street and north of the Highland Elementary
School along the eastern side of the proposed PVL alignment. A total of 14 homes extending
approximately 1,200 feet along the proposed alignment would be affected. The distances
between the PVL alignment and existing homes in this section range from 80 to 90 feet. Train
operations from the proposed PVL Project will result in vibration impacts in the UCR area of
Riverside. Mitigation measures to reduce vibration include the installation of ballast mats or
resiliently supported ties (under-tie pads), as set forth in Mitigation measures NV-3 and NV-4,
and will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.)
Stations, Parking Lots, & the Layover Facility: Trains in the vicinity of stations and the
Layover Facility would be traveling at low rates of speed and therefore will not result in any
potentially significant vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, automobile
parking areas would be utilized by rubber-tired vehicles. Rubber-tired vehicles do not generate
vibration impacts because of the nature of tire-pavement interaction with respect to vibration
impacts. Accordingly, no impacts are expected. (Ibid.)
3. Permanent Noise Increase (Threshold 4.10-3): Impacts related to an increase
in ambient noise levels would arise from wheel squeal at certain locations of the Project. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.10-36.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
noise impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or
alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with noise generation identified
in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
65
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NV-1 and NV-2 set forth
in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with noise
generation to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-36 to 4.10-37.)
• NV-1: Noise barriers shall be constructed at the following locations (based on 30%
Design Drawings):
o NB 1: 10’ high and 530’ long between 264+00 and 269+00
o NB 2: 13’ high and 560’ long between Sta. 269+00 and Sta. 275+00
o NB 3: 9’ high and 680’ long between Sta. 283+00 and Sta. 289+00
o NB 4: 12’ high and 600’ long between Sta. 289+00 and Sta. 295+00
o NB 5: 8’ high and 500’ long between Sta. 298+00 and Sta. 303+00
o NB 6: 8’ high and 800’ long between Sta. 303+00 and Sta. 311+00
o NB 7: 10’ high and 700’ long between Sta. 322+00 and Sta. 330+00
o NB 8: 11’ high and 320’ long between Sta. 331+00 and Sta. 334+00
o NB 9: 13’ high and 1,100’ long between Sta. 324+00 and Sta. 333+00
o NB 10: 13’ high and 210’ long between Sta. 333+00 and Sta. 335+00
o NB 11: 9’ high and 300’ long between Sta. 336+00 and Sta. 339+00
o NB 12: 11’ high and 300’ long between Sta. 339+00 and Sta. 342+00
o NB 13: 10’ high and 400’ long between Sta. 342+00 and Sta. 346+00
• NV-2: Based on the topography and engineering constraints at seven residential
locations and St. Georges Episcopal Church (eight properties total), the use of noise
barriers will not provide adequate noise reduction. Improving the sound insulation of
these properties by replacing windows facing the tracks with new sound-rated
windows, as well as caulking and sealing gaps in the building envelope, eliminating
operable windows and installing specially designed solid-core doors, will reduce
noise to below the FTA impact criteria, and to less than significant levels. Sound
insulation for eight properties shall be provided at the following locations:
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine
Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East
Campus View Drive)
o Southwest corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on
Mount Vernon Avenue)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street)
o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first two homes on
Kentwood Drive)
o Southeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill
Drive)
o St. Georges Episcopal Church
Supporting Explanation: As shown in the noise impact tables, Table 4.10-9 and Table
4.10-11, in areas near downtown Riverside, there would be no noise impacts as the dominant
existing noise level source at sensitive areas near the PVL would be from the existing rail
activity along the BNSF alignment. However, in the UCR campus area along the existing SJBL
66
alignment, there are several sensitive properties at which both moderate and severe noise
impacts are predicted to occur. Permanent noise impacts associated with increased passage of
trains would be mitigated through the implementation of Mitigation Measures NV-1 and NV-2.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-36 to 37.)
In addition to noise from train horns, locomotives and crossing bells, wheel squeal on
tight radius curves (<10 times the SCRRA/Metrolink locomotive wheel base or 900 feet) can
contribute to community noise levels. Table 4.10-15 of the EIR lists all short radius curves along
the proposed PVL alignment. As wheel squeal noise can be significant, wayside applicators will
be installed as part of Project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius curves.
Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to
reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Transit Cooperative
Research Program – “Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual” (Transportation Research Board, 1997)
a report which was sponsored by the FTA, the use of a petroleum lubricant would reduce squeal
while the use of a water lubricant would eliminate squeal. These steps taken to reduce wheel
squeal from the commuter rail operations would also reduce the existing wheel squeal from
BNSF freight trains, which do and would continue to operate along the SJBL. (Ibid.)
The only location at which the construction of new PVL rail would result in a short radius
curve would be the “Citrus Connection” (P-1A). The Citrus Connection curve is also the longest
curve along the entire extent of the PVL alignment. This length along with the required slower
train speeds along the curve would increase the wheel squeal noise exposure time. Therefore, as
requested by the FTA, an analysis of wheel squeal noise was conducted at this location. The
analysis of the noise contribution from wheel squeal was conservatively performed for nearby
sensitive residences. The resulting analysis indicated that the wheel squeal noise component
would result in impacts to residences in the area of Transit Avenue. Predicted Project noise
levels would surpass the FTA noise impact criteria by 1 dB. However, as mentioned above, it is
important to note that as part of the PVL Project, the Commission will include wayside
applicators on all short radius curves. These devices would therefore successfully reduce the
significance of wheel squeal noise on all segments of the PVL alignment, including the “Citrus
Connection” area and thus ensure no impacts result at residences along Transit Avenue. (Ibid.)
F. Traffic And Transportation
1. Increase Traffic (Threshold 4.11-1): The proposed Project is expected to
generate increase traffic in terms of added congestion at Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for the
Moreno Valley/March Field Station), SR-74 (4th Street) at D Street (for the Downtown Perris
Station), and Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps (for South Perris Station) and this
increased traffic would have a potentially significant impact.
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
traffic impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or
alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impacts identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
67
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures TT-1 through TT-3 set
forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with
the generation of new vehicle trips to less than significant levels.
• Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for Moreno Valley/March Field Station):
o Reduce north/southbound Old 215’s maximum traffic signal green time to 15
seconds during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour. This would reduce delays for
westbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement from 249 to 116 seconds and
improve the overall intersection LOS from LOS F with 146 seconds of delay to
LOS E with 72 seconds of delay, while maintaining LOS C for Old 215.
• SR-74 (4th Street) at D Street (for Downtown Perris Station):
o Reduce the maximum green time for the east/west SR-74 left-turn phase to 14
seconds during the PM (5-6PM) analysis hour. The levels of service for north and
southbound D Street’s through/left-turn movements and the overall intersection
would be improved beyond future levels of service without the project during the
PM analysis hour with this mitigation measure.
• Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps (for South Perris Station):
o Install a new traffic signal. This would improve eastbound Bonnie Drive’s right-
turn movement from LOS F to LOS B during the PM (5-6PM) analysis hour and
left-turn movement from LOS F to LOS C during the AM (6-7 AM) and PM
analysis hours.
• RCTC shall design the above-proposed improvements, and execute agreements with
the affected jurisdictions to provide funding for the installation of the signals or to
install the signals in conjunction with the development of the project. With these
mitigation measures in place, the significant impacts of the proposed project at the
three above-mentioned intersections will be eliminated (out of the six locations where
significant impacts are expected). At the remaining three locations where significant
impacts are expected (San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, SR-74 at northbound I-215
Off-Ramp, and SR-74 at Sherman Road), traffic signals are planned to be installed by
other projects (unrelated to the PVL) as part of the future conditions without the
project. Therefore, no mitigation measures will need to be implemented by the
proposed PVL project at these intersections. However, in the event that the
signalization of these three locations by other projects (unrelated to the PVL) does not
occur prior to the 2012 opening year of the PVL, the installation of traffic signals at
these additional locations will be incorporated as PVL project features.
Supporting Explanation:
2012 Future Conditions without the Project. The analysis of the 2012 future traffic
conditions without the proposed Project serves as the baseline against which opening year
impacts of the Project are compared. The future conditions without the Project include the traffic
68
volume increases expected due to an overall growth in traffic through and within the study area,
and major approved land developments and roadway system changes scheduled to be occupied
or implemented by the 2012 opening year for the PVL. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-12 to 16.) A
generally applied background growth rate of two percent per year, resulting in an overall growth
of approximately eight percent by 2012, was assumed for Hunter Park and Moreno Valley/March
Field station option areas per the guidelines of the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley. (Ibid.)
For Downtown and South Perris station options, which are within the city of Perris, an annual
background growth rate of three percent (approximately 13 percent over four years) was used,
per city guidelines. (Ibid.)
Hunter Park Stations: Movements at the study intersections would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service, with the exception of Iowa Avenue’s northbound through movement
at Center Street, which would worsen from LOS E (existing) to F (future without the PVL
Project) during the PM analysis hour, resulting in the overall intersection LOS to deteriorate
from LOS D to E. (Ibid.)
Moreno Valley/March Field Station: Movements at the intersection of Alessandro
Boulevard and Old 215 would continue to operate at acceptable levels. Several movements at the
remaining three intersections, however, would worsen, including (ibid.):
• At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro and
southbound Mission Grove Parkway’s left-turn movements would incur additional delay
within LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
• At the intersection of Cactus Avenue and southbound I-215 ramps, westbound Cactus
Avenue’s left-turn movement and the overall intersection would deteriorate from LOS C
(existing) to F (future without the PVL Project) during the PM analysis hour.
• Westbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement would worsen from LOS E to F at Old
215, and the overall intersection LOS would deteriorate from LOS D to F during the PM
analysis hour.
Downtown Perris Station: The levels of service for movements would remain within
acceptable limits during the AM analysis hour. However, several movements would deteriorate
to poor levels of service during the PM analysis hour, including (ibid.):
• At Nuevo Road and Perris Boulevard, eastbound Nuevo Road’s left-turn movement
would deteriorate from LOS C (existing) to F (future without the PVL Project);
southbound Perris Boulevard’s left-turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C to E.
The overall intersection LOS would deteriorate from LOS C to E.
• At SR-74 and D Street, eastbound SR-74’s through/right-turn movements would
deteriorate from LOS C to E. Northbound D Street’s through/left-turn movements would
worsen from LOS E to F, and southbound left-turn movement would deteriorate from
LOS D to F. The overall intersection operations would also deteriorate from LOS C to F.
69
• At the intersection of SR-74 and Perris Boulevard, Perris Boulevard’s eastbound left-turn
movement would deteriorate from LOS C to F.
• At San Jacinto and D Street, San Jacinto Avenue’s eastbound left-turn and D Street’s
southbound through movements would deteriorate from LOS D to F, and the overall
intersection level of service would deteriorate from LOS C to E.
• At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, San Jacinto Avenue’s westbound through/left-turn
movements would deteriorate from LOS B to F. Northbound Redlands Avenue’s
through/left-turn and right-turn movements would deteriorate from LOS D and B to LOS
F, respectively. Southbound Redlands Avenue’s left-turn movement would deteriorate
from LOS B to F.
South Perris Station: Most movements would continue to operate within acceptable levels
of service. However, the movements that currently operate at LOS F would worsen by incurring
significance increases in delay (i.e., delay increases of more than two seconds), and southbound
Sherman Road at SR74 would deteriorate from LOS C to E during the PM analysis hour. (Ibid.)
2012 Future Conditions with the Project: Table 4.11-2 of the EIR lists the boardings
and alighting passengers and Table 4.11-4 lists the auto trips by station. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-16
to 20.)
The assignment of vehicle trips generated by the PVL Project during the AM and PM
analysis hours is presented in Traffic Technical Report D. Overall, the increases in traffic would
be less than significant in relation to the existing load and capacity of the roadways at most
locations (less than five percent increase). However, traffic increases would result in significant
impacts in terms of added congestion at a few intersections as explained in the LOS discussion in
Section 3.F.2 (below) of the Findings. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20.)
Grade Crossing Closures: In addition to new trips that would be generated by the Project,
an increase in traffic volumes along a few roadways would also be experienced due to the
closure to the public of two existing grade crossings (Poarch Road in Riverside and 6th Street in
Perris). The closure of the Poarch Road crossing to the public will not significantly affect the
traffic volumes in the area, but may increase traffic volumes on Gernert Road since this will be
used as the primary means of access to the adjacent residential neighborhood. While this
proposed change would present an inconvenience to some residents, the impact would not be
significant due to the availability of alternative circulation options. Poarch Road will be
accessible to emergency vehicles only. (Ibid.)
The closure of 6th Street would result in the diversion of east and westbound traffic (up
to 35 vph per direction during the AM and PM analysis hours) to 7th Street, the closest grade
crossing to remain open. The changes in traffic volumes due to this diversion would be less than
significant, and are reflected in the 2012 analyses with the Project. It should be noted that in
downtown Perris, as part of the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility Project (not a part of the PVL
Project), grade crossings at 2nd and 5th Streets were closed in 2008. The impacts of these
closures on travel patterns are already incorporated into the existing traffic network and analyses
as the closures were in effect at the time the traffic data collection program was conducted. In
70
addition, 5th Street has been temporarily closed by the city of Perris and will be formally vacated
for this Project. (Ibid.)
An additional set of vehicle movements that will be disallowed would occur at the
northern end of Commercial Street where it terminates at its intersection with D Street and Perris
Boulevard. Concerns have been expressed that vehicular turns onto and off of Commercial Street
to and from D Street and across the PVL alignment could present a potential safety issue at the
tracks as the turning movements involve an acute angle and can present the motorist with limited
sight distance. In terms of traffic volumes, a count of vehicle movements taken in mid-
November 2010 indicated that less than five vehicles travel through this intersection in any one
hour during the day, and most hours show no vehicles at all using it. Thus, there would be little
inconvenience to the current low volumes traveling along it, and motorists can access
Commercial Street via South Perris Boulevard less than 1/4 mile south of D Street. Although
this impact is less than significant, the city of Perris has nonetheless agreed to install a locked
gate at the northern end of Commercial Street at D Street, which would allow access for
emergency vehicles but be kept closed for all other vehicles. (Ibid.)
Supplemental Baseline Analysis: The RCTC provided a supplemental analysis, which
utilizes a baseline of 2008 conditions. Although it is currently 2011, and no longer 2008, this
supplemental analysis was primarily undertaken for informational purposes. The analysis
confirms, however, that the ultimate performance of all roadways and intersections affected by
the PVL project using 2008 conditions would be equal to or better than the ultimate performance
of those roadways and intersections using the 2012 conditions. Accordingly, this analysis does
not provide any new information of substantial importance that might otherwise require
recirculation. (See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) To the contrary, it merely clarifies and
amplifies the analysis and conclusions already provided in the Draft EIR. (Final EIR at 0.2-3 to
0.2-10.)
The “Baseline” Conditions for purposes of this supplemental analysis are those
conditions that existed in the Project study area as of 2008, when the NOP was published. The
first traffic scenario evaluated in this EIR is the “Baseline” Conditions (2008) + Project. The
Baseline Conditions (2008) + Project scenario assumes that the Project would be built
instantaneously and that operations would begin in 2008. The next traffic scenario evaluated in
this EIR is the No Build Conditions (2012) + Project. The No Build Conditions (2012) scenario
assumes the Project is constructed and is operating without any improvements that would have
been constructed between the “Baseline” Conditions (2008) and 2012. Thirdly, the EIR
evaluates the Build Conditions (2012) + Project conditions. The Build Conditions (2012) +
Project scenario adds predicted project impacts to the predicted 2012 conditions without the
project. (Final EIR at 0.2-3 to 0.2-10.)
Because the Project introduces commuter rail service onto the existing San Jacinto
Branch Line, traffic impacts are limited to the four new stations to be constructed (Hunter Park,
Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris, and South Perris). The changes to traffic
conditions were evaluated at all proposed stations, and the resultant air quality implications at
affected local streets/intersections are based on the changes in traffic impacts for each scenario.
The following analyses present each scenario and summarize the traffic and air quality changes
associated with each. This is a qualitative analysis focusing on the various changes that would
71
be realized with each scenario (“Baseline + Project” and “No Build + Project”) and is presented
below. (Ibid.)
For each proposed PVL station, traffic impacts under the Baseline, Baseline+Project, and
No Build+Project analysis scenarios are described below. The proposed mitigation and an
evaluation of the mitigation and the significance of the impacts with mitigation are also
presented. (Ibid.)
Hunter Park Station
Baseline Scenario
Movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM
analysis hours, with the exception of Iowa Avenue at Center Street, where the northbound Iowa
Avenue through movement operates at LOS E during the PM analysis hour. (Ibid.)
Baseline + Project Scenario
No significant impacts would occur at the study intersections with implementation of the project
for any of the three alternative station locations. (Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
No impacts would occur at the study intersections in the vicinity of the Hunter Park Station for
any of the three alternative station locations compared to 2012 conditions without the Project.
(Ibid.)
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
The PVL project would not result in any significant impacts under the Baseline+Project or the
No Build Conditions+Project scenarios. (Ibid.)
Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Baseline Scenario
The intersection operations are at LOS D or better during both analysis hours with the following
exceptions:
• At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro Boulevard
and southbound Mission Grove Parkway left-turn movements operate at LOS E during the
PM analysis hour.
• Westbound Cactus Avenue’s through movement at Old 215 operates at LOS E during the PM
analysis hour. (Ibid.)
Baseline + Project Scenario
One significant impact would be expected at one study intersection with implementation of the
Project:
• Cactus Avenue’s eastbound through movement at southbound I-215 ramps would worsen
from Baseline LOS D conditions to Baseline+Project LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
72
This impact would not actually occur and deterioration in levels of service would not actually be
realized as a result of the PVL project because of the substantial improvements that have been
implemented by the Cactus Avenue Extension/Railroad Bridge Widening project at this location
since 2008. These improvements include the widening of east and westbound Cactus Avenue
from one to two through lanes, addition of eastbound right-turn storage, and prohibition of
southbound through and left-turn movements, which would result in increased capacity. The
increased intersection capacity and improved levels of service resulting from the improvements
fully mitigate the impacts that would have otherwise resulted from the 2008+Project scenario.
(Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
A significant impact would be expected at one study intersection with implementation of the
Project:
• The westbound Cactus Avenue through movement at Old 215 would experience a significant
impact over 2012 conditions without the Project by incurring just above two seconds of delay
within LOS F during the PM analysis hour. However, Mitigation Measure TT-1 in the DEIR
(and in the Findings document below) would mitigate this impact to less than significant
levels by reducing north/southbound Old 215’s maximum green time to 15 seconds during
the PM analysis hour.
Cactus Avenue’s eastbound through movement at southbound I-215 ramps would operate at LOS
C during the PM analysis hour. This is not an impact, and is cited here for informational
purposes only. (Ibid.)
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
The Baseline Condition+Project suggests an impact at a different intersection (at Cactus Avenue
and I-215 Ramps) compared to No Build Conditions+Project (at Cactus Avenue at Old 215).
However, this impact at the intersection of Cactus Avenue and I-215 Ramps would not actually
occur, as improvements by other project initiatives (such as the Cactus Avenue
Extension/Railroad Bridge Widening project, which included the widening of Cactus Avenue,
and the addition of turn lanes) would mitigate the impacts that would have otherwise resulted
from the PVL project and the impact at Cactus Avenue at Old 215 in the No Build
Conditions+Project scenario would be mitigated by Mitigation Measure TT-1. Therefore, the
PVL project would result in less than significant impacts. (Ibid.)
Downtown Perris Station
Baseline Scenario
Movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM
analysis hours, with the exception of the D Street northbound shared through/left-turn
movements at SR-74, which operates at LOS E during the PM, and the southbound C Street
shared through/left-turn movements at SR-74, which operates at LOS F, during both the AM and
PM analysis hour. (Ibid.)
Baseline + Project Scenario
73
Significant impacts would be expected at three study intersections with implementation of the
Project:
• At SR-74 and D Street, the northbound D Street through/ left-turn movement would incur
approximately four seconds of additional delay within LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
Mitigation Measure TT-2 identified in the DEIR (and in the Findings document below)
would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels by reducing the maximum green
time for the east/westbound SR-74 left-turn phase to 14 seconds during the PM analysis hour.
• At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, northbound Redlands Avenue would deteriorate from
Baseline LOS D to Baseline+Project LOS E during the PM analysis hour.
A traffic signal is planned to be installed at this location by a private developer for the Venue
at Perris project (a project that is unrelated to the PVL project) as a condition of approval
required by the city of Perris upon the completion of the SR-74 and I-215 Interchange
Improvement project in early 2012, prior to the opening of the PVL. This signal would
mitigate the impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project; however, in the event
that those improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences
construction, the PVL project will install those improvements.
• At SR-74 and C Street, the northbound C Street approach would deteriorate from Baseline
LOS B to Baseline+Project LOS F during the PM, and southbound C Street’s shared through/
left-turn movement would incur approximately 13 and 200 seconds of delay within LOS F
during the AM and PM analysis hours, respectively.
This impact would not actually occur and deterioration in levels of service due to the PVL
project would not actually be realized because this intersection has been signalized and the
conditions that existed in 2008 no longer exist today at this intersection. The existing traffic
signal operation alleviates delays on the southbound C Street approach, allowing the
intersection to accommodate the traffic volume increment added by the PVL project. (Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
Significant impacts would be expected at two study intersections compared to 2012 conditions
without the Project during the PM analysis hour:
• At SR-74 and D Street, both north and southbound D Street through/left-turn movements
would incur approximately ten and 20 seconds of additional delay within LOS F,
respectively. Mitigation Measure TT-2 would mitigate this impact to less than significant
levels by reducing the maximum green time for the east/westbound SR-74 left-turn phase to
14 seconds during the PM analysis hour.
• At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, westbound San Jacinto Avenue’s through/left-turn
movements and northbound Redlands Avenue would incur four to eight seconds of additional
delay within LOS F.
A traffic signal is planned to be installed at this location by a private developer for the Venue
at Perris project (not part of the PVL project) as a condition of approval by the city of Perris
upon the completion of the SR-74 and I-215 Interchange Improvement project, prior to the
74
opening of the PVL. This signal would mitigate the impacts that would otherwise result from
the PVL project. However, if those improvements are not implemented by the time that the
PVL project commences construction, then the PVL project will install those improvements.
(Ibid.)
At SR-74 and C Street, the north and southbound C Street approaches would operate within LOS
D during the AM and PM analysis hours. This is not an impact, as the intersection approaches
operate within an acceptable LOS, and is cited here for informational purposes.
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
The Baseline Conditions+Project suggests an additional impact (at SR-74 and C Street)
compared to No Build Conditions+Project. However, this impact would not actually occur, since
Baseline conditions have changed since 2008 with the signalization of this intersection, which
mitigates the impacts that would have otherwise resulted from the PVL project. Therefore, the
PVL project would result in less than significant impacts. (Ibid.)
South Perris Station
Baseline Scenario
Movements at the three study intersections operate at LOS C or better during both analysis hours
with the following exceptions:
• The Bonnie Drive eastbound right-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps operates at
LOS F during the PM analysis hour.
• The Sherman Road northbound left-turn movement at SR-74 operates at LOS F during both
the AM and PM analysis hours, and southbound left/right-turn movement operates at LOS F
during the PM analysis hour. (Ibid.)
Baseline + Project Scenario
Significant impacts would be expected at two study intersections with implementation of the
Project:
• Eastbound Bonnie Drive’s left-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps would deteriorate
from Baseline LOS C to Baseline+Project LOS F during the AM and PM analysis hours, and
the right-turn movement would worsen within LOS F by incurring approximately 164
seconds of additional delay during the PM analysis hour. Mitigation Measure TT-3 identified
in the DEIR (and in the Findings document below) would mitigate this impact to less than
significant levels by requiring the installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection.
• The Northbound Sherman Road left-turn movement onto SR-74 would incur approximately
35 and 75 seconds of additional delay within LOS F during the respective AM and PM
analysis hours. Southbound Sherman Road would worsen within LOS F by incurring eight
seconds of additional delay during the PM analysis hour.
A traffic signal is planned to be installed by the SR-74/I-215 Interchange Improvement
project at this location prior to the opening of the PVL. This signal would mitigate the
75
impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project. However, in the event that those
improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences
construction, the PVL project will install those improvements. (Ibid.)
No Build + Project Scenario
Significant impacts would be expected at all three study intersections compared to 2012
conditions without the Project:
• The Eastbound Bonnie Drive left-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps would
deteriorate from LOS D to F during the AM and PM analysis hours, and the right-turn
movement would worsen within LOS F by incurring approximately 240 seconds of
additional delay during the PM analysis hour. Mitigation Measure TT-3 would mitigate this
impact to less than significant levels by requiring the installation of a new traffic signal at
this intersection.
• Northbound Sherman Road’s left-turn movement onto SR-74 would incur approximately 110
and 290 seconds of additional delay within LOS F during the respective AM and PM analysis
hours. Southbound Sherman Road would deteriorate from LOS E to F during the AM, and
worsen within LOS F by incurring 160 seconds of additional delay during the PM analysis
hours.
A traffic signal planned to be installed by the SR-74/I-215 Interchange Improvement project
at this location prior to the opening of the PVL. This signal would mitigate the impacts that
would otherwise result from the PVL project. However, in the event that those improvements
are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences construction, the PVL
project will install those improvements.
• SR-74 at northbound I-215 off-ramp would deteriorate from LOS D to E during the AM and
PM analysis hours.
Improvements by the SR-74/I-215 Interchange Improvement Project at this location will be
implemented prior to the opening of the PVL. These improvements would mitigate the
impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project. However, in the event that those
improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences
construction, the PVL project will install those improvements. (Ibid.)
Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario
The No Build Conditions+Project would result in one additional impact (at SR-74 and
northbound I-215) compared to the Baseline Conditions+Project. However, improvements by
other project initiatives would mitigate the impacts that would have otherwise resulted from the
PVL project this impact. Therefore, the PVL project would result in less than significant
impacts. (Ibid.)
2. Exceed Level of Service (Threshold 4.11-2): The proposed Project will result in
the deterioration of LOS at certain roadways and intersections.
76
Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant
level of service impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change
or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant exceedances of level of service identified in the
EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures TT-1 through TT-4 set
forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce level of service impacts
to less than significant levels.
• TT-1: Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for Moreno Valley/March Field Station). Reduce
north/southbound Old 215’s maximum traffic signal green time to 15 seconds during
the PM analysis hour. This would reduce delays for westbound Cactus Avenue’s
through movement from 244 to 119 seconds and improve the overall intersection
LOS from LOS F with 152 seconds of delay to LOS E with 76 seconds of delay,
while maintaining LOS C for Old 215.
• TT-2: SR-74 at D Street (for Downtown Perris Station). Reduce the maximum green
time for the east/west SR-74 left-turn phase to 14 seconds during the PM analysis
hour (5-6 PM). The levels of service for north and southbound D Street’s
through/left-turn movements and the overall intersection will be improved beyond
future levels of service without the project during the PM analysis hour with this
mitigation measure.
• TT-3: Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps (for South Perris Station). Install a
new traffic signal. This will improve eastbound Bonnie Drive’s right-turn movement
from LOS F to LOS B during the PM analysis hour and left-turn movement from
LOS F to LOS C during the AM and PM analysis hours.
Note: RCTC shall design the above-proposed improvements (TT-1, TT-2, TT-3), and
execute agreements with the affected jurisdictions to provide funding for the
installation of the signals or to install the signals in conjunction with the development
of the project. With these mitigation measures in place, the significant impacts of the
proposed project at the five above-mentioned intersections will be eliminated (out of
the eight locations where significant impacts are expected). At the remaining three
locations where significant impacts are expected (San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues,
SR-74 at northbound I-215 Off-Ramp, and SR-74 at Sherman Road), traffic signals
are planned to be installed by other project initiatives as part of the future condition
without the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures will need to be implemented
by the proposed PVL project at these intersections. However, in the event that the
signalization of these three locations by other project initiatives does not occur prior
to the opening year of the PVL, the installation of traffic signals at these additional
locations will be incorporated as PVL project features.
• TT-4: RCTC shall develop a traffic management plan in consultation with local
jurisdictions to minimize impacts to existing traffic levels of service. At a minimum,
the traffic management plan shall address: detours; coordination with other
77
construction projects (if applicable); length and timing of any street closures;
coordination with police and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access
routes; temporary access routes and signage if any commercial properties are
affected; and contact information for RCTC and its contractors.
Supporting Explanation:
Roadways and Intersections: The roadways within the PVL study areas that currently
exceed the LOS standards would continue to do so under the future conditions, and operating
below these standards would not in itself be considered an impact. However, deterioration in
LOS caused by the Project would be considered a significant impact. The LOS analyses for the
2012 Future Conditions with the Project indicated that the majority of the study intersections
would continue to operate at the same levels of service as the 2012 conditions without the PVL;
however, significant traffic impacts would be expected at a number of intersections as a result of
the increase in traffic volumes (due to new vehicular trips generated by the Project) as shown in
Table 4.11-5 through Table 4.11-8 of the EIR. Specifically, Westbound Cactus Avenue would
experience a significant impact during the PM period (see Table 4.11-6), but Mitigation Measure
TT-1 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21 to 37.) The
intersection of SR-74 and D Street would incur a significant impact, but the implementation of
Mitigation Measure TT-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Also, the
intersection of San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues would incur a significant impact; but, given
that Caltrans will install a new operating traffic signal at this location prior to the 2012 opening
year, the impacts of the Project on this intersection would be reduced to a less than significant
level. (Table 4.11-9.) Eastbound Bonnie Drive’s left-turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps
would deteriorate, but Mitigation Measure TT-3 would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level. SR-74 at the northbound I-215 off-ramp would also deteriorate; but, given that Caltrans
will install a new operating traffic signal at this location prior to the 2012 opening year, the
impacts of the Project on this intersection would be reduced to a less than significant level.
(Ibid.) Additionally, the intersection of SR-74 and Sherman Road would deteriorate; but, given
that Caltrans will install a new operating traffic signal at this location prior to the 2012 opening
year, the impacts of the Project on this intersection would be reduced to less than significant
levels. (Ibid.)
Grade Crossings: In addition to impacts at key intersections that would experience
increases in traffic volumes as a result of Project-generated trips, the PVL could also result in
impacts at grade crossings by creating additional delays to vehicles that would be stopped during
periods of train movements. However, these additional delays would not be considered
significant considering that the Project would operate with twelve trains per day and only one
train during the peak traffic hours in 2012, and that the wait time of vehicular traffic (30 seconds
for typical operations) would not be any more disruptive to traffic operations than a single red
phase of a typical traffic signal cycle. The Project would make improvements at several existing
grade crossings including the installation of new signals at several of them. These signals would
be placed to improve safety and meet jurisdictional requirements, and would remain inactive (i.e.
display a steady green signal for vehicular traffic) unless a train is detected. Therefore, no
significant delays would be expected due to the installation of these new signals. (Draft EIR, p.
4.11-30.)
78
Construction-Related Impacts: The construction activities for the proposed PVL would
result in an increase of auto and truck trips generated by construction crews, and the
delivery/removal of materials to and from the construction sites. It should be noted that the
delivery of construction materials and equipment, such as the rail, rail ties, ballast, and
specialized track equipment, would be accomplished using the existing rail, as opposed to being
delivered by truck. The volume of construction traffic would be modest given that no significant
excavation would occur, and most construction-related materials deliveries would occur during
non-peak hours so as to limit congestion along adjacent roads. In addition, traffic diversions
would occur during partial and complete roadway and grade crossing closures. As a result, the
construction activities could potentially create short-term significant traffic impacts although,
due to their temporary nature, such impacts may be tolerated and the thresholds of significance
during construction periods may be redefined by reviewing agencies pursuant to the traffic
management plan required pursuant to the implementation of Mitigation Measure TT-4.
Accordingly, the Commission will develop a traffic management plan in consultation with local
jurisdictions that will contain measures proven to improve traffic levels of service and mitigate
significant impacts to acceptable levels. RCTC will be responsible for the development and
enforcement of this measure. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-32.)
Also, cut/fill estimates were examined to identify the volume of earth moved off the
Project site by trucks and thus determine the estimate truck volume. The estimate yields 30
empty trucks in and 30 filled trucks out. Based on a single shift, this would indicate an average
of 4 trucks in and 4 trucks out each hour, which is a very low volume of trucks and is not likely
to generate any significant traffic impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-32.)
SECTION 4
FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts of a
project shall be discussed when they are “cumulatively considerable,” as defined in section
15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Cumulatively considerable “means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).)
Section 5.3 of the EIR assesses cumulative impacts for each applicable environmental
issue, and does so to a degree that reflects each impact’s severity and likelihood of occurrence.
With implementation of the Mitigation Measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project, all of the Project’s cumulative impacts discussed in this
Section 4 can be fully mitigated to a less than significant level.
A. Aesthetics
Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on
aesthetics.
79
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with
related projects within the area, would cumulatively add to the loss of vacant land and the
conversion of undeveloped areas for the station sites. The station sites are relatively small in size
and, when viewed in the context of the twenty-one mile rail corridor, constitute de minimus
reductions in vacant land. There is lighting proposed at the four station sites along the rail
corridor. During service hours the lighting is provided for security at the parking areas and
boarding platforms. After hours the lighting will cycle in the parking areas so that half the lights
are off at any one time. This allows for energy savings. The lighting will be an increase over
existing levels, but the stations are located in areas of exiting ambient light resulting from
existing commercial building, adjacent street and freeway interchange lighting, and lighting from
existing industrial facilities. This small increase in ambient night lighting would not be in areas
of sensitive receptors and therefore would not cumulatively contribute to a significant impact in
aesthetics in relation to the identified projects. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-4 to 5.)
B. Agricultural Resources
Finding: The Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact on agricultural
resources.
Supporting Explanation: The location of the proposed Stations are currently designated
for development in the corresponding planning documents and thus, even if the Project does not
proceed, agricultural lands will be developed regardless and thus the Project does not have a
cumulatively significant impact on the loss of agricultural lands. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.)
C. Air Quality
Finding: The Project would comply with state and regional air quality requirements, and
implement BMPs (as set forth in Section 3 above and as further discussed in the Draft EIR on
page 4.3-26), and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, the Project
would not induce or exacerbate any potential impacts introduced by other transit and traffic
projects planned for the region. Thus, the Project does not have a cumulatively considerable
impact on air quality.
Supporting Explanation: Overall, the potential for air quality impacts to be
cumulatively considerable is reduced because the Project would comply with state and regional
air quality requirements, which requires projects to mitigate their individual impacts to less than
significant levels based on their forecasted construction schedule and levels of activity. It is
assumed that concurrent projects are following the same construction BMPs or are included in
the RTIP (in which the impacts of their emissions would be already accounted for in the regional
burden) and thus their impacts would not be significant. Construction of the proposed
Downtown Perris Station option could occur simultaneously with the construction of other
proposed downtown revitalization projects, which could result in cumulative construction
impacts. One of these, the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility is currently in the process of being
built so there would be no potential for any cumulative impacts since it would be completed
before the PVL Project. The extent of the potential impacts with other projects would depend on
the location, magnitude, and duration of construction activities for each of the projects. CEQA
analysis conducted for this proposed Project indicates the use of several pollution control
80
measures to aid in reducing emissions. However, the Project would avoid exceeding SCAQMD
criteria thereby would reduce any potential for cumulative construction period impacts. It is
assumed and likely that other construction projects in Perris would also be conducted with
similar mitigation and control measures in place. Development projects, such as the Meridian
Business Park in Moreno Valley (formerly known as March Business Center), would also be
required to impose mitigation measures to address fugitive dust or exceedances of other criteria
pollutants during construction. Since construction of each element of these master planned
developments would also have to include mitigation measures, the overall potential for
cumulative air quality impacts would be reduced. However, the Meridian Business Park would
be built over the next 20 to 25 years and is unlikely to interfere with the PVL construction
schedule, which would be implemented over the next two years. As such, the overall potential
for cumulative impacts would be reduced. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-27 to 28.)
Moreover, the PVL would reduce some trip-making that now occurs via automobile,
resulting in a corresponding drop in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and a concomitant
improvement in air quality. The analysis of MSAT emissions indicates negligible direct
emissions, and the cumulative contribution of the operations of SCRRA/Metrolink engines along
the PVL would also not result in cumulative emissions impact. The proposed rail service would
result in a significant decrease in CO and GHG emissions, offsetting to a very limited degree the
additional VMT and GHG directly and indirectly produced within the region. Air quality impacts
from construction activities are not significant. With respect to cumulative air quality impacts
from construction activities along the corridor, including adjacent unrelated development
projects, impacts are also not significant due to the time and distance in those projects and the
expected construction of the PVL. Although the total air quality improvement is small compared
to the generation of pollutants throughout the region, the introduction of commuter rail service
provides an ongoing opportunity for vehicle trip reduction and air quality improvement. (Draft
EIR, p. 5-4.)
As concerns the public health, higher temperatures are expected to increase the
frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For
example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25 to
35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range.
In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may
become impossible to meet local air quality standards. GHG emissions from the Project are
almost entirely attributable to the consumption of energy, particularly fossil fuels, and the
proposed Project has incorporated Project design features and programs to reduce the amount of
energy used, as described above. The proposed Project also provides close proximity to a variety
of alternative mass transit options that would reduce vehicular trips and their corresponding
generation of GHGs. In addition to increased air pollution, under the higher warming scenario,
there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90° F in Los Angeles.
Because of similar climate patterns and its proximity to Riverside County, it can be assumed that
the number of high heat days in Los Angeles would be similar to Riverside County. This is a
large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if
temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase
the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory
distress caused by extreme heat. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.)
81
There is also a potential for construction of the PVL to overlap construction of the PVL to
overlap construction of the I-215 widening and other development projects detailed above. If
concurrent cumulative construction occurs, there may be the potential for construction-related
impacts. However, each project is bound to comply with SCAQMD construction air quality
requirements; would be generally contained and localized in nature; and would also need to
provide for appropriate maintenance and protection of traffic, under the direction and authority
of the approving city. Further, construction-related impacts are, by nature, localized and limited
in duration; therefore, either alone or in combination these projects, in compliance with
applicable regulations, would not result in cumulative construction-related impacts. (Daft EIR,
p. 5-11.)
Construction of the commuter rail elements would include BMP measures required to assure that
activities do not exceed SCAQMD quarterly impact thresholds. Measures to control fugitive dust
would be used to avoid violation of the SCAQMD PM 10 criterion, and the proposed sequencing
of construction activities would avoid violation of the NO X criterion. By compliance with these
mitigation measures, the proposed project would avoid exceeding SCAQMD criteria and reduce
the potential for cumulative construction period impacts. Further, traffic management plans are
required, so that the overall potential for cumulative traffic impacts would be reduced. Therefore,
no cumulative impacts associated with construction activities would occur. (Daft EIR, p. 5-11.)
Consequently, the PVL will not result a cumulatively considerable impact for GHG
emissions.
D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Finding: Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with related projects
within the area would not result in a cumulatively considerable addition to the regional air
pollution and thus impacts from the Project will be less than significant.
Supporting Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project
could result in temporary construction related cumulative contributions. However, all cumulative
projects would be subject to required best management practices for construction, such that
construction emissions would not be cumulatively significant. On an operational level, the
Project will contribute to regional air emission through commuter train use, although this would
be less than the corresponding personal vehicle usage. Therefore no cumulative air quality
impacts would occur as the Project would occur as the Project is consistent with the Regional Air
Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the region which is based on General Plan land uses, and is
anticipated within the General Plans within the corridor. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-5 to 6.)
The production of energy is one of the major generators of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Therefore, energy usage by the proposed Project is a consideration in addressing Project impacts
to climate change. The proposed Project is in compliance with required energy efficiency
programs, and also proposes several design features that will reduce GHG emissions that could
result in risks associated with climate change. The proposed Project is required to conform to
Title 24, which is the California Building Code that governs all aspects of building construction.
Standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction are included in Part 6 of
the code. The Energy Efficiency Standards require mandatory measures to be installed in new
82
construction. These standards are designed to: (1) respond to California's energy crisis to reduce
energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic
condition for the state; (2) respond to the Assembly Bill (AB) 970 (Statutes of 2000) urgency
legislation to adopt and implement updated and cost-effective building energy efficiency
standards; (3) respond to the Senate Bill (SB) 5X (Statutes of 2001) urgency legislation to adopt
energy efficiency building standards for outdoor lighting; and (4) emphasize energy efficiency
measures that save energy at peak periods and seasons, improve the quality of installation of
energy efficiency measures, incorporate recent publicly funded building science research, and
collaborate with California utilities to incorporate results of appropriate market incentive
programs for specific technologies. Accordingly, this analysis shows that pursuant to Appendix F
of the State CEQA Guidelines (Energy Conservation) the proposed Project will not result in the
wasteful or inefficient use of energy. (Ibid.)
E. Biological Resources
Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on
biological resources and thus impacts would be less than significant.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project, within and existing
rail corridor, will not cumulatively add to the loss of vegetation communities, and common plant
and wildlife species. Also, the Project would be consistent with all the policies and guidelines of
the Western Riverside MSHCP. The MSHCP is a long-range conservation effort with which all
future projects must be consistent. Since the proposed Project is consistent with the MSHCP, no
cumulative impact to biological resources is identified. Other projects in the area would also be
required to be consistent with the MSHCP and as such cumulative impacts are less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-6 to 7.)
Additionally, and as discussed above with regard to the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan, the Project is located outside of the HCP’s core reserves but inside the fee
area. Even though no SKR were found during any of the surveys of the Project site (See
Revised Habitat Assessment Report (2009)), the Project will nonetheless voluntarily pay SKR
mitigation fees pursuant to the SKR HCP. Thus, there is no cumulatively considerable impact to
SKR.
F. Cultural Resources
Finding: The proposed Project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact on
cultural resources.
Supporting Explanation: With more development in the County, there is an increased
possibility of encountering historical, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources. However,
the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR1- CR4 would be implemented for the Project.
Through recordation and curation of resources to provide the public and historians the
opportunity to review these resources, the proposed Project and other development in the area
would not result in a cumulatively significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.)
83
G. Geology And Soils
Finding: The PVL Project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and/or
soils, as all impacts are site specific.
Supporting Explanation: Although Project-level impacts may be considered significant
and/or potentially significant for this or other projects, these impacts would be mitigated on a
Project specific basis to below a level of significance. Therefore, the PVL Project would not
contribute to a cumulative impact to geology or soils. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.)
H. Hazards And Hazardous Materials
Finding: Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development
in the area would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact for hazardous materials since
all future developments in the area would be subject to the same local, regional, state, and federal
regulations.
Supporting Explanation: Applicable regulations require individual site evaluation and
clean up, and therefore would not contribute cumulatively. As with the proposed Project,
environmental review would be required for future projects and compliance with County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health regulations would be necessary. Therefore, the
proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.)
I. Hydrology and Water Quality
Finding: The proposed Project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to hydrology or
water quality.
Supporting Explanation: The EPA requires projects indicate a “no-rise” in flood
elevations resulting from the Project development (whether one or all on the list) within the flood
hazard zone, thus no impacts to hydrology. Additionally all projects in RWQCB Region 8 are
required to meet the current stormwater permit requirements. These permit requirements include
BMP provisions that ensure no cumulative water quality impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-7 to 8.)
Under the higher warming scenario discussed under the GHG section, above, it is
anticipated for sea level to rise 4 to 30 inches in southern California by 2100. In general, sea
level elevation change of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate
coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural
habitats. (Ibid.)
Changes in climate would increase the risk of flooding and erosion from sea level rise or
changes in precipitation, creating different drainage needs. The proposed Project is not at risk of
flooding as a result of sea level rise; however, localized flooding does occur along the San
Jacinto River and could increase in the future because of a change in precipitation. (Ibid.)
84
Changes in precipitation will alter the sources of water that currently serve southern
California. A network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water
throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River to southern
California. The current distribution system relies on the Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack to
supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially
compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing
the risk of summer water shortages. (Ibid.)
If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow,
and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as
much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming scenario, snowpack losses are expected to
be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range.
How much snowpack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections
for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of
snowpack would pose challenges to water supply managers, hamper hydropower generation, and
nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities. The state's water
supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California's
estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a
major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the
Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta- a major state fresh water supply. (Ibid.) Ultimately,
however, and as discussed previously, the project will not result in any cumulatively
considerable GHG impacts. Thus, any impacts are less than significant.
J. Land Use and Planning
Finding: The Project will not generate cumulative considerable impacts with respect to
land use and zoning.
Supporting Explanation: Riverside County has adopted the RCIP General Plan to
coordinate various aspects of the long-range planning process. As a part of this effort three plans
have been created, including the MSHCP, the CETAP, and a Riverside County General Plan.
The General Plan is designed to direct future land use decisions throughout Riverside County. It
would combine the MSHCP and the CETAP recommendations along with land use, safety,
noise, housing, and air quality guidelines. The plan advocates the extension of the Riverside rail
service corridor along the SJBL. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-8 to 9.)
The overall growth of Riverside County and individual communities is driven by market
forces, employment, the cost of housing, and availability of land. The location, types and
amounts of development are directed and shaped by local jurisdictions through their land use
powers. The PVL is contemplated in the land use elements of the Perris and Riverside General
Plans, as well as the County’s General Plan; as such, the introduction of commuter rail service
may have an influence on the types and timing of development, allowing local jurisdictions to
develop more transit-oriented development as part of specific area plans. The PVL will
accommodate existing transportation demand that exists within the I-215/SJBL alignment, and
so, from a cumulative impact perspective, the proposed commuter rail service would not
generate any new development. Further, the UCR Long Range Development Plan, Perris
85
Downtown Improvements, March Lifecare Village, various planned business parks and retail
centers, and transit and traffic improvements would not be affected by the PVL. (Ibid.)
K. Noise
Finding: Construction and operational noise impacts will not be cumulatively
considerable and thus the Project’s cumulative noise impacts are less than significant.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the PVL Project, in conjunction with
cumulative projects identified would incrementally increase noise levels in the region. During
construction of the PVL Project and cumulative projects, no cumulative construction noise
impact would occur because construction activities would not be concurrent and in proximity to
the PVL Project. Therefore, construction noise from the PVL Project and cumulative projects
would not accumulate to result in a significant cumulative construction impact. During operation
of the PVL Project the permanent increase in ambient noise is not considered substantial because
it is less than 3.0 dBA. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9.)
L. Utilities And Service Systems
Finding: Development of the Project, in conjunction with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to
utilities and service systems.
Supporting Explanation: As part of the engineering design for the Project, capacity for
utilities and service systems is analyzed in conjunction with the service provider to ensure
adequate capacity for both this Project as well as other projects related to the capacity of the
overall systems. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9.)
M. Transportation And Traffic
Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on traffic
when considered in connection with other transportation projects planned for the region and thus
the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Supporting Explanation: Other transportation projects are expected to be complete by
2012, with the effect of accommodating anticipated development and addressing select traffic
flow problems that currently exist. The traffic analyses conducted for the PVL included these
projects and concluded that no unmitigable significant adverse impacts to traffic and parking
would result from the PVL. Consequently, the introduction of the PVL would neither improve
nor deteriorate the effectiveness of these other transportation projects. Further, the Project could
create a cumulative benefit through small improvements to regional traffic flow. The diversion of
vehicle trips to PVL ridership would result in a measurable reduction in VMT. This improved
traffic flow, however, may not be represented as a net improvement to LOS along the regional
arteries. Overall, the PVL may result in beneficial cumulative impacts, including improved
mobility and access for residents, workers and visitors, support of economic and community
development in the region. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11.)
86
SECTION 5
FINDINGS REGARDING
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c), an EIR must identify any
significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed Project. For
example, the use of nonrenewable resources, particularly mineral resources or land, either for
construction or operations, may comprise an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources, though the significance could vary, given the circumstances of the Project under
review. Commitments of resources could be current, as well as future, the latter potentially
associated with growth-inducing impacts, below. Construction and operation of the PVL would
contribute to the depletion of resources, including renewable and non-renewable resources.
Resources such as timber used in the construction of stations and other buildings, are generally
considered renewable resources, and would be replenished over the lifetime of the Project.
Renewable resources would not be considered irreversibly or irretrievably committed. Non-
renewable resources, however, such as diesel fuel, petroleum products, steel, concrete, copper,
and other materials are typically considered to be in finite supply, and would not be replenished
over the lifetime of the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-1 to 2.)
As the PVL would be developed within an existing rail corridor, the commitment of land
resources to the use has already been made historically, and the PVL would not require the
commitment of similar resources elsewhere. Further, some existing track would be rehabilitated
and reused, thus accounting for a reduction in the amount of steel from the amount typically
required of a similar rail project. At the same time, by introducing new track and a revised line
configuration, the PVL would ensure the continued usefulness of the historic commitments of
existing rails, sidings and the warehousing properties they serve to which resources are already
historically committed. (Ibid.)
The general demand for some of the resources listed above will increase whether or not
the PVL is developed. The PVL Project would use less than the typical amount of steel required
for a similar sized rail project. (Ibid.)
Further, as the PVL is introduced to the region as a new mode of transportation, there
would be a corresponding reduction in the number of automobile trips made in the region.
Although the PVL would rely on petroleum resources to operate, it would result in a comparable
or greater reduction in petroleum resources than would otherwise be utilized in the operation of
automobiles driven without the PVL Project. (Ibid.)
Other demands for energy, as associated with the PVL, would be related to the basic
operations of stations and facilities, and to the greater extent, the electrical draw for parking lot
lighting. While these energy demands in the form of electricity generated from natural gas,
would constitute a commitment of nonrenewable resources, the PVL would not contribute to a
significant increase in the rate of natural gas depletion. Moreover, the energy needs of the PVL
would be met by the available market energy, and so it is reasonable to conclude that energy not
utilized for the PVL would be available for use by others. (Ibid.)
87
The commitments of non-renewable resources to the construction and operation of the
PVL would not be considered significant. Similar non-renewable resources demand would
otherwise occur without the PVL and in some cases would comprise a net decrease in the use of
nonrenewable resources. It is inherent to the public service nature of the PVL, that such
commitment of resources would constitute investments directed toward the benefit of the public,
as well as the prevention of environmental impacts that could otherwise be associated with
automobile pollution and additional highway construction and expansion. (Ibid.)
SECTION 6
FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d) requires a discussion of the potential growth-
inducing impacts of a project. This discussion addresses how implementation of the Project
would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either
directly or indirectly upon the surrounding environment. (Draft EIR, p. 5-2.)
The PVL constitutes the introduction of new infrastructure and services aimed at
providing a new mode of access between existing origin and destination points along the I-
215/SJBL corridor. It would not introduce new access to an area that was previously vacant or
undeveloped, or remove access barriers. The PVL is contemplated as a new mode of
transportation to serve populations already present in Riverside County, and accommodates the
projected future population anticipated by regional and city plans. (Ibid.)
Although the Project is intended to reduce congestion on highways, this benefit does not
rise to the level of removing an access barrier to growth. Accordingly, the Project does not
directly induce growth through the provision of housing or expansion of water infrastructure, and
neither does it indirectly induce growth by removing an access barrier. To the contrary, the
Project is merely intended to partially address existing and anticipated growth that would occur
even without the Project. As such, the Project has a less than significant impact on growth.
(Ibid.)
SECTION 7
RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Background
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss
alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to
the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a
project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public
88
participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are
infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project
alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for
selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature
or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.
Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant
effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code
Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to
the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives
would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or
would be more costly.
In Subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a
range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include
those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the
project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant
effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the
alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives
that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible
during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the
lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice
of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the
factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed
consideration in an EIR are:(i) failure to meet most of the basic Project
objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts.
The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR
to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include
sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and
comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR
need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most
of the basic objectives of the Project.
However, when significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation
measures, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with
respect to that impact in its findings, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater
degree than the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Kings County Farm Bureau
v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403; Laurel
89
Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) The
Commission has adopted mitigation measures to avoid all potentially significant environmental
impacts identified in the EIR. Accordingly, the Project will not result in any significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts. Nonetheless, a full analysis of potentially feasible
alternatives is provided below.
The proposed Project seeks to achieve the following key goals and objectives:
Goal 1 – Improve the Transportation System with Alternative Travel Choices:
Objectives
• To establish and expand the regional transit network within and beyond the study
corridor.
• To improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commuter alternative to the
automobile, by making it available, reliable and convenient to use.
• To reduce highway congestion in the corridor.
• To promote a seamless regional transit system.
Goal 2 – Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development:
Objectives
• To strengthen the older urban communities as centers of economic opportunity.
• To broaden the range and availability of public transportation alternatives between the
various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes.
• To encourage transit-friendly communities, at higher densities.
• To foster transit-oriented development around transit stations.
• To provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent.
Goal 3 – Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts:
Objectives
• To help reduce residential, commercial, and industrial “sprawl” development.
• To conform to the State Implementation Plan as required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
• To minimize impacts to the natural and human-made environment.
• To reduce the need for new right-of-way resources thereby reducing land use impacts to
the study corridor.
Goal 4 – Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently:
Objectives
• To invest resources efficiently.
• To improve the productivity and cost effectiveness of transit services in the corridor.
• To enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system within the corridor.
• To select investments that build upon underused and abandoned transportation resources.
(Draft EIR, p. 3-2 to 3-3.)
There are two types of alternatives evaluated in the EIR. First is the alternative that was
considered but was rejected from further consideration. Reasons for elimination included failure
90
to meet basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental
impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c).) That alternative was:
• Highgrove Station Alternative
(Draft EIR, p. 2-4.)
Second are the alternatives that were considered in detail. Those alternatives are:
• No Project Alternative
• Express Bus Alternative
• New Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL
• Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback
• Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative
(Draft EIR, pp.3-9 to 3-12.) A complete discussion for alternatives that were considered in detail
is provided below.
B. Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, one
possible alternative was initially considered and rejected. This alternative was rejected because
it could not accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project, would not have resulted in a
reduction of potentially significant impacts, and/or was considered infeasible. The specific
reasons for not selecting this rejected alternative are described below.
The Highgrove Area Station Option
The concept of a Metrolink Station in the Highgrove area has been raised by members of
the public throughout the Commission’s commuter rail planning process. In response, the
Commission studied the concept on a number of occasions between 1994 and 2010. The studies
consistently reaffirm that a Highgrove Area Station is not a feasible option for the PVL Project.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1) [feasibility of alternatives can be determined based on
factors such as site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure].) Below is an
explanation of why the Highgrove Area Station is not feasible.
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the
Highgrove Area Station Alternative because it (1) would introduce traffic and pedestrian safety
impacts more significant than the Project itself and/or (2) is economically infeasible and/or (3) is
technologically infeasible. Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Highgrove Area Station
Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative.
Supporting Explanation: During the planning period for the proposed project, site
conditions have changed at the commenter’s Highgrove area station site. The previously
undeveloped 34± acres of private land now has an approved Parcel Map and Design Review
(Planning Case P06-1506 and P06-1508) from the city of Riverside (November 2007) for
development of the Citrus Business Park. Improvements to the property will include constructing
91
four new industrial buildings (509,787 square feet). Access was approved via Citrus Street;
emergency access is via Villa Street. (Draft EIR pp., 2.4 to 2.9.)
With public access to the site limited to Citrus Street, access across Springbrook Wash is
the only way to access the two designated parcels north of the Wash. This area, north of the
wash, was approved for two industrial buildings as part of the approval for the Citrus Business
Park. The approved access is from a new crossing constructed on the western portion of the site,
adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way. Since the approval of the Citrus Business Park, the two
industrial buildings south of Springbrook Wash have been constructed. As such, the existing
condition for the commenter’s proposed Highgrove station site consists of two industrial
buildings with access from Citrus Street and a crossing at Springbrook Wash at the western
boundary of the property adjacent to the BNSF. (Ibid.)
The proposed PVL project would construct the Citrus Connection on the two parcels
north of Springbrook Wash. As discussed in the environmental document, the Citrus Connection
would connect the BNSF main line with the SJBL/RCTC ROW via a short curved track to be
constructed. This would replace the two industrial buildings proposed for this northern area.
(Ibid.)
In addition to the approved Citrus Business Park, the city of Riverside is scheduled to
start construction of a railroad grade separation at Iowa Street on the BNSF main line. The
planned grade separation would allow Iowa Street to be raised over the BNSF main line between
Palmyrita Street and Spring Street. Citrus Street would remain in the current configuration but
only a right turn in/right turn out would be allowed to and from Iowa Street. (Ibid.)
It should also be noted that construction has started on the Spring Mountain Ranch
development, along the northern section of Pigeon Pass Road. The Riverside County
Transportation Department (RCTD) is currently studying alternatives for roadway alignment
through the development to connect Pigeon Pass Road with the city of Riverside. Currently,
neither Center Street nor Villa Street (Highgrove area) connect to the east to provide access to
the Spring Mountain Ranch area. The closest connection for Pigeon Pass Road would be at
Marlborough Street which allows access to the Hunter Park Station. These alignments will
continue to be studied by RCTD. (Ibid.)
The planning began in 1988 when the Commission initiated studies of potential station
sites on the BNSF main line to serve future commuter rail service to Orange County. As a result,
the Commission decided to purchase passenger rail operating rights on the BNSF. As the
Metrolink system expanded within Riverside County, existing stations were reaching capacity
and various station selection studies were undertaken. Unlike other Metrolink member agencies,
the Commission takes responsibility to fund the capital and operating costs for Metrolink
Stations within the county. As such, the Commission takes into account both capital, operation,
and maintenance costs when evaluating station locations. (Ibid.)
Commuter rail station siting and selection considerations are based on a number of factors,
including projected ridership and revenue; operational requirements; geographic spacing in
92
relation to other stations; right of way requirements and availability; local conditions such as
surrounding land use and traffic circulation; and rail configuration. Additionally, both the BNSF
and the CPUC prefer the Marlborough Station location over the Highgrove site. The BNSF is
concerned the Highgrove station location would cause increased congestion on the main line and
not be a feasible option (Project Meeting, February 25, 2009). The CPUC identifies the
Marlborough Station as the preferred location because of the existing roadway access. The
Highgrove station would require two new grade crossings while Marlborough would not require
any (email communication, February 2, 2011). (Ibid.)
From an engineering perspective, the Highgrove area station is infeasible for the reasons
enumerated below:
Prior to planning the PVL Project, the Commission received public input concerning the
construction of transit facilities in the Highgrove area. The desired facilities included locating a
station on the BNSF main line near Citrus and Villa Streets. the Commission has revisited the
feasibility of this option numerous times in the past (1994, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2009). In
general, the concerns identified by the Commission in early evaluations have not changed over
the years. During a January 2006 evaluation, the Commission identified the following key
reasons to decline development of a Metrolink commuter rail station at Highgrove area on the
BNSF. The findings included (ibid.):
1) Public preference was to expand existing stations (38%) compared to construction
brand new stations (only 6% of the public wanted a Highgrove option when compared to three
other station sites);
2) Constrained Operating Environment – Highgrove weekday volume ranks the
lowest in comparison to the current train volumes for the five existing the Commission Metrolink
stations. The closest station (existing Riverside Downtown Station) to the Highgrove area is
only 3.7 miles away. The Riverside Downtown Station train volume is more than 4 times that of
a potential Highgrove option. Riverside Downtown serves three commuter lines while
Highgrove would serve just one line.
3) It was determined that the opportunity to have a station site on the Commission
owned SJBL alignment, at a location just south of the Highgrove area (Hunter Park region),
would be a better solution instead of needing to purchase property from BNSF.
The Hunter Park Station would also allow for commuters from the Spring Mountain
Ranch the shortest access via Marlborough Avenue or Palmyrita Street (which connects to the
Ranch development directly). Neither Citrus Avenue nor Villa Street connect east across the
SJBL/RCTC ROW to allow access to a station from the east. (Ibid.)
Subsequently, after the January 2006 presentation, members of the public requested
additional evaluations to determine the viability of the Highgrove Station option as part of the
PVL Project. In February 2009 the Commission requested STV Incorporated to prepare a
Highgrove Station Site Plan Study. The results of this study indicated 13 impediments to the
construction of a Highgrove Station. On September 19, 2009, Barney Barnett submitted a letter
rebutting STV
93
Incorporated’s study. STV Incorporated prepared a response to Mr. Barnett’s rebuttal by letter
dated January 11, 2010. A summary of STV’s response is outlined below (ibid.):
(1) Reconfiguration of the Villa Street grade crossing would be necessary. This would
include extensive and costly safety and engineering enhancements is costly and poses potential
vehicular and pedestrian safety issues. In addition, the city of Riverside will not allow regular
truck and vehicular access from Villa Street to the northern parcels in the Parcel Map and Design
Review document dated November 8, 2007 (Planning Cases P06-1506 and P06-1508) that would
cause adverse impacts the existing adjacent residential neighborhood. The California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) has indicated, in a project email, dated February 2, 2011, that they
will not allow a station at Highgrove because of the need to improve two at grade crossings when
none require improvements at Hunter Park. (Ibid.)
(2) Extending Spring Street westward through an existing vacant residential property and
creating a new vehicular and pedestrian grade crossing creates risks of train and
vehicular/pedestrian collisions and is not feasible for the same reasons as accessing the site from
Villa Street. In addition, the CPUC has reviewed the Highgrove alternative and prefers the
Hunter Park Station (Marlborough alternative) because of the close proximity of the two sites
and existing crossings provide access to the Hunter Park Station (Marlborough alternative). The
CPUC implementation practice for General Order Number 88-B is to not allow the construction
of any new at-grade crossings when not absolutely necessary. The CPUC views new at-grade
crossings at Spring Street or over the Citrus Connection track as not absolutely necessary
because of the option for a station to be located at Hunter Park (email communication, February
2, 1011). (Ibid.)
(3) The existing topography and evidence of substantial ponding on either sides of the
crossing within the right of way (ROW) indicate serious drainage and visibility problems that
would need to be addressed by extensive excavation and grading. Such work would add
substantial construction and operational/maintenance costs and would also introduce new
impacts to soils, geology and air quality during excavation. Thus, it’s not “environmentally
friendly” as commenter claims. (Ibid.)
(4) Diverting traffic into Villa Street neighborhood to access the station parking on the
northern parcels is not viable because the city of Riverside will not allow regular truck and
vehicular access from Villa Street to the northern parcels. This limitation was stated as a
condition of approval in the Parcel Map and Design Review document dated November 8, 2007
(Planning Cases P06-1506 and P06-1508). The city of Riverside indicated that Villa Street could
only be used for emergency access into the site.
(5) The original estimate in the 2009 Site Plan Study of 7 acres of available land for
parking was based upon utilizing only the parcel north of the Citrus Connection track. Due to
further design development and moving the Citrus Connection track further north to avoid the
Springbrook Wash Conservation easement, the northern parcel area available for parking has
been reduced. STV Incorporated has reevaluated the available land for parking and included a
portion of the parcel south of the Citrus Connection track in parking land area calculation netting
approximately 9.3 acres total available land for parking. Although, considering the size, shape
and configuration of the parcels available, a less than efficient parking plan would be the result.
94
The actual area available for parking at the Highgrove alternative is slightly less than the
Marlborough alternative containing 9.5 acres. The current total area north of Springbrook Wash
is 16.47 acres. This 16.47 acres would then have the Citrus Connection track through the center
of it which would allow for a “usable” area of 6.6 acres. Access to the approximately 6.6 acres
on the north parcel would be dependent upon a vehicular undercrossing beneath the Citrus
Connection track due to the access restrictions at Villa Street discussed above. The land area
needed for an undercrossing would severely restrict the 6.6 acres available.
(6) The Commission cannot limit access to the western drive to only Metrolink
passengers. The existing western driveway is a shared access with the current property owner of
the parcels (currently an existing industrial warehouse use) south of the Springbrook Wash
forcing passenger traffic to mix with semi-truck traffic, creating an unsafe condition for access to
the station parking. Per an easement in the CC&R’s for the purchase of the property by the
Commission, access from this western driveway must be maintained for the owner of existing
warehouse development. Any parking facilities located within the parcel area south of the Citrus
Connection track are limited by the California Department of Fish and Game 50’ setback from
the Springbrook Wash due to Condition 22 of the Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or
Lake Alteration imposed on the subject property dated 5/30/08.
(7) The only viable location for disabled parking is immediately adjacent or in the near
vicinity of the platform and the ticket vending machine which would be in the western drive and
does not fit due to the placement of the adjacent warehouse building. The alternative is to place
the disabled parking north of the Springbrook Wash which would impose an unreasonable travel
distance (in excess of 800 feet) from the closest parking spaces to the ticket vending machine and
platform for disabled passengers.
(8) BNSF representatives have stated that they prefer not to have a platform in their
ROW in this location due to operational congestion and track capacity because of the high
volume of freight traffic on their Main Line (Project Meeting, February 25, 2009.)
(9) The Highgrove Station would require an inner-track fence to separate the station track
(4th track) from the three BNSF Main Line tracks for safety reasons. This would move the 4th
track further east, thus requiring a design modification to the Citrus Connection curve increasing
the degree of the curve causing decreased train speed, higher wheel noise, and higher
maintenance due to the increased wear on the track. In addition, the minimum width with
required clearances (approximately 44 feet) would force the platform to encroach into the
driveway. Per an easement in the CC&R’s for the purchase of the property by the Commission,
access from this western driveway must be maintained for the owner of the warehouse
development on the southern parcels.
(10) There is adequate bus service to the area proposed for the Highgrove Station
alternative, but there would be no on-site bus drop-off area near the platform because of the
constrained space between the platform and the existing open access driveway. Bus passengers
would be dropped off curb-side on either Iowa Avenue or Citrus Street.
95
(11) Reconfiguration of Citrus Street would be required. It is agreed that the Citrus Street
connection to Iowa Avenue will remain unchanged. Because of the length of the platform and the
required distance (150’) from the switch for the Citrus Connector track, reconfiguration
including real estate takes on the east side of the street would be required to move Citrus Street
eastward where it curves adjacent to the BNSF Main Line ROW. This would result in an
increase in project cost related to the property acquisition and the road reconfiguration. These
costs would not be required for the Hunter Park station location.
(12) A possible option to attempt to accommodate a station in the Highgrove location just
south of the Citrus Connection is for the Commission to purchase the western-most building and
property of the existing warehouse development on Parcel 4, demolish the building, and convert
the property to on-site bus drop-off, disabled parking, and kiss-and-ride drop-off. This option is
cost-prohibitive for the PVL project and presents traffic and congestion challenges due to the
single entry and exit for passenger vehicles and buses. This would also require the demolition of
the newly constructed industrial buildings at the site. Additionally, the vehicular access issues
discussed above for the parcels north of the Citrus Connection would remain unchanged due to
restrictions from the city of Riverside and CPUC.
As a result of additional study subsequent to the Site Plan Study prepared by STV
Incorporated dated 2/27/09, the difference in cost to locate a station at this Highgrove site is now
estimated at an additional $45 million. (Ibid.)
Many commenters suggested that the “existing” depot in Highgrove could be used as a
station site to avoid the cost of constructing a new station. However, there is no existing
Highgrove depot. The Highgrove depot was originally located just south of Center Street and
was demolished in 1953 (DEIR Cultural Resources Technical Report, page 23). The former
depot location is located approximately 2,300 north of Citrus Street and adjacent to where the
BNSF mainline and the SJBL currently connect. This proposed location would only allow for
access to the BNSF mainline and not the proposed PVL project because the PVL project does not
travel that far north. Additionally, this area is a low income minority area that would be
significantly impacted by moving services north of Villa Street. (Ibid.)
For all the above stated reasons, the Highgrove Station option was not included as a
component of the PVL project or as a feasible alternative, and therefore is not evaluated further
within this EIR.
C. Alternatives Considered in Detail in the EIR
The following Project Alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR. These
alternatives are rejected for various reasons as set forth below.
1. The No Project Alternative
No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would be the continuation of current
and long-range plans for highway improvements, and maintaining the existing rail corridor for
continued freight service. There are several planned and programmed roadway improvements
along I-215 to include widening this freeway between the I-215/SR-60 interchange and Nuevo
96
Road, between Nuevo Road and Scott Road, and between Scott Road and Murrieta Hot Springs
Road. Even with current and programmed improvements that include additional general purpose
and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, I-215 is forecasted to continue to operate at
unsatisfactory service levels. As evidenced by increasing travel times, the I-215 freeway cannot
keep pace with the projected demand resulting from population, employment, and development
growth in the study corridor. With the major transportation facilities in the corridor, I-215 and
SR-60, unsatisfactory levels of service are expected to continue even with programmed roadway
improvements over the coming years. Thus, there is a need for a new transportation alternative
to accommodate current and future mobility needs. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the No
Project Alternative because (1) it would have greater impacts than the proposed Project in some
resource areas, and/or (2) it would not meet the Project objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9.) Each of
the stated grounds for rejecting the No Project Alternative is independently sufficient to justify
rejection of this alternative.
Supporting Explanation: The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the identified
Project Goals and Objectives. This alternative would not provide a different mode of passenger
transportation between Riverside and Perris (auto and bus modes would still be tied to the
congested roadway network). Additionally, it would not reduce highway congestion in the
corridor, thus furthering impacts to the natural environment with increased impacts to air quality
within the corridor. The No Project Alternative would not broaden the range of public
transportation alternatives between the various urban areas along the corridor and region, nor
would it build upon an underused transportation resource within the corridor. Therefore, the No
Project Alternative was eliminated from further evaluation, since it did not meet any of the goals
and objectives for the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9.)
2. The Express Bus Alternative
Express Bus Alternative: The Express Bus Alternative consists of low-capital
improvements to existing transit facilities and services that would operate on I-215 HOV lanes
between Downtown Riverside and Perris, as shown on Figure 3.2-1. To support this service,
local feeder bus connections are proposed for the express bus route. Metrolink commuter rail
service in Riverside would also benefit from any additional transfers from the feeder buses. The
Express Bus Alternative comprises seven new stations within the I-215 corridor and two existing
stations, including the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station and the RTA Downtown Bus
Terminal in downtown Riverside. The express bus service would be coordinated to reach the
Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station during peak periods such that connections could be made
to departing (AM) and arriving (PM) trains. In addition, linkages to local bus route services will
compliment the proposed service. Several local routes will incorporate an additional “express
bus stop” in order to provide greater connectivity and faster transportation service between the
municipalities in the corridor. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-9 to 10.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the
Express Bus Alternative because (1) it would not meet a majority of the Project objectives, and
(2) it is in feasible. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9 to 3-10.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the
Express Bus Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative.
97
Supporting Explanation: Although this alternative would meet some of the Project’s
objectives to some extent (EIR p. 3-13), it would not meet a majority of the four established
Project goals and their respective objectives to the same extent as the Project (EIR p. 3-9). While
improving the attractiveness of public transit as an alternative to the automobile this option does
not reduce highway congestion in the corridor. The congested freeways, in particular the I-
215/SR-60 interchange, affect the ability for the Express Bus Alternative to provide congestion
relief. The operation of this alternative would require the buses to continually cross highly
congested mixed-flow lanes to use the planned HOV lanes between the new stations, thus
adversely affecting their travel times and ridership. Ridership growth was projected to be
minimal, largely due to longer travel times on the increasingly congested freeways. Minimizing
environmental impacts for this alternative would also not be met as effectively as the commuter
rail alternatives. Seven new stations are proposed for the Express Bus Alternative, the greatest
number of stations compared to the other alternatives, requiring more right-of-way acquisition
which increases land use impacts to the corridor. As a result of the longest travel time from
increasing highway congestion throughout the forecast years, impacts to air quality and traffic
would be significant. Lastly, while this alternative proves to be the most cost effective (lowest
total capital expenditure) the performance of this alternative is insufficient to meet the needs of
commuters in the corridor. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-9 to 10.)
3. The New Commuter Rail Alternatives
Three build alternatives were identified that would implement commuter rail service in
the corridor between Riverside and Perris. The study corridor includes an existing railroad right-
of-way, the SJBL, which could provide a commuter rail route that would avoid the impediments
to mobility that are found in the corridor and which cannot be adequately addressed by the other
alternatives. The three new commuter rail alternatives are comparable because the alternatives
are similar in terms of operation. Each commuter rail alternative extends the Metrolink 91 Line
service from the existing Downtown Riverside Station to San Bernardino, Orange, and Los
Angeles Counties. The differences in the three commuter rail alternatives include the various
options to connect the SJBL mainline for service to the existing Metrolink station in downtown
Riverside. The commuter rail service would operate during the peak period and in the peak
direction. The operating schedule will be such that arrival and departure at Los Angeles Union
Station would coincide with typical work schedules, in an effort to make the new service as
attractive as possible to commuters. Different route lengths and operational considerations for
each alternative are described in detail below. (Draft EIR, p. 3-10.)
The Commuter Rail Alternatives successfully meet a majority of the Project goals and
objectives. Specifically, these alternatives build upon underused transportation resources since
track in the region is currently only servicing freight operations. Commuter rail service expands
not only the regional transit network but also beyond the study corridor and promotes a seamless
transit system. These alternatives would strengthen older urban communities as centers of
economic opportunity by fostering transit-oriented development. Improving mobility through the
corridor without the dependency to rely on and add to the congestion of highways. Since all three
commuter rail alternatives would satisfy some of the above stated Project goals and objectives to
some extent (see Draft EIR p. 3-13), the remainder of the discussion will focus on the goals and
objectives, specifically in terms of environmental impacts, that would not be meet by each
alternative. (Ibid.)
98
Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP Rail Alternative
Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP Rail Alternative: This commuter rail
alternative would connect the SJBL to the existing Riverside Downtown Station via the Union
Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead (UP RIL) (an active freight service line) without connecting to
the BNSF main line, as shown on Figure 3.2-2. A connection track would be constructed
between the SJBL and the UP RIL near Rustin Avenue in Riverside. The new connection track
would allow for continuous movement between the SJBL and the existing Riverside Downtown
station. This commuter rail alternative with new Connection to UP RIL would include the
construction of five stations. (Draft EIR, p. 3-10.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the
Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP Rail Alternative because (1) it would result in
environmental impacts to land use, construction-related noise and air quality, and noise/vibration
that are more significant than the Project itself, and (2) it is economically infeasible. (Draft EIR,
p. 3-10.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP
Rail Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative.
Supporting Explanation: The new connection at Rustin Avenue would require
acquisition of one vacant tract and a parcel that contains an existing building. In addition, a new
grade crossing with signal protection would be required. The new track would require the
displacement of a commercial property and acquisition of new property for a new grade crossing
both which would have significant land use impacts to the corridor and come with an infeasible
economic cost. Further, this option resulted in significant vibration and displacement impacts
that neither of the other commuter rail alternatives would induce. Additionally, construction-
related impacts would be worsened by the requirement to build a new grade crossing. Although
this alternative would provide direct access to the existing Downtown Riverside Station with the
shortest travel time, this alternative would require the agreement and purchase of the RIL
alignment from the Union Pacific and the RIL would need to be reconstructed resulting in higher
initial capital costs as compared to the other commuter rail alternatives. While the UP RIL
connection provides an alternative to highway congestion in the corridor and builds upon
underused transportation resources (see Draft EIR p. 3-13) it does not adequately coincide with
the other Project goals and objectives, specifically as related to environmental impacts. (Draft
EIR, p. 3-10.)
Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative
Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative. The Commuter Rail with
Highgrove Turnback Alternative proposes an alignment that follows existing track along the
SJBL and switches over to the BNSF mainline, as shown on Figure 3.2-3 of the Draft EIR. The
existing connection would require trains traveling in either direction to Riverside or Perris to
reverse movement at Highgrove to continue to the next station. This alignment would join the
BNSF main line track to continue on to the existing Riverside Downtown Station. FRA requires
a safety check prior to a train changing direction. This safety check includes a brake check and a
visual inspection by the train engineer, which results in significantly longer travel times. The
connection to the BNSF track to reach the existing station in Riverside requires no new
99
construction for track, but included in this alternative would be the construction of six new
stations. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-11.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the
Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative because (1) it would have greater
environmental impacts than the proposed Project, particularly as concerns traffic and (2) it is
infeasible (Draft EIR, p. 3-11.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Commuter Rail with
Highgrove Turnback Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this
alternative.
Supporting Explanation: The evaluation of this alternative revealed operational issues
resulting from a significant delay caused by the turnback movement in Highgrove. The time
needed to reverse the train and conduct the required FRA brake tests results in a significantly
longer travel time, and would likely reduce ridership levels. Because it does not require
additional track, the Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative would not need to
acquire any new property to connect the BNSF and SJBL alignments (only acquisition of station
sites). As a result of increased idling time required for the commuter train to make its reverse
movement, travel time increases and so do air quality emissions. Because of the significant
increase in travel times necessitated by a reverse train movement, this alternative was found to be
infeasible. Additionally, the reverse movement will impact traffic congestion in the Highgrove
area with the commuter train blocking grade crossings as it sits idle – introducing potential
emergency services and business/residential access impacts. Although this alternative operates
existing track and requires no acquisition for the track alignments, this alternative would have
significant operational issues and environmental impacts. Therefore, although the Commuter
Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative does meet some of the Project goals to some extent
(Draft EIR p. 3-13), overall it does not meet the Project goals and objectives to the same extent
as the Project, particularly with regard to minimizing environmental impacts and providing an
efficient mode of alternative transportation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-11.)
Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative (“the
proposed Project”)
Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative: The
Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative (Citrus Connection)
proposes a new, curved connection track north of Citrus Street between the SJBL and the BNSF
right-of-way, as shown on Figure 3.2-4 of the Draft EIR. The new connection track at Citrus
Street would require a property acquisition, with no displacements. The proposed connection
track would negate the need for a turnback operation as required in the Highgrove Turnback
Alternative. This alignment would utilize the BNSF mainline to access the existing Riverside
Downtown Station. This commuter rail alternative, the Citrus Connection would include the
construction of four stations. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-11 to 12.)
Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission found that this
alternative best met the goals and objectives, while minimizing environmental impacts to
greatest extent, and still being economically feasible. Accordingly, the Commission agreed that
this alternative would be the Locally Preferred Alternative, and selected it as the proposed
Project. (Draft EIR p. 3-12.)
100
Supporting Explanation: The evaluation of this alternative reveals that it does not have
the operational constraints of the Highgrove Turnback Alternative and would avoid the
environmental and acquisition impacts of the UP RIL Alternative. This alternative would have
higher initial capital costs due to a new track connection at Citrus Street. The utilization of
existing transportation resources would be improved due to the use of the existing and available
BNSF and SJBL mainlines. The Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street
Alternative provides the best opportunity to implement a quality transit alternative within the
corridor that serves the goals and objectives of the Project, and one that is not impeded by either
highway congestion or railroad operational issues. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-11 to 14.)
D. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Environmentally Superior Alternative: The Project – which is the Commuter Rail with
New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative described above – is the environmentally
superior alternative.
Supporting Explanation: The alternatives were evaluated based upon the ability to meet
the goals and objectives of the project. The matrix compares the alternatives in order to identify
the alternative with the least environmental impact and best performing operationally and is
shown in Table 1.3-1. RCTC concluded that commuter rail service would provide the best
solution to the specific transportation problems in the study corridor. In April 2008, RCTC
adopted the Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative (“Citrus
Connection”) as the Locally Preferred Alternative. The reasons for adopting this alternative
include minimizing the impacts to the community by reducing business relocation, reducing air
quality impacts, and decreasing the amount of acquisitions without the need for displacements.
This alternative most closely meets the goals and objectives established for the corridor,
therefore, this alternative was selected by the RCTC as the LPA and the proposed Project in
April 2008. Accordingly, the proposed Project is the environmentally superior alternative. (Draft
EIR, p. 3-12.)
SECTION 8
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would not have any significant
and unavoidable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. Thus, a statement of overriding
considerations is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093.)
101
SECTION 9
STATEMENT OF PROJECT BENEFITS
State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, subdivision (a) requires “the decision-making
agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project.” Further, State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, subdivision (b) requires
that “[w]hen the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
and/or other information in the record.”
The Commission hereby finds that the EIR has identified and discussed all potentially
significant environmental effects that may result from the proposed Project. The Commission
further finds that, through the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR,
all potentially significant environmental effects will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant. Thus, no statement of overriding considerations is required to be adopted pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines section 15093. Nonetheless, the Commission finds that the proposed
Project will provide numerous region-wide, statewide, and local economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits to the general public and the local community. Those benefits
include:
1. The Project will improve the transportation network and mobility in Riverside
County. By extending passenger rail service into portions of Riverside County not currently
served by rail, the Project will reduce dependency on passenger cars and trucks. (E.g., Draft EIR
p. 4.1132.) Reducing dependence on passenger cars and trucks will in turn reduce highway
congestion and thereby improve mobility for both rail passengers and those that continue to use
the roadway transportation network. (Ibid.; Draft EIR p. 4.9-5.)
2. The Project will assist the County’s local efforts, and SCAG’s regional efforts, to
reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions that result from mobile sources. By
providing commuters with the option to take rail for work, recreational, and business purposes,
the Project will take cars and trucks off the road and thereby reduce traffic-related air quality
emissions and GHGs in the South Coast Air Basin and Riverside County. (See Draft EIR pp.
4.3-13, 5-4.) Specifically, the Project will result in a reduction of approximately 34 million
vehicle miles traveled per year in the project area. (Air Quality Technical Report at pp. 16-17.)
This equates to a reduction of over 160,000 pounds of CO2 each day, with similarly large
reductions in criteria pollutants. (Draft EIR 4.3-23.)
3. The Project will benefit the local economy by providing jobs and by encouraging
the investment of local resources in local projects. Specifically, the Project will provide local
jobs both during construction and during operation. Moreover, the Project will bring a valuable
infrastructure project into the region for long-term operation.
4. The Project will help to meet and fulfill both regional and local planning goals.
Several local land use jurisdictions have land use plans which anticipate and plan for this Project.
(Draft EIR pp. 4.9-5 through 4.9-7.) Additionally, the Project is anticipated and planned for by
102
the Regional Transportation Plan and also the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
approved for the SCAG region. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-5.) The Project’s approval will allow the
fulfillment of those long-term planning goals.
5. The Project will establish and expand the regional transit network within and
beyond the study corridor. Currently, commuter rail services within Riverside County are
focused around the Downtown Riverside Station, but do not extend along the I-215 corridor or to
the many communities in that corridor whose residents travel to Riverside, Los Angeles, and
Orange County for work and other purposes. The Project would extend commuter service into
this underserved area, thus expanding the regional network of alternative transportation options.
(E.g., Draft EIR p. 4.2-28.)
6. The Project will improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commuter
alternative to the automobile, by making it available, reliable and convenient to use. Rather than
requiring the residents of the Cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, and other communities to drive
their cars into Riverside in order to access commuter trains, the Project will allow residents of
those communities to access commuter train services in their own communities. (See, e.g., Draft
EIR p. 4.1-32.) This will not only significantly decrease the total vehicle miles traveled by
commuter riders, but will also make access more convenient for the region’s riders. (See, e.g.,
Draft EIR pp. 4.3-27 through 4.3-28.)
7. The Project will reduce highway congestion in the corridor. One of the Project’s
primary purposes is to provide an alternative to traditional car/truck commuting along the
congestion I-215 corridor, which will continue to worsen in future years. (Air Quality Technical
Report at pp. 16-17.) This Project will provide efficient and convenient rail options for
commuters, thus reducing vehicle trips along the corridor and the traffic congestion that those
trips engender. (Draft EIR p. 2-6.)
8. The Project will promote a seamless regional transit system. By extending
commuter rail service into the currently underserved I-215 corridor, the Project will provide a
much-needed linkage between Riverside’s Downtown Station and the Cities of Moreno Valley,
Perris, and other communities along the I-215 corridor. This linkage, will allow passengers to
travel from their communities, through the Downtown Riverside Station, and then into the Los
Angeles or Orange County areas. (Draft EIR p. 2-3.)
9. The Project will broaden the range and availability of public transportation
alternatives between the various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes.
The Project will provide yet another mode of transportation along the I-215 corridor by
providing an alternative to traditional car/truck or bus travel. (E.g., Draft EIR pp. 2-5 through 2-
6.)
10. The Project will promote organized planning of future transit-oriented
development. Because the proposed project would construct the necessary transit infrastructure,
including commuter rail and stations services, future land use planning within surrounding
jurisdictions can now take advantage of the Project infrastructure when planning for transit-
friendly communities, at higher densities, and foster transit-oriented development around transit
stations. By providing several rail stations along the Project route, high-density commuter
103
communities may be better able to locate along the I-215 corridor. This is consistent with the
goals behind SB 375, which urges local land use agencies to co-locate higher density housing
with alternative modes of transportation, particularly along existing transportation corridors. In
this way, urban sprawl into currently undeveloped lands will be discouraged, because it is
anticipated that high-density residential or mixed-use development would be attracted to the
Project’s transportation services.
11. The Project will provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent.
The Project will be ADA compliant, and thus will provide a dependable mode of transportation
for those who have medical conditions precluding them from driving. (See Draft EIR p. 2-11.)
Additionally, the Project’s affordable and dependable time-schedule will provide increased
transportation independence for the elderly and non-drivers. (Ibid.)
12. The Project will enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system
within the corridor. The San Jacinto Branch Line is a rail line that has been in existence for over
100 years. (Draft EIR p. 2-3.) Currently, however, it is underused. (Draft EIR p. 2-6.) Rather
than constructing a new rail line in a currently undeveloped area, the Project would put this
existing rail line to a repurposed use, thereby minimizing impacts while maximizing
transportation-related benefits. (Ibid.)
13. The Project will improve local rail safety. The Project will improve the condition
of the existing San Jacinto Branch Line through measures such as new ballast, welded rail, and
other upgrades. (E.g., Draft EIR p. 2-11 through 2-12.) Additionally, the Project will improve at
least 15 grade crossings along the Project’s rail corridor, including pedestrian gates, striping,
signage, raised medians, and other measures to minimize pedestrian and traditional traffic
conflicts with rail operations. (E.g., Draft EIR p. 2-40.) Each of these measures will improve
public safety. (Ibid.) RCTC has also provided funding and other support for the establishment
of “quiet zones” within the city of Riverside. (Draft EIR p. 2-3; Final EIR Master Response #1.)
The Commission hereby finds that it has reviewed and considered the above Statement of
Project Benefits, and that it is an accurate and objective statement. The Commission further
finds that the foregoing economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits will be provided
to the public through approval and implementation of the proposed Project. Each of the benefits
listed above, standing alone and unto itself, is sufficient justification for the Commission to
proceed with the proposed Project.
SECTION 10
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The Commission finds that it has reviewed and considered the EIR in evaluating the
Project, that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the Public
Resources Code, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Commission’s Local CEQA Guidelines,
and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The Commission
consequently certifies the EIR.
104
The Commission finds and declares that no new significant information as defined by
State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 has been received by the Commission after circulation
of the Draft EIR nor added by the Commission to the EIR that would require recirculation.
The Commission certifies the EIR based on, without limitation, the following finding and
conclusions:
A. Finding: All potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project can be mitigated to
less than significant levels. With implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the proposed Project would not have any
significant and unavoidable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the environment.
B. Conclusions:
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed
Project have been identified and fully analyzed in the EIR and, with
implementation of the identified mitigation measures impacts will be mitigated to
a less than significant level.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly achieve
the basic goals and objectives of the proposed update have been considered and rejected in favor
of the proposed Project.
SECTION 11
ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Commission hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall
control.
SECTION 12
PROJECT APPROVAL
Based upon the entire administrative record before the Commission, including the above
findings and all written and oral evidence presented during the administrative process, the
Commission hereby approves the Project.
105
SECTION 13
CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these
Findings have been based are located at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. The custodian for these
records is Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager/Clerk of the Board. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 14
STAFF DIRECTION
The Commission hereby directs staff to prepare, execute, file, and have posted a CEQA
Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk’s Office and the Office of Planning
and Research within five (5) working days of the Commission’s adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED this 25th day of July, 2011.
Gregory S. Pettis
Chair
ATTEST:
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
State of California )
County of Riverside )
106
Exhibit “A”
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
. To: Riverside County Transportation Commission July 12,20) 1 by email
Re: Comments on Perris Valley Line Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley Line, Riverside
County, California, Agenda Item 10 for the July 13,2011 RCTC meeting .
. Please consider the comments herein on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Perris Valley
Line Metrolink (PVL). This letter is being written on behalf of residents of the UCR neighborhood, including
myself, and on behalf of Friends of Riverside's Hills. r request that this letter be part of the public record. The
CCR neighhorhood is the residential neighborhood extending north and east of the University of California
Riverside campus, between the campus and the Box Springs Mountains. The roule of the PVL, along the San
Jacinto Branch Line railroad right of way (SJBL), goes through the UCR neighborhood from about MP 1.7
(north of Spruce SI.) to ahout MP 5.1 (north of Gernert Rd), inclUding passing close by hundreds of residences
plus two public elementary schools, child care centers, churches, and parks. Friends of Riverside's Hills is a
California non-profit corporation concerned with protecting the environment in the western Riverside County
area.
The EIR is seriously deficient. As discussed below, there are a number of potentially significant impacts that the
ErR fails to consider or fails to analyze adequately, including impacts for which consideration is segmented,
deferred, and/or evaded entirely. These deficiencies need to he corrected and the EIR recirculated.
In what follows, FErRI indicates vol. I of the FEIR, FEIR2 indicates vol. 2 of the FEIR which is the revised
July 2011 version of the DEIR, and SEA indicates the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the PVL.
When referring to page numbers in documents, for the convenience of the reader an attempt has been made to
also include the page number in the PDF version of the document.
). Ambiguous dcseription of track improvements and depth of construction
In the DEIR Project Details Section 2.4.1 Track Improvements, p. 2-14 (~50), it says
"MP 1.40 to MP 5.10 (approximately Marlborough Avenue south to Poarch Road): The track would be
upgraded with new concrete ties, new welded rail, and new ballast as required.
MP 5.10 to MP 7.00 (approximately Poarch Road to Box Springs Boulevard): Wooden ties would be replaced
as needed and new ballast added." (emphasis added)
The modifier "as required" means that the extent of the work remains to be determincd. Note the contrast with
the MP 5, I 0 to 7.00 section, whcre "and new ballast added" is not so modified.
The SEA at p. 1-49 states
"Project implementation will improve operating conditions by either upgrading (replace ballast, ties, and rail)
or replacing existing track throughout its length, including along adjoining Hyatt Elementary SchooL The one
exception is the two mile stretch between Poarch Road and River Crest Road where the track will be
rehabilitated (resurfacing and spot tie replacements)." (emphasis added)
The "either"I"or" statement (specifically mentioning an area adjoining Hyatt Elementary School, i.e., in the
UCR neighborhood, and not clarified in the subsequent FEIR) is another indication of inadequacy of the
description of the extent of the work to be done.
The FEIR2 4.4-11 (~179) states (about an area in the UCR neighborhood):
"After MP 350 the ROW enters Box Springs Mountain Reserve ... Additionally, there would be limited work
on the tracks in this area, but there would be noise barriers installed to shield adjacent residents from the
train noise ...." (emphasis added)
The words "limited work on the tracks" would be a strange way of describing complete replacement of rail, ties,
and ballast, so this statement contributes to the ambiguity of the EIR as to the extent of the track work planned.
Not only the location and extent oftrack improvements needs to be more precisely dcscribed, but the depth of
the construction at those locations needs to be described, since that depth impacts the cnvironment, including
hazards ncar the buried jet fuel pipeline. The SEA at p, 3. 18-3t states
"Portions of the existing SJBL ROW could contain buried Pleistocene alluvium beneath areas that have been
previously disturbed by the original construction of the railroad. Proposed construction activities within the
ROW (for example, double-tracking or track and tie replacement) in areas where the depth of previous
disturbance is less than the maximum depth of construction may result in impacts to sensitive
paleontological resources."
This statement shows that some of the track improvements, including track and tie replacement, are
expected to involve depth of construction exceeding the depth of previOUS disturbance. The EIR fails to
describe the depths and locations involved, or the associated impacts, or to otherwise consider the issue.
These matters are environmentally significant. The amount of track improvement and depth of excavation
affect nearby sensitive receptors Track and ties wear and eventually need to be repaired (e.g. by grinding of
track) or replaced, and ballast settles. Construction noise impacts and the time period until necessary repair or
replacement can be significant to nearby reSidences, schools and churches.
The FEIR2, at page 4.10.43 (= 326) incorrectly describes the locations ("just south of Spruce Steet and north
of Hyatt Elementary School") where one of two mitigation measures (ballast mats or under-tie pads) will be
used; presumably it should be Highland, not Hyatt.
2. Inadequate description of location & depth of Jet Fuel Pipeline near construction
The issue of depth of excavation for track and tie replacement is particularly important where such excavation
will take place in the vicinity of the Kinder Morgan jet fuel pipeline. The DEIR claimed that the pipeline was a
minimum of 3 feet deep. Now, in response to the RUSD letter pointing out that the depth near Highland School
is 2 feet 4 inches, the response L3-13 (in the FEIR) states
'The depth of the pipeline within the ROW varies. In some places it is as deep as 10 feet and in other places it
is as shallow as 2 feet 4 inches. The reason for this range of depths is that erosion and weathering slowly
remove topSOil and therefore reduce the overall depth of the line. Therefore, the description of the pipeline is
not inconsistent or inaccurate."
This and other statements in the FEIR shows that the FEIR continues to rely on incorrect and conclusory
statements, and is clueless as to the actual depth of the pipeline as well as to its precise location except
perhaps in the vicinity of Highland Elementary SchooL The Raymond Johnson public comment letter on the
SEA (Jan. 6, 2011 -that letter is incorporated herein by reference, and referred to herein as the Johnson2
letter) included a copy of a leiter by UCR neighborhood resident Merial Everett regarding the 2002 incident
involving the pipeline in her backyard, showing that Kinder Morgan was ignorant of at least some of the actual
locations and depths of the pipeline; furthermore the Johnson2 leiter included pictures of the pipeline where it
was actually exposed because of past erosion -so much for it being only "as shallow as 2 feet 4 inches' It
should be noted that the (2010) DEIR claimed that it was a minimum of 3 feet deep: then the RUSD letter
pOinted out that it was only 2 feet 4 inches deep near Highland School, and now the EIR is claiming that it is a
minimum of 2 feet 4 inches deep. II seems evident that Kinder Morgan doesn'l know the precise pipeline
locations and depth (or won't admit it), and the EIR doesn't properly verify them.
Moreover, as the Johnson2 letter pointed out, because of the pipeline's location east of the tracks near
Highland SchOOl and west of the tracks in Mrs. Everett's yard, there have to be at least two places where the
pipeline actually crosses under the tracks, and thus where both construction work and metrolink train vibration
will be especially dangerous. The Project description not only remains deficient in not accurately describing
the location and depths of the pipeline in the vicinity of the tracks, but especially important is its failure to
specify all locations where the pipeline crosses under the tracks and the depths of the pipeline at those
locations, as well as its failure to describe the special mitigation measures to be taken as such locations to
protect against pipeline weakening and/or rupture not only during construction but also during train operation
(related to vibration).
In its response L3-14: the FElR claims that
"no engineering or construction activities are expected to impact the pipeline during construction .... The Contractor must
expose all Kinder Morgan pipelines prior to crossing to determine the exact alignment and depth ofthe lines." (Here
"crossing" presumably means crossing by equipment, and not to the undisclosed locations where the pipeline crosses
under the tracks.)
Since (as shown by the Johnson2 letter and other comments) RCTC clearly does not know "the exact alignment and depth
of the lines", the claim that "no engineering Or construction activities are expected to impact the pipeline during
construction" is merely a conclusory statement Indeed, it would appear to be impossible to do track construction work at
a location where the track crosses over the pipeline without "impact"ing the pipeline.
[t should be noted that the FEiR's newly added Appendix H, the Zeta Tech Report (dated March 22, 2011) addresses the
pipelined depth and condition, but only in the immediate vicinity of Highland Elementary School, where the "pipeline is
located between 25 and 75 feet from the track" (Zeta Tech Report, p. 5). The Report contains no discussion concerning
the pipeline in other areas, in particular regarding locations where it crosses under the tracks,
Thus the project description is inadequate. It should, but does not, give actual and true information on the exact alignment
and depth of the lines not just adjacent to Highland Elementary School but especially with regard to where the tracks cross
the pipeline. The impacts, especially at such crossing locations, from construction on the tracks and from vibration from
passing speedy Metrolink trains, are potentially significant and need to be properly analyzed.
. 3. Staging
The BIR, while listing several required criteria for its required construction staging area, fails to discuss any
. feasible location, much less the environmental impacts there,
Here are criteria that the EIR states to be required. Its project description states, at FEIR2 p, 2-49, 2-50 (85,86),
"The next step would be the staging of construction materials and equipment. Where needed, the contractor
would perform rough grading for embankment changes and construction equipment access .... It should also
be noted that any equipment staging areas will be within disturbed areas of the ROW or RCTC
property, and not within 500 feet of environmentally sensitive areas." (emphasis added)
The EIR fails to specify what constitute "environmentally sensitive areas" for this purpose. The FElR2 adds at
p. 4.3-27 (164) (along with other relevant criteria)
"BMP AQ-8: Establish an on-site construction equipment staging area and construction worker parking
lots, located on either paved surfaces or unpaved surfaces subject to soil stabilization: (emphasis added)
at 4A-26 (194} (along with other relevant criteria}
"BR-3: Stockpiling of materials shall be limited to disturbed areas without native vegetation, areas to be
impacted by project development or in non-sensitive habitats."
and at 4.10-38 (321}
"Also, staging yards would be located strategically so as to limit the travel time for construction crews,
These processes would serve to limit the exposure radius of traffic-related construction noise in
sensitive areas:" (emphasis added)
Other requirements are at FEIR2 ES-5 (19}.
It should be noted that other aspects that a staging area would presumably involve, some of them apparently
not mentioned in the EIR, include the following:
security fencing and lighting; construction trailers and restrooms; storage and use of construction materials,
equipment, vehicles, supplies, water and fuel; contractor show-up and parking; and equipment and vehicle
maintenance.
Even though all the above quoted requirements and the geography of construction location, at least in the UCR
neighborhood, place severe constraints on the location of staging areas, the EIR fails to specify the proposed
location of the staging areas, construction worker parking lots, and stockpiling areas, or even a list of feasible
locations. That the constraints on such locations in the UCR area are severe is evidenced by the following:
The only public street access to the ROW in the UCR area is at the following streets:: Spruce. Blaine, Mt.
Vernon, the narrow end of Big Springs Rd, the end of Manfield, and Gernert/Poarch. These access points are
widely separated, and most of them traverse quiet residential neighborhoods. Much of the area between these
access points is environmentally sensitive (adjacent to Box Springs Reserve, Islander Park (a nature park),
MSHCP critical cells or core areas), or immediately adjacent to residences, schools or churches. The actual
ROW for much of its length in the UCR neighborhood is narrow (e.g .. only 100 feet wide between Mt. Vernon
and Big Springs Rd), and sometimes partly consisting of steep slopes. (For a partial description of condition of
the ROW in the UCR neighborhood, see FEIR2 p. 4.4-11 (~179).)
It is not clear that there are any suitable areas for staging on the ROW or RCTC owned property in the UCR
neighborhood And the ROW is the only ReTC-owned property in the UCR area. Thus the staging areas,
construction worker parking lots, and stockpiling areas may need to be a conSiderable distance away,
increasing construction equipment travel and construction crew travel through the quiet residential
neighborhood, with associated and unanalyzed environmental impacts.
Also relevant as showing what a huge additional burden the proposed PVL construction would be on the UCR
neighborhood are the issues mentioned in Mitigation Measure HHM-3 (FEIRI p, 0.4-10 755):
"HHM-3: Prior to construction RCTC shall prepare a traffic management plan .... to determine detour
routes, length and timing of any closures, temporary access routes, signage, coordination with police
and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes. An additional component of the
plan shall be coordinating with local emergency response agencies to identify emergency evacuation
routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities .... "
The EIR fails to discuss or analyze the impact of these issues -detour routes, closures, etc. -in the
UCR neighborhood, where many residences already have very limited access, such as no-outlet
streets.
Thus the EIR's project description is deficient in failing to identify suitable staging areas and the
impact, including from construction related traffic, of specific choices of those areas.
4. Foreseeable Expansion of Station Amenities
The failure to consider now the environmental impact of future improvements that
RCTC plans along the PVL constitutes improper deferral, segmentation and/or evasion of
consideration of the environmental impacts. Here is evidence of RCTC's planning for future station
improvements in the RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual (as
approved by RCTC July 8, 2009, Agenda Item 8E) rRCTC DCManual"t As stated on p. 1 ofthe
Manual,
"The design and construction of the Stations along the PVL will be funded with Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Small Starts grant monies. These monies are tied to a Cost Effective Index
(CEI) Criteria which if exceeded will result in the reduction or loss of the funding. Therefore, RCTC is
limited by this funding as to what can be constructed on opening day of PVL Commuter Rail Service.
This Design Criteria Manual will outline the basic Station that can be designed and constructed for
PVL on opening day, while remaining within the limits established by the FTA funding. RCTC
recognizes that these basic design criteria may not address the various Cities, Agencies, and local
organizations expectations for a Commuter Rail Station, including the architectural look, aesthetic
features, and amenities. RCTC will work with these groups, the State, and Federal Governments to
identify and procure other funding sources to design and construct additional Architectural and
Aesthetics Features and expand the Station Amenities after the opening day of the Station and
outside of the FTA funding. The current budget estimates the total station costs including
parking to average approximately $6 million, this compares to most recent North Main Corona
Station construction costs of $10 million in 2002." (emphasis added)
Thus RCTC plans improvements to the four stations included in the present PVL version subsequent
to the PVL opening day. By statute, "modernization of existing stations and parking facilities" for
passenger rail is exempt from CEQA. However, new stations and parking facilities are not exempt.
For the proposed PVL stations, what is considered in the SEA is a basic or stripped down version of
the facilities in order to maximize FTA Small Starts grant money. However the above quote from the
RCTC Manual shows that RCTC plans to improve the facilities later, indeed to "expand the Station
Amenities after the opening day of the Station and outside of the FTA funding", thus doing it when it
can be done without Federal funding and so exempt from NEPA as well as CEQA, thus evading
consideration of the full environmental impact of the planned facilities. Note that the
subsequent "expanded amenities" to the facilities are not only reasonably foreseeable but would be
substantial, as shown by the difference between the $6 rnillion cost for facilities as proposed in the
SEA and the $10 million cost in 2002 for the North Main Corona Station. Indeed the $10 million in
2002 dollars likely translates to $12 million in 2012 dollars, so the expanded version will cost about
twice as much as the stripped down version and so can be expected to have substantially more
environmental impact which needs to analyzed as part of the Project.
The potential environmental irnpact of such future improvements is accentuated by the fact that, as
the RCTC DCManual states at pp. 30,31:
"The Preliminary Engineering for the PVL Project determined that the proposed South Perris
Station is located in a 100 year flood plain. During a 100 year storm event it was determined
that the station would be under 6 feet of water."
Additional evidence that future station improvements are reasonably foreseeable: on p. 21 of the
RCTC DCManual, it states
"The base station design must include the construction of SCRRA's required 680-foot long platform
and must be designed to accommodate the future expansion of the platform to 8S0-feet with
minimal impact to items constructed as part of the base design." (emphasis added)
It should be noted that, as stated in the SEA at p. 3.13-2 (=372),
'The RCTC Commuter Rail and Multirnodal Facility Design Criteria Manual was developed to establish the design guidelines to be
used for future racilities. This manual provides guidelines for developing commuter rail ,tations, park and ride facilities, and
multimodal transit centers developed by RCTe."
·5. Foreseeable Construction of Maintenance Road
The EIR fails to consider the reasonably foreseeable construction of a maintenance road for the PVL,
• in violation of CEQA Here is evidence that such construction is reasonably foreseeable.
The RCTC DCManual, at p. 15, states
"All requirements outline (sic) in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual2 section 7.5.3 shall be applied to
RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements.
Along the PVL all attempts should be made to provide a maintenance road along the track alignment with
access points from adjacent City, County Streets, or ReTC owned property." (emphasis added)
The SCRRA Design Criteria Manual, at p. 59, states:
"8.11.2 SCRRA Maintenance Vehicle Access
Maintenance vehicle access, particularly to tumouts, signals, and curve lubricators3 , shall be
provided. These typically create berms or "ditch blocks" across drainages. The designer shall provide
culverts or storm sewers, including the use of drop inlets and manholes, as necessary to provide
continuous drainage on SCRRA ROW" (emphasis and footnote added)
The FEIR2 p. 2-51 (=87):states
"RCTC anticipates that project maintenance will be according to SCRRAlMetrolink
standard practices."
The appropriate time to construct such a maintenance road would be during construction of new or
replacement track so that it could be used then, in particular for the use of some of the equipment that
is planned to be used during track improvement. Thus Response L3-6, citing the Air Quality Technical
Report, notes that
"For example, for the track construction, the analysis assumed that 1,000 feet of track would be laid
per day, with an estimated number of 131 total days. One end loader, backhoe, track laying machine
(TLM), track tamper, and ballast regulator would each be used for eight hours a day. One railroad car
would be used for six hours a day and one dynamic track stabilizer would be used for four hours a
day. Lastly, one water truck, one dump truck, and one welder's truck would be used for nine hours a
day."
Construction of such a maintenance road is made more necessary by the facts (as noted above in the
comments on staging) that, at least in the UCR neighborhood portion of the ROW, access points from
public streets are very limited and much of the ROW is narrow and either on a raised embankment or
constricted by steep slopes. The Construction, operation, and maintenance of the required 20 plus
miles of such a maintenance road, including possible grading and even blasting of existing hard
granite rock slopes close to the tracks near some of the tight curves in the UCR neighborhood, would
have significant environmental impacts.
The DEIR, at p. 2-44, does say that, during construction, "Where needed, the contractor would perform
rough grading for embankment changes and construction equipment access" Here, the phrase "where
needed" is vague and unspecific. It fails to adequately describe the locations or extent of such "rough
grading" and its environmental impacts (note that much of it would be near environmentally sensitive
areas and residences, schools or churches). Nor does such "rough grading" address the SCRRA
Design Criteria Manual's requirement, quoted above, to provide proper drainage. The EIR fails to
mention the required actual maintenance road, much less analyze the associated impacts. This is an
additional inadequacy in the project description. If portions of DC Manual's required maintenance
road are only to be constructed after the PVL opening day, then that would constitute improper
segmentation/deferral of the environmental review.
Thank you for your consideration and inclusion in the public record.
Kevin Dawson
269 Goins Ct., Riverside CA 92507
951-781-0386 h kevindaw@aol.com
2 As stated in the SEA, p. 3.13-2 (=372), "The SeRRA Design Criteria Manual serves to define the procedures
that govcrn the initiation, progress and execution of design work for the SCRRA."
3 Note that the PVL does plan to use curve lubricators in eonnection with its many tight-radius curves.
To: Riverside County Transportation Commission July 12,2011 by email
, Re: Comments on Perris Valley Line Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley Line, Riverside
County, California, Agenda Item 10 for the July 13,2011 RCTC meeting.
Please consider the comments herein on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Perris Valley
Line Metrolink (PVL). This letter is being written on behalf of residents of the UCR neighborhood, including
myself, and on behalf of Friends of Riverside's Hills, Irequest that this leiter be part of the public record. The
UCR neighborhood is the residential neighborhood extending north and east of the University of California
Riverside campus, between the campus and the Box Springs Mountains. The route of the PVL, along the San
Jacinto Branch Line railroad right of way (SJ8L), goes through the UCR neighborhood from about MP L7
(north of Spruce St.) to about MP 5.1 (north of Gernert Rd), including passing close by hundreds of residences
plus two public elementary schools, child care centers, churches, and parks. Friends of Riverside'S Hills is a
Califomia non-profit eorporation concerned with protecting the environment in the western Riverside County
area.
The EIR is seriously deficient. As discussed below, there are a number of potentially significant impacts that the
EIR fails to consider or fails to analyze adequately, including impacts for which consideration is segmented,
deferred, and/or evaded entirely. These deficiencies need to be corrected and the EIR recirculated.
In what follows, FEIR 1 indicates voL I of the FEIR, FEIR2 indicates voL 2 of the FEIR which is the revised
July 2011 version of the DEIR, and SEA indicates the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the PVL
When referring to page numbers in documents, for the convenience of the reader an attempt has been made to
also include the page number in the PDF version of the document.
Foreseeable future double tracking
The ReTC DCManual, at p. 15, states
"All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General
Configuration shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional
requirements .
• The PVL will be double tracked along some of its alignment and potentially in the future
along the full alignment. BNSF will be providing freight service along the PVL with most of
their customers located along the west side of the property. Potentially the western most track
will be allocated for BNSF freight service, with sporadic Metrolink use, therefore the platform
design should anticipate this rail usage and the platformfs should be placed accordingly."
(emphasis added)
Elsewhere (RCTC DCManual, p. 31), the single track is described as just a "start up condition":
"Based on the start up conditions, single track, an Undercrossing at this [UCR} station location
would not be necessary." (emphasis added)
While the language about double-tracking docs not say that double tracking is certain to be done, it implies that
it will be done. Compare the quite different language used in the RCTC DCManual (at p, 19) on a
different issue for which future action is less certain:
"At the time of issuance of this manual it is not anticipated that pedestrian overcrossing will be
required at any of the proposed Stations along the PVL Even though overcrossings are not
envisioned at this time, the platforms should be constructed to allow their placement in the future if
necessary." (emphasis added)
Tn contrast, the language referring future double tracking shows that it is a reasonably foreseeable improvement.
Moreover, future double tracking through the part of the ROW along the base of Box Springs Mountain and
through tilC UCR neighborhood would involve grading of steep slopes (some of hard granite) atld work adjacent
to environmentally sensitive areas and residences, schools and churches, It would also involve staging impacts
similar to those discussed above. Thus it would have significant environmental impacts. Therefore the EIR is
segmenting ,md deferring consideration of those impacts by not considering them now, in violation of CEQA
7. I?urther evidence that the above project improvements (station amenity expansion, maintenance road,
double tracking) are reasonably foreseeable
Here is the evidence: The RCTC Sept. 2009 Meeting Agenda Item 7F, p. 3,4: states
"Additional MOUsfAgreementsfAmendments
It is anticipated that four additional MOUs, agreements, or amendments will need to be entered into
for the continuation of SeRRA's support during design, construction, operations and maintenance,'
and future improvements along the PVL. The scope and timing of these MOUs is summarized below
Future Improvements Along the PVL
This MOU will detail SCRRA requested future improvements to the PVL after the initial two years of operations.
Certain scope items requested by SCRRA were determined to not be needed for the opening of revenue service in
2012, but will be needed for the efficient and cost-effective long term operations on the PVL. This MOU will
outline these requested improvements and the anticipated schedule to implement the improvements after the initial
two years of operations. Additional items may be identified during the initial operations and they will be included in
this MOll. This MOll will be the subject of a future agenda item ncar the end of the first two years of operations. It
is anticipated that it will be presented to the Commission in late 2014." (emphasis added)
It is improper segmentation, deferral or evasion of environmental review, in violation of CEQA, to not provide
sueh review as part of the eurrent EIR
Construction Noise
In the Project Description seetion, Track Improvements, the DEIR2 at p. 14 (=50) says
"MP t.40 to MP 5.10 (approximately Marlborough Avenue south to Poarch Road): The traek would be
upgraded with new concrete ties, new welded rail, and new ballast as required."
II should be noted that this segment, from a point between Marlborough and Spruce to a point north of
Poarch/Gernert Rds, is the segment through the lICR neighborhood, with its hundreds of residences near the
tracks, some of them as close as about 60 ft from the tracks (as shown e.g. in the SEA noise measurement
Tables 3.4-5, 3.4-5 and 3.4-7 and in the site descriptions in SEA Tech Report C Appendix F, p. 31 et seq.).
The DEIR2, p. 4.10-37, 38 (321. 322) states
"Although the overall length of construction tor the entire PVL project would be approximately 18 months,
disturbances at individual receptor locations would not last for more than several months .... both sporadic and
temporary increases in construction noise above local construction noise ordinances levels may occur. Any
temporary increases would be based on potential occurrenees of atypical events given the inconsistent and
transitory naturc of some construetion activities and equipment usage. Consequently, the contraetor would be
required to use standard construction noise contro I measures sueh as temporary construction noise barriers, low
noise emission equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment to reduce the
likelihood of any increases in constmction noise above the local noise ordinance maximum levels ....
According to the PVL Construction Staging Plan, some night-time construction is scheduled to occur
specifically for new track layout. Because local codes allow construction only during day-time hours, any
project-related night-time construction activity would require the project to obtain from the municipality written
consent for an exemption, or variance to these codes." (emphasis added)
Such variances white solving legal problems would result in significant environmental impacts since
noise levels would exceed jurisdictional standards.
The DEIR2 at p. 4.10-38 (=321), with "Other locations" referring to other locations than for pile driving
associated with the bridge replacements near the South Perris Layover Facility. states
"Other locations along the alignment would also be potentially impacted by construction noise. To determine
whether construction of the proposed PVL project would result in any noise impacts to sensitive
receptors at these locations, an FTA general assessment procedure for construction noise was
conducted for a representative residential location at 228 C Street in Perris. This location was chosen
because it would be representative of a property which would be affected by typical track laying
construction represented by activities such as culvert modifications and embankment work as well as track
and road crossings construction. In addition, due to the proposed Perris Station, it would also be affected by
construction noise from station and parking elements, which include earthwork, utility work and landscaping
among others." ...
Importantly, the chosen so called "representative property which would be affected by typical track
laying construction" is very far from the tracks, and so will not be nearly as much affected by the
construction noise as homes in the UCR neighborhood much closer to the tracks. Indeed the house at
228C Street. between 2 nd and 3rd Sts in Perris. is so far from the tracks that the noise level is the same with two
freight trains in a day as it would be without any trains (SEA Figure 1.7-12 (p. 77) and SEA Tech Report C
Appendix F, p. 39). Noise measurements for 228 C. St are listed in SEA Tables 3.4-6, for 2005, and 3.4-7, for
2009, with listed distances from the tracks of 240 feet and 244 feet. As seen in the aerial photo in SEA Figure
1.7-12, the residence there is very close to the property line, with perhaps a 20 foot setback, so that the
, property line is at about 224 feet from the tracks.
The DEIR2 at p. 4.10-38,39 (=322, 323) provides the following information about the construction noise at that
property:
"As a result, based on construction noise projections shown in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report C, the
combined noise level for two of the noisiest pieces of construction equipment would result in a construction
noise level of 79 dBA at the property line of the residential home, This would be below the FTA
construction noise criteria described in Chapter 12 of the FTA Guidance Manual. It would also be below the 80
dB noise level set by Section 7.34.060 of the Perris General Plan. Therefore, although the total project
construction period is estimated to last approximately 18 months, because the FTA construction noise criteria
level for both day and night-time construction would not be surpassed, noise impacts due to construction noise
activities are not expected and would be less than significant." (emphasis added)
In arriving at this 79 dBA figure, the EIR is using the following formula (FEIR Tech Report C, Noise and
Vibration Technical Report, Revised May 2011, p, 47,48):
"Noise levels are predicted using the following equation for each construction piece
Leq (equip) = EL + 10 Log(U,F) -20Iog(O/50) -10Glog(O/50)
(as given in the FTA NOise and Vibration Manual, here correcting typos. This correction was painted out in the
Johnson Jetter of Jan 6, 2011)
where.
Leq (equipment = the Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of eqUipment
= The noise emission level of a particular piece of equipment
UF, =The usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that a piece of equipment is in use over a
specified time period
o distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment
G = accounts for topography and ground effects (G = 0 over hard ground, per FTA Manual)
Since G is taken to be 0, the term here that depends on distance from the receiver is
-20 log(D/50). For D = 224 at 228 CSt., Perris,
-20 log(D!50) = -20 Jog(224!50) -20 log(4A8) = -20(0.651) -13,02
On the other hand, many of the residences in the UCR neighborhood (including those along E. Campus View
Dr., where the railroad right of way is only 100 feet wide, as well as Nisbet Way residences and Citrus St.
residences) have property lines only 50 feet (or even slightly less) from the tracks, For these residences, with D
50, one has -20 log(D/50) =-20 10g(1) = O. This is a huge 13 dBA difference in applying the formula at the
EIR's so-called "representative residcntiallocation" and such locations in the UCR neighborhood. Adding this
13 dBA to dle 79 dBA at the Perris location, we get 92 dBA, well in excess of even the outrageously annoying
cutoff levels of Leq dBA levels of 90 day and 80 night listed in the FT A chart at the FE1R Tech Report C p. 48,
(Yes, the Perris property construction noise will involve station construction noise as well as track construction
nosie, but the station will be on the east side of the newly constructed bypass track which itself is to the east of
the existing freight track, and thus all even significantly farther from the 228 C property line, which according
to the formula gives a lesser noise level at the property line.)
Moreover, the EIR fails to consider the construction noise involvcd in thc construction of the proposed sound
walls near residences in the UCR neighborhood. While the property lines of many of these residences are
already very close to the tracks (which is one reason why the sound v'lalls are proposed), they are even closer to
the propsed sound walls, which apparently in many case will be immediately adjacent to the property boundary
(as slated in the EIR for the proposed landscape wall by Hyatt Elementary School), For such close distances, the
tenu -20 log(D/50), For example, if the sound wall construction is 5 feet from the property line, this tenu is
+20, thus indicating a major noise impact. The ElR fails to consider the noise impacts of sound wall
construction.
Moreover, in choosing a so-called "representative residential site" that is in Perris and then noting the 79 dBA is
below an 80 elBA level in the Perris General Plan, the EIR ignores that the City of Riverside has a much more
stringent restriction on noise, including construction noise. The FEIR Tech Report C, p. 46, Table 15: City of
Riverside Exterior Noise Standards, notes that for the residential land use category, the Noise Level standard
for Night (10 p.m, to 7 a,m.) is 45 dBA and for Day (7 a.m to 10 p,m.) is 55 dBA, with certain limited
exceedance allowed for extremcly short periods,. Tech Report C then states, at p. 46,
"Section 7.35.010 [of the Riverside Municipal Code] specifically addresses construction-related activities.
Construction work that exceeds the allowable noise standards in Table 15 may not occur between the hours of .
7 PM and 7 AM on weekdays, between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or federal
holidays."
This is grossly misleading. What Section 7.35.010 actually says pertaining to construction is
"S. It is unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any disturbing,
excessive or offensive noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal
sensitivity. The following acts, among others, are declared to be disturbing, excessive and offensive
noises in violation of this section:
5. Construction: Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling,
repair, alteration, grading or demolition work between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on week days and
between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or federal holidays such that the sound
therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line or at any time exceeds
the maximum permitted noise level for the underlying land use category, except for emergency work or
by variance. This section does not apply to the use of domestic power tools." (emphasis added)
In other words, construction noise that is disturbing is prohibited not only at night, but during daytime as well.
Exceeding the municipal noise standards even during the daytime, even if it were to be allowed with or
without a variance, and even if it does not exceed the extremely high dBA levels in the FTA noise
criteria listed in the FEIR Technical Report C (p. 48, Table 16), is the issue, The issue is not whether or
not the FTA Construction Noise Criteria are violated (although there is substantial evidence that they
will be, as shown above), but whether there will be a Significant noise impact on residents by
community standards as exemplified in the MuniCipal Code. Actually, the FTA Manual, at p. 207,
regarding Qualitative Assessments for construction noise, states that (among other things) there should be
"Commitments to limit noise levels to certain levels, including any I~al ordinances that apply" (emphasis added)
as well as '"monitoring of noise". It appears that there no such commitment and no such monitoring provided by
the Project. Moreover, merely complying with daytime code requirements does not reduce the
environmental impact, it merely eliminates legal liability as a nuisance.
As noted above, the SEA states that "Aecording to the PVL Construction Staging Plan, some nighttime
construction is scheduled to occur specifically for new track layout." An excuse for nighttime construction, and
more detail, is given at DElR p. 2-49 (=85):
"Construction
The work would be perfonned in a manner that allows freight deliveries to continue while the PVL
improvements are being undertaken. Freight delivery schedules would be adjusted to accommodate the work,
balancing the need to support business activity of the freight shippers/receivers with the need to remove old
track and install new track. Some construction work may be performed at night or on weekends and some train
operations may shiftJo nights or weekends to accomplish the project schedule. In the event that nighttime and
weekend work are determined necessary, coordination with the affected local Jurisdictions would be
undertaken. " (emphasis added)
This statement that "some train operations may shift to nights or weekends" raises yet another environmental
impact that the SEA fails to analyze. And as regards to any temporary inconvenience to BNSF or freight
shippers/reeeivcrs, rather than place the additional burden of nighttime construction noise on local residents,
BNSF and freight shippers/receivers can live with interruptions, as they did for a couple of weeks after storm
damage from the recent storm event of Dec. 20, 2010 interrupted regular freight traffic on the S1BL. And
regarding "coordination with the affected local jurisdictions" whether the noise is by day or by night, merely
complying with code requirements does not reduce the environmental impact, it merely eliminates legal liability
as a nuisance. Similarly, the use of a variance or other such waiver does not diminish the environmental impact,
just the legal liability for nuisance.
Noise from passenger trains
The FEIR's Appendix C: Noise and Vibration Technical Report, at p. 40 states
"Wheel Squeal
In addition to noise from train horns, locomotives and crossing bells, wheel squeal on tight radius curves «10
times the SCRRA/Metrolink loeomotive wheel base or 900 feet) can contribute to community noise levels.
Table 4 lists all short radius curves along the PVL alignment. As wheel squeal noise can be significant, wayside
applicators will be installed as part of project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius
curves. Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to reduce
• the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Transit Cooperative Research Program
"WheeJiRail Noise Control Manual" (Transportation Research Board, 1997), a report which was sponsored by
the PTA, the use of a petroleum lubricant would reduce squeal while the use of a water lubricant would
eliminate squeaL"
This is a gross misrepresentation of what the Manual actually says, The "Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual"
that the SEA cites can be downloaded from the following link:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepl1b~/tcrp/tcrp rpt 23.pdf
The cntire section of the Manual (at its p. 164) is included in the Raymond Johnson Jan. 6, 2011 letter
commenting on the SEA. (We incorporate that letter here by reference.) There is no support in the Manual
for the EIR's claim about eliminating squeal ..
Appendix C at p.19 lists sources of train noise relevant to residences in the UCR neighborhood, with the
reference SEL (Sound Equivalent Level) noise level in dBA for each such source: hom noise, approximately
99dBA; locomotive engine noise, 92dBA; railcar noise, 82dBA; grade crossing bell noise. 109dbA; and
wheel/rail noise, i.e., wheel squeal noise on tight radius eurves (of which there arc many in the UCR
neighborhood. as shown Table 4 (p. 24), I36dBA. Thus wheel squeal noise should be a very important
component of any Project Noise Impact Assessment for residences near a tight radius curve. However, the
wheel squeal noise at sensitive locations is not being estimated or included in the Noise Impact Assessment
except for that at the Citrus Connection. Indeed, in its section labeled "Estimate future noise levels at the
representative receivers", Appendix C, pp. 35-36 states.
"Noise from wheel squeal (near the tight radius curve at the proposed "Citrus Connection") was assessed
separately since the implementation of the PVl project will include wayside applicators as part of the design
plans, which will significantly reduce noise from wheel squeal for ali tight radius curves."
although the EIR fails to quantify the level to which the wheel squeal will allegedly be reduced (except for the
suspect figure at the Citrus Connection).
Thus the EIR's Noise Impact Assessment is invalid for all sensitive receptors near tight radius curves.
Landslides and drainage facilities
The Project as described in the EIR involves drainage improvements including replacement or extension of
numerous culverts (FElR2 p. 2-43 (=79». SEA p. 3.9-13 states
"Storm Water Drainage
Within the PVl corridor, there are 53 culverts of which 30 would be replaced or reconstructed as part of the
project."
The heavy rain in the latter half of December, 2010, resulted in large mudflows onto the tracks where the
tracks are adjacent to Islander Park (roughly about 1,100 plus feet north of the end of Big Springs Rd, at
roughly MP 3.7), leaving the tracks impassible for an extended period oftime. During the week of Dec. 20
and again the following week, local residents observed a tractor busy removing mud from the tracks and
dumping it over the embankment on the Islander Park side of the embankment that separates Islander
Park from Box Springs Reserve. Regular freight service only restarted about two weeks after the storm;
part of that delay may have involved storm damage elsewhere on the SJBL, the remedy for which also
needs to be described and analyzed as part of the present Project. The mudflows on the tracks adjacent
to Islander Park came from uphill adjacent private and County park property to the east of the tracks
where portions of the mountain slope gave way. Since the soil crust there is now weakened, future
mudflows can be expected after even much lesser rains. The railroad right of way in this segment is only
100 feet wide, so there is limited space to provide measures protecting against future mudflows.
Moreover, providing adequate drainage there would not be simple. More than a culvert is needed
because orthe fact that on the west edge (i.e., the side away from the mountain slope) ofthe narrow
railroad right of way at this location is a bluff (in Islander Park) towering over the railroad right of way.
Some substantial work needs to be done to remedy this situation to attempt to make the tracks suitable
for Metrolink use. The public needs to be informed about what is proposed to be done and its
environmental impacts. This needs to be examined as part of the environmental review process, and then
the documents need to recirculated. If consideration of planning for the necessary drainage improvement
is postponed until after the present SEA consideration, that would constitntc improper segmentation and
deferral of the environmental review process. The necessary drainage improvements at this sensitive site
(adjacent to public parks) needs to be described and considered as part of the Project.
In response to a Dec. 30. 2010 email query concerning the mudflow situation and whether corrective measures
would be included in Project environmental review, Ms Echeverria of RCTC has responded by email on Jan. 5.
20 II, stating
'the Perris Valley Line, is currently under environmental review. The environmental documents do include
discussion of hydrology and drainage matters and as part of the project, there is a plan to rehabilitate and clean
out existing culverts in the area ofIslander Park. Also, per Metrolink standards, track drainage ditches (swales)
will be constructed on both sides of the track in that area. The culvert work and drainage ditches will apply to
the entire corridor."
With regard to these comments by Ms Echeverria, there is no existing culvert at or near the mudflow discussed
above. While the FEIR makes some sporadic general mention of drainage, aside from discussions of culvert
work, a~ at DEIR p. 2-43 (whcre it mentions an evaluation of culverts in an "Existing Conditions Report", 2008
but the changed situation in the aftermath of the recent mudflow was not an "existing condition" then), it fails
to discuss the kind of substantial drainage channel that would be necessary to handle anything like the recent
mudllow. And the mention of drainage brings to mind the biological issue of spadefoot toads, which breed in
seasonal ponds that would be affected by such drainage.
Timing
On p. 2 of the Agenda report for this Item 10, it states
"The EIR process was initiated on July 14,2009, when the notice of preparation was submitted to the State
Clearinghouse and made publicly available as required by CEQA."
That means that the baseline for the ErR should be 2009, not the base year 2008 that the ErR is using as a baseline
for a "supplemental analysis ... primarily for informational purposes"(FEIR I, p. p. 0.2-4 (=9). As for the use of a
baseline of2012 (FEIRI p. 0.2-4 (=9)), and the claim of2012 as the "opening year", since the necessary Federal
approvals cannot occur before late summer of2011 and since the EIR is stating an approximate Project construction
time of 18 months (FEIR2 p. 4.10-37 (=320)), the opening date would not occur until at least some time in 2013, not
2012. Thus the EIR is using the wrong baseline(s).
Moreover, while RCTC was required by CEQA to send vvTitten responses to comments made by public agencies
such as the Riverside Unified School Disrrict (RUSD) at least 10 days before the July 13 date of this Agenda
item, the written responses they sent to RUSD (actually through RUSD's attorneys) included extensive
references such as "See :Master Comment # ... " but, as I have been informed by RUSD Assistant
Superintendent Kirk Lewis, RCTC failed to actually include a copy of said Master Comments, apparently in
violation ofCEQA.
Thank you for your consideration
Richard Block 424 Two Trees Rd, Riverside, CA 92507 951-683-8762 rblock31@charter.net
" 1 2 " J u l y , 2 0 1 1
T o : R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
R e : C o m m e n t s o n P e r r i s V a l l e y l i n e E n v i r o n m e n t a l l m p a c ! R e p o r t f o r t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e , R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ,
C a l i f o r n i a , A g e n d a I t e m 1 0 { 1 3 t h J u l y 2 0 1 1 m e e t i n g ) .
F r : F r i e n d s o f R i v e r s i d e ' s H i l l s
W e w o u l d l i k e t o t a k e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y o f f u r t h e r c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e P e r r i s V e l e y
l i n e .
I n r e s p o n s e t o o u r l a s t l e t t a r o f 6 J a n 2 0 1 1 ( a n d o u r e a r l i e r l e t t e r o f 2 4 M a y 2 0 1 0 ) , w e w o u l d l i k e t o r e s p o n d a n d
a d d s o m e a d d i t i o n a l c o n c e r n s .
D e s p i t e m y s t a t e m e n t s i n t h a t p r i o r l e t t e r t h a t I h a d b e e n o b s e r v i n g t h e s p a d e f o o t t o a d p o p u l a t i o n s f o r s e v e r a l
y e a r s i n t h e U C R n e i g h b o r h o o d a r e a . t h e r e s p o n s e w a s t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o r e p o r t e d o c c u r r e n c e s w i t h i n t h e
M S H C P a r e a b e t w e e n 2 0 0 5 a n d 2 0 0 8 ; h o w e v e r , t h i s i s n o t t r u e s i n c e i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 I ( a n d n o t F r i e n d s o f
R i v e r s i d e ' s H i l l s a s s t a t e d i n t h e r e s p o n s e ) r e p o r t e d t o t h e R C A t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o n b r e e d i n g s i t e s :
T h i s m a p s h o w s t h e G P S l o c a t i o n s o f 6 v e r n a l p o o l s a l o n g s i d e t h e r a i l w a y t r a c k s { p l u s t w o o t h e r s t h a t a r e s e t
b a c k f r o m t h e t r a c k s ) i n t h e U C R n e i g h b o r h o o d . O f t h e s e 6 p o o l s , 5 r e g u l a r l y c o n t a i n s p a d e t o o t t o a d t a d p o l e s , 2
o f w h i c h p r o d u c e m e t a m o r p h s a l m o s t e v e r y y e a r I t w a s s e n t t o K a r i n C l e a r y - R o s e ( a t t h a t t i m e h e a d i n g t h e
M S H C P m o n i t o r i n g ) a t t h e U S F W S a n d h e r r e s p o n s e w a s :
" T h e i n f o r m a t i o n y o u g a v e u s l a s t t i m e i s e n o u g h f o r u S t o e n t e r t h e r e c o r d i n t o o u r d a t a b a s e . " ( 2 8 F e b 2 0 0 8 )
A p h o t o o f t h e a r e a o f t h e t w o m o s t i m p o r t a n t p o o l s ( t a k e n 1 6 M a r c h 2 0 1 0 ) i s s h o w n b e l o w . T h e p o o l a t m a p
l o c a t i o n 0 4 7 1 3 0 5 1 3 7 5 8 3 6 9 i s s h o w n i n t h e f o r e g r o u n d . T h e s e c o n d , m o r e p r o d u c t i v e p o o l , i s i n t h e a r e a h i d d e n
b y t h e c u r v e o f t h e t r a c k . T h e s e c o n d p i c t u r e s h o w s a m e t a m o r p h s p a d e f o o t t o a d a t t h a t s e c o n d p o o l t a k e n o n 1 4
A p r i l 2 0 1 0 . I h a v e p h o t o g r a p h i c r e c o r d s o f t h e t a d p o l e s i n t h e s e p o o l s f r o m 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 1 . I s h o u l d a d d t h a t m y
e x p e r t i s e a s a P r o f e s s o r o f B i o l o g y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a R i v e r s i d e w a s n o t e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s l e t t e r .
t
It can be seen how close these breeding sites are to the tracks, and the fact that track replacement is apparently
expected, and yet the Supplementary Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
take no account of the possible serious damage to these breeding areas that staging or other impacts to this area
would cause -not just in the breeding season but at other times as well (see previous letter).
Other covered species may also be impacted. SEA 3.14-21 notes that there is available habitat for burrowing owl
as well as California coastal gnatcatcher where the ROW expands between MP 4.0 and MP 5.0 near Poarch
Road. These impacts have been dismissed without consideration of changes due to the increased traffic
(especially noise) and location of staging areas.
Wildfires caused by sparks from trains
Over the years there have been numerous wildland fires on or near the Box Springs Mountain that have started in
the vicinity of the SJBL. While the cause of any particular one of these fires is generally unknown, it is generally
considered likely that many of them have been caused by sparks from passing freight trains. In places the
superelevation of the tracks at tight curves in the UCR neighborhood is less than that normally called for to
balance the forces of a train going around such a curve (which also is dependent on train speed). That means
that there is extra friction as the train wheels press against the rail curve, which can produce sparks. The FEIR
Appendix C Noise and Vibration Technical Report at p. 23 says
"wayside applicators will be installed as part of project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short
radius curves. Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to
reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal." (emphasis added)
As noted elsewhere in the record, there are a lot of very short radius (i.e., very tight) curves on the SJBL in the
vicinity of the Box Springs Mountains. Metal to metal friction, i.e. wheel against rail, even "reduced", can still
produce sparks which can lead to a wildfire.
The faster speed and larger number of passenger trains, as compared to the freight trains, means increased
likelihood of such sparks, and thus a higher likelihood of train-caused wildfires. The EIR notes the hazard of
wildland fires in the world generally and in the vicinity of the PVL, but fails to note any relationship to the passage
of trains, or that such passages can cause such fires.
Thus SEA at p. 3.8-6, in an expanded version of material on DEIR p. 4.7-2, states
"Wildland Fires
Wildland fires pose a hazard to the public and environment adjacent to or intermixed with urban areas. A
wildfire is any uncontrolled, non-structure fire that occurs in the wilderness, wildland, or bush. Wildfires are
common in various parts of the world, occurring in cycles. They are often considered beneficial to the
wilderness, as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction. Wildfires
differ from other fires only by their extensive size, the
speed at which it spreads out from its original source, its ability to change direction unexpectedly, and to
jump gaps, such as roads, rivers and fire breaks. According to the National Fire and Aviation Executive
Board's "Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire Policy", wildfires generally
do not involve properties; however, with extensive urbanization of wilderness, they can cause extensive
destruction of homes and other property located in the wildland-urban interface, a zone of transition between
developed areas and undeveloped wilderness. "
In particular there are numerous homes in the vicinity of the PVL where it passes Bo)( Springs Mountain that are
at risk from a wildland fire in the area, and such fires in this area have occurred frequently in the past (including
one so far this year, fortunately controlled before it had burned very many acres).
A related and very important issue that is completely ignored by the SEA is that in this increasingly urbanized
area wildfires are nO longer considered baneficial. Much of the area adjacent to and uphill from the PVL in the
UCR neighborhood area forms part of the Western Riverside Multiple SpeCies Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
specifically the Box Springs Mountains (Non-Contiguous Habitat Block A of the MSHCP) and the linkage
(Proposed Constrained Linkage 7) between Sycamore Canyon Park (Core Area D) and the Box Springs which
actually crosses the tracks. Evidence that increased wildfire is NOT beneficial to the surrounding native habitat
(Riversidean sage scrub, generally referred to as coastal sage scrub) is provided in the MSHCP documentation:
"Published literature documents conversion of frequently burned chaparral and coastal sage scrub to grassland
(Keely 1990, Zedler et al. 1983)" MSHCP vol1 sec S pS-4, to which it should be added that the grassland in
referred to is non-native grassland.
FEIR2 p. 4.7-2 (=p233) states
"The Western Riverside County Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map) provided by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) was reviewed to determine the susceptibility of the PVL
corridor to forest f,re risks and hazards (CDFFP, 2000). According to the Fire Map, a section of the PVL
corridor, east of Mt Vernon Avenue to the 1-21SISR-60 Interchange (near Box Springs Mountain) is shown to
be in a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. Pursuant to Section 4125 of
the PRC and requirements of maintenance listed in Section 4291 of the same code, the owner of the
property is the responsible party for maintaining fire protection services unless CDFFP has entered into a
cooperative agreement with a local agency for this area pursuant to Section 4142 of the PRC. This area of
Box Springs Mountain has been incorporated into a Wildfire Management Plan, and is under State of
California responsibility for fire protection. The remainder of the PVL corridor and adjacent properties are
located in developed areas not shown within substantial fire risks or hazards.
The FEIR2 at p. 4.7-17 (;p248) asks and answers as follows:
"Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands
A section of the PVL corridor, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue to the 1-2151SR-60 Interchange is shown to be in a
wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. This area of Box Springs Mountain
Reserve has been incorporated into a Wildfire Management Plan, and is under State of California
responsibility for fire protection.
Evacuation plans caused to be put into effect by a wildland fire may be affected during construction activities
because the proposed project will be temporarily closing streets or grade crossings will be temporarily closed
or re-routed in this area. Routine operation and maintenance of the PVL corridor would not interfere with
daily operations at the grade crossings and streets associated with these crossings. There would be no
impact with mitigation in place (Mitigation measure HHM-4)."
(HHM-4 merely says to see HHM-3 DEIR2 p. 0.4-10 (= p755), which states in relevant part that there will be an
plan "to identify emergency evacuation routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities" )
Thus, while the EIR (and SEA) mentions the !li!zard of wildfires, it fails to consider causes of wildfires, and in
particular fails to consider the passage of Metrolink trains as a potential cause of wildfires, Its discussion
notes only that owners of property put at additional hazard from wildland fires caused by PVL trains (e.g., from
sparks) are responsible for maintaining fire protection services. That's like blaming the victim. No state law
exempts from responsibility the person or enlity causing a wildfire.
The SEA falls to analyze the actual hazards from PVL train operation, construction or maintenance in the
nearby areas at high wildland fire risk, nor does it consider any possible mitigation for such hazards.
(HHM-4 concerns effects of PVL construction on existing emergency response and evacuation routes, and does
not address reduction in causes of wildfires Or minimizing damage from them. Nor do any of the other of the EIR's
proposed mitigation measures.)
Conflict with MSHCP: Poarch Road FenCing
The main issue here is that the EIR fails to consider Ihe conflicl between the Project's planned fencing (at least
400 feet on each side of the planned locked gale al the Poarch Rd grade crossing) on the one hand, and the
MSHCP's Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 (defined above), centered al the Poarch Rd crossing, on the olher
hand.
The FEIR Appendix C, Grade Crossing Enhancements, p. 2, states
"Poarch Rd grade crossing:
Provide locked entry gates for emergency vehicles only.
Fencing along RR ROW for 400'+ both sides of current crossing'
Appendix E of the FEIR is a Revised Habitat Assessment Report Its Table 2.2-1 at p. 2-3 (=18) is labelled
MSHCP Conservation Criteria for PVL Project Applicable Criteria Cells. It lists three Conservation Cells (#
545.635. and 721) in this area and says conservation within them "will contribute to assembly of Proposed
Constrained Linkage 7". The next page of Appendix Estates
"Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 [is] within the study area crossing the 1-215 and SJBL line at Poarch Road
"Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is comprised of upland Habitat in the vicinity of Central Avenue. It is the
only connection from Sycamore Canyon Park to Box Springs Reserve. This Linkage is important for species
dispersal and would reduce the likelihood of species extinction as a resuR of population isolation."
Appendix C's Table 2.3-1 "PVL Project Applicable MSHCP Cores and Linkages" at p. 2-6 (=21) says "Proposed
Constrained Linkage 7 ... Crosses SJBL Line and 1-215 at Poarch Road".
It should be noted that Sycamore Canyon Park and Box Springs Reserve are respectively southerly and northerly
of the Project's planned fencing. Thus the planned fencing would be a new barrier over 800 feet long directly
across the Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, further cutting off the already constrained wildlife link between
Sycamore Canyon Park and Box Springs Reserve, a potentially signifICant environmental impact. This potential
impact on wildlife movement would still be there even if there were no MSHCP. The EIR fails to consider this
impact.
As noted in Appendix C and elsewhere in the EIR, the habitat near the proposed fencing is largely coast sage
scrub. Such habitat is highly subject to wildland fires. The EIR also fails to consider the impact of the fencing on
fire control efforts, including access across the tracks, in the area.
Citrus Connection and Open Space Lot
The concern here is the location of the southeast edge 01 the proposed Citrus Connection, where it joins the
SJBL, and its impact on the Open Space Lot at that location that was a Mitigation Measure required by the City 01
Riverside at the time of its approval of the adjacent Citrus Business Park development. The Open Space Lot
being discussed has APN# 247-150-038 and can be seen on DEIR2 Fig. 2.4-20 (p. 73) "Citrus Connection Parcel
Acquisition" as the lot just below (and to the right of) the RCTC-owned lot marked 247-150-040 (the Valley Street
marking shown there through the middle of the lot with APN# 247-150-038 is oul of date -Valley Street is non
existent there and is in the middle of Springbrook Wash).
The EIR contains two figures showing a fairly detailed picture of the roule of the Citrus Connection: DEIR2 Figure
2.4.4 (p. 53) is a "Site Aerial" of the Citrus Connection, and Figure 2.4-5 (p. 54) is a "Citrus Connection
Engineering Site Plan". Those two figures appear to show that the new rail line of the Citrus Connection goes
through a bit of the northeast comer of the open space lot Even if a more detailed figure would show that the rail
line would not actually pass through a part of the Open Space Lot, it appears from the cited Figures that it would
at least come so close that a track embankment there (needed because the site is along the side of Springbrook
t
Wash, one of the City's major protected arroyos) and room for maintenance access would intrude into the Open
Space Lot
Friends of Riverside's Hills worked with the developers of the Citrus Business Park to minimize that project's
environmental impact, working with them to see that the Springbrook Wash portion was preserved in an open
space lot and in particular persuading them to place the access road to the northern lots at the west end of the
development (next to the main railroad line) instead of the east end (next to the SJBL) because the east end in
and near the Wash had the best nalive vegetation. We are informed Ihal the Open Space Lot is now under the
stewardship of the Riverside Land Conservancy under an easement, to be kept in a natural state.
The EIR is deficient in ignoring the existence of the Open Space Lot and the impact of the Citrus Connection
passing either through or immediately adjacent to the Open Space Lot, with no consideration of any buffering.
Thank you for your attention,
Regards,
Lerl NUrlrley
For Friends of Riverside's Hills,
4477 Picacho Dr.
Riverside, Ca 92507.
PS Since I have not exceeded by 6 page limit here are two photos from 30" March 2005 of the major pool
iderltified On the map included above, one of the pool showing the rail line in the upper left and the other showing
two metamorph spadefoolloads in the same pool.
BotH'd of D:ixvS'h}c>;
Ch.:linTMn
KeV1V S.:Ji-li
("ily ,} N,Jr((J
Y\"di-Imn BdLe'i
Clf? ,J/M,)h'!W I/uilr-V
Rlnd_y Bonn.;:
Cih 'U'CdW,""":""
1 ,)('1":'1<''-h:rum;.m
(' 1!:~' ;Jj ,\1('11 jh',:
lyj;kl' Cimirwr
;,'f!:} urRitl\'r~id:'
Li;)Jcl KI'II'pc1
Cir.!(!/HfiIICl
At,vl LU0~
( i!:;! "~I ,1".1l'oirlu
lohn :'vLtll'w;i(
C /<:.; :1'!i,lrt!!inl!.
~vkjj;,$,! f<..'lt'k'ndc "t:if,; ,)fL, k;' FL,iJl,;r,)
July 12, 2011
Edda Rosso
Riversi:le County Transportatbn Commissbn
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Fbor
P.O. Box 12008
Riversi:le, California 92502
Dear Ms. Rosso:
Pk';ase fll1d the folbwing JPR attached:
JPR 11-06-16-01. The Local Identifer is Pemis Valey rne. The JPR fie
attached includes the folbwing:
• RCAJPR
• Exhibt A, Vi:inity Map with MSHCP Schemati: Cores and Linkages
• Exhibt B, Criteria Area Cel5 with MSHCP Vegetatbn and Project
Locatbn -NORTH
• Exhibt B, Criteria Area Cel5 with MSHCP Vegetaton and Project
Locaton -SOUTH
• Exhibl C, Criteria Area Cel5 with MSHCP Soi5 and Project Locatbn
-NORTH
• Exhibit C, Criteria Area Celt wi:h MSHCP Soi5 a nd Project Locatbn
-SOUTH
• Regbnal Map.
Thank you,
Western Riversi:le County Reglona I Conservation Authority
cc: Ken Corey Lesle MacNair
carlsbad Fish and Wl:Jlife Offi:e California Dept. of Fi;h and Garne
6010 Hdden Valey Road 3602 Inand Empire Blvd. #C220
jlO Su\jht>'l carlsbad, california 92009 OntariJ, California 91764I';j\'eL"il~~,)_!. ,,!b'd~H\'23n:: lM·7
I'It,qlC;
F,lx
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
PUBLIC PROJECT
jPR#: 11-06-16-01
Date: 7-12-11
Project Information
Pennittee: Riverside County Transportation Commission
Project: Per.t:is Valley Line
Consistency Conclusion: The proposed project demonstrates consistency witll the Reserve
Assembly requirements and witlt otlter requirements o/tlte MSHCP.
Requirements Related to .Planned Facilities
Applicable Core/Linkage: Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, Proposed
Extension of Existing Core 4
Area Plan: Cities of Riverside and Norco, Highgrove, March, Mead Valley
APN Sub-Unit Cell Group Cell
Various SU2 -Sycamore Canyon/
Box Spring West
SU1 -Sycamore Canyon/Box
Springs Central
SU4 -San Jacinto River
Lower
Independent 545
635
721
3276
3277
3278
Commems:
a, The Reserve Features associated with the project impact area are Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, Proposed
Constrained Linkage 19, and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 4, Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is
comprised of upland Habitat in the vicinity of Central Avenue. It is the only connection from Sycamore
Canyon Park to Box Springs Reserve, This Linkage is imp0l1ant for species dispersal and would reduce the
likelihood of species extinction as a result of population isolation. Habitat for Planning Species such as
cactus wren and Bell's sage sparrow occurs within this Linkage, This Linkage likely provides for movement
of eommon mammals such as bobcat. Maintenance of contiguous Habitat with appropriate refugia for
resting, such as rockpiles, brushpilcs, windfalls, hollow snags and hollow trees, is important for dispersal of
juveniles. Sinee this Linkage is affected by edge, it is anticipated that treatment and management of edge
conditions along this Linkage will be necessary to ensure that it provides Habitat and movement functions
for species using the Linkage, Linkage is constrained by existing urban Development and roadways,
Adjacent planned community Dcvelopment, urbanized areas of the City of Riverside and proposed widening
activity of 1-215 may affect bobcat movement through this Constrained Linkage. Maintenance of an
adequate wildlife undercrossing at least 10 to 20 feet wide with fencing and vegetative cover will be
important to accommodate bobcat movement.
1 of 7
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
PUBLIC PROJECT
JPR #: 11-06-16-01
Date: 7-12-11
b. Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 (Lower San Jacinto River) is located approximately in the center of the
Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Proposed Linkage 7 in the southwest with Proposed
Extension of Existing Core 4 (San Jacinto River Core) in the northeast. Existing agricultural use and a small
amount of existing urban Development constrain the Linkage along much of its length. Surrounding planned
land uses include only city of Perris. A lthough the river will be channelized fi)r flood control in this area, the
Linkage will nonetheless maintain connectivity along the river and provide for movement of common
mammals such as bobcat. An adequate wildlife underpass or overpass may need to be implemented to insure
movement of species in this area and to reduce the chance of mortality from vehicle collision. Treatment
and management of edge conditions along this Linkage will be necessary to ensure that it provides Habitat
and movement functions tor spccies using the Linkage and that wetland functions and values are maintained
for the benefit of Narrow Endemic Plant Species known to occur in the San Jacinto River.
c. Proposed Extension of Existing Core 4 is comprised of the middle rcach of the San Jacinto River and is
contiguous with Core Area in Lake Perris Recreation Area. It provides Habitat for a number of Narrow
Endemic Plant Species and movement for species connecting to Lake Perris and areas downstream of the
San Jacinto in Canyon Lake. Planning Species for which Habitat is provided for within this proposed
Extension of Existing Core include San Jacinto Yalley crownscale, thread-leaved brodiaea, arroyo toad and
Los Angeles pocket mouse. Since this Extension of Existing Core may be affected by edge, treatment and
management of edge conditions will be necessary to ensure that it provides Habitat and movement functions
for species using this Core. Flood control activities associated with the Community Development land use
designation and major Covered Activities may adversely affect Planning Species known to occur within the
San Jacinto River.
d. A portion of the project alignment falls within Cell 545. Conservation within Cell 545 will contribute to
assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, Conservation within Cell 545 will focus on coastal sage scrub
habitat. Areas conserved within Cell 545 will be connected to coastal sage scruh habitat proposed for
conservation to the south in Cell 635. Conservation within Cell 545 will range from 15% to 25% of the
southeastern portion ofthe Cell.
e. A portion of the project alignment falls within Cell 635. Conservation within Cell 635 will contribute to
assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7. Conservation within Cell 635 will focus on coastal sage scrub
habitat. Areas conserved within Cell 635 will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for
conservation to the south in Cell 721 and to the north in Cell 545. Conservation within this Cell will range
from 25% to 35% of the central portion of the Cell.
t: A portion of the project alignment falls within Cell 721. Conservation within Cell 721 will contribute to
assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, Conservation within Cell 721 will focus on coastal sage scrub
habitat and riparian scrub, woodlands and forests. Areas conserved within Cell 721 will be connected to
coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation to the north in Cell 635 and to the west in Cell 719 in
2 of 7
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
PUBLIC PROJECT
JPR #: 11-06-16-01
Date: 7-12-11
the City of Riverside. Conservation within this Cell will range from 35% to 45% of the northeastern and
central portions of the Cell.
g. A portion of the project alignment falls within Cell 3276. Conservation within Cell 3276 will contribute to
assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 19. Conservation within Cell 3276 will focus on assembly of
grassland habitat associated with the San Jacinto River. Areas conserved within Cell 3276 will be connected
to grassland habitat and agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell 3277 to the east and to
agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell 3378 to the south. Conservation within Cell 3276 will
range from 45% to 55% of the Cell focusing in the southern portion of the Cell.
h. A portion of the project alignment falls within Cell 3277. Conservation within Cell 3277 will contribute to
assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 19. Conservation within Cell 3277 will tocus on assembly of
grassland habitat and agricultural land associated with the San Jacinto River. Areas conserved within Cell
3277 will be connected to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 3276 to the west and in Cell
3173 to the north, and to agricultural land proposed for conservation in Cell 3 I 74 to the northeast and in
Cell 3378 to the southwest. Conservation within Cell 3277 will range from 35% to 45% ofthe Cell focusing
in the northwestern portion ofthe Cell.
I. A portion of the project alignment falls within Cell 3278. Conservation within Cell 327& will contribute to
assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 4. Conservation within Cell 3278 will focus on assembly
of agricultural land associated with the San Jacinto River and east of Highway 74. Areas conserved within
Cell 3278 will be connected to playas/vernal pool habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 3174 to the
north and in Cell Group A in the Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan to the northeast and to agricultural land
proposed for conservation in Cell 3279 to the east. Conservation within Cell 3278 will range from 45% to
55% of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion ofthe Cell.
J. The Planning Species for Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 are Bell's sage sparrow, cactus wren, and bobcat.
Planning Species for Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 are mountain plover, loggerhead shrike, white-faced
ibis, bobcat, Los Angeles pocket mouse, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Davidson's saltscale, thread-leaved
brodiaea, vernal barley, Coulter's goldfields, spreading navarretia, and Wright's trichocoronis. Planning
Species tor Proposed Extension of Existing Core 4 are arroyo toad, mountain plover, white-faced ibis, Los
Angeles pocket mouse, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Davidson's saltscale, thread-leaved brodiaea,
Coulter's goldfields, Wright's trichocoronis, and spreading navarretia.
k. The project area lies within the Perris, Moreno, and Sana Ana River valleys in Riverside County, California.
The proposed Perris Valley Line (PVL) project consists of extending the commuter rail service from the
existing Riverside Downtown Station to the south of the City of Perris along the San Jacinto Branch Line
(SJBL) parallel to Interstate 215 (1-215). Tn the City of Riverside, the PVL project would operate on a new
curved rail segment, known as the "Citrus Connection," which would connect the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline and the SJBL. The Citrus Connection would be constructed on property to be
3 of7
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
PUBLIC PRO.IECT
JPR #: 11-06-16-01
Date: 7-12-11
acquired, located north of Citrus Street and Springbrook Wash in the City of Riverside. The eastern end of
the Citrus Connection would link to the existing 21-mile SJBL alignment and extend to the south of Perris.
This railroad has been in operation since the 19th century and is still being used for fright operations today.
According to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis dated June 201 I, the general condition of the alignment
consists of highly degraded habitat devoid of vegetation due to the disturbance from maintenance operations
within the railroad right-of-way. Upon start up in 2013, the PVL project would provide six commuter trains
(12 trips) per day serving four new stations within the 1-215 Corridor. The four new stations include: Hunter
Park Station, Moreno Valley/March Field Station, Downtown Perris Station, and South Perris
Station/Layover Facility. The proposed PVL will also include improvements to the existing RCTC/SJBL
right-of-way, which varies in width along the alignment from approximately 80 feet to over 150 feet,
rehabilitation of the track on the existing SJBL alignment, construction of a new by-pass track of
approximately nine miles in length parallel to the 1-215, improvements and closures to existing at-grade
crossings, repair and replacement of selected culverts, construction of communication towers, noise barriers,
and landscape walls, construction of a Layover Facility, and replacement of two existing bridges along the
SJRL at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel.
Kleinfeldcr noted that the SJBL alignment crosses 53 drainage culverts in the PVL project area, of which 30
of the drainage culverts would be extended or replaced as part ofthe PVL project. Only one existing culvert,
Mile Post 5.00. is within Proposed Constrained Linkage 7. Mile Post 5.00 is currently 42 inches in diameter
and 22 feet, 4 inches long, with an openness ratio of 0.38. Upon work completion ofthe existing culvert, the
existing culvert will be 36 feet, 4 inches and result in a future openness ratio of 0.26. Kleinfelder stated that
the current and future condition of the culvert is not the preferred size for a bobcat to use as a pathway under
the tracks. Because of the sub-optimal sizing of the existing culvert is likely that most bobcat movement
occurs across the tracks, rather than through the culvert. Kleinfelder noted that the project plans on closing
the Poarch Road crossing to non-emergency vehicles by installing a locked gate to block vehicles but would
not hinder wildlife movement of any size from crossing the tracks. In addition, Kleinfelder concludes that
the addition of 12 train movements on a daily basis would not substantially affect wildlife movement that
may occur across the tracks. The proposed work within Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 includes the
replacement ofthe two rail bridges that are designed to allow the same volume of water beneath the bridges.
The bridge improvements will have greater clearance underneath than the existing. Therefore, Kleinfelder
stated that there will be fewer impediments within the linkage area and wildlife movement such as bobcats
would still continue when water is not present. The majority of the PVL project is out~ide of Criteria Cells.
The PVL project is located within existing right-of-way of the rail alignment and would not result in
substantial physical alterations of facilities within the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. Additionally,
thc project would not result in substantial increases in rail operations that would adversely affect reserve
assembly or function. Therefore, the project site will not conflict with the overall Reserve Assembly goals
ofthe MSHCP.
40f7
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
PUBLIC PROJECT
JPR #: J 1-06-16-01
Date: 7-12-11
Other Plan Requirements
Data:
Section 6.1.2 -RiparianJRiverincNemal Pool Mapping:
yes. There are riparianiriverine areas on the project site. There are suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo and
southwestern willow flycatcher. There are no vernal pool and fairy shrimp habitat on the project site.
Seetion 6.1.3 -Narrow Endemic Plant Species Surveys:
Y<;;i. The project alignment is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Speeies Survey Area (NEPSSA) for
San Diego ambrosia, Many-stemmed dudJeya, Spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, Wright's
trichocoronis, and Munz's onion.
Section 6.3.2-Additional Species Surveys:
Yes. The project alignment is located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) for Nevin's
Barberry, Smooth tarplant, Round-leaved filaree, Coulter's Goldfields, Davidson's saltscale, Little
Mousetail, Mud Nama, Parish's brittlescale, San Jacinto Valley Crown scale, and Thread-leaved brodiaea.
The project alignment is also located within an Additional Species Survey area for burrowing owl.
Section 6. J.4 -Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines:
Yes. The project is located adjacent to proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas and is subject to
Urban/Wildland Interface requirements.
Comments:
a. Section 6.1.2: According to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis dated June 30, 2011, Kleinfelder
conducted surveys on February 18, 19, and 20, 2009 to determine the delineation ofjurisdiction waters,
including riparian/riverine areas. Based on the email dated July 6,2011 by Kleinfelder, the project area
supports an estimated 0.603 acres of riparian/riverine resources (0.123 acres of permanent impacts;
0.480 acres of temporary impacts). See Table 5.5-1 of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report for more
details. Since riverine/riparian habitat is to be impacted by the project, presence/absence surveys for
least Bell's vireo (LBV) were conducted on April 24, 2010, May 8,18, and 29, 2010. June 8,19, and 29,
2010, and July 17,2010 by Bloom Biological. Inc. Five to seven pairs ofLBV were determined to be
utilizing the Box Springs Canyon riparian corridor (Poarch Road Crossing). Protocol surveys for
southwestern willow tlycatcher (SWF) were conducted on May 18.2010, June 8 and 29. 2010, July 5
and 17, 20 I 0 by Bloom Biological, Inc. No SWF were deteeted during the times of the surveys.
Sofl
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
PUBLIC PROJECT
JPR II: 11-06-16-01
Date: 7-12-11
Construction of the proposed project will remain within the railroad right-of-way and would occur
outside of the breeding season. Therefore. impacts to nesting activ ities for these species will be avoided.
The email dated July 6, 20 II by Kleinfelder clarifies that the DBESP prepared for the impacts to the
riparian/riverine resources identifies a mitigation ratio of 1: I or 0.123 acres for permanent impacts and a
mitigation ratio of 1:1 or 0.480 acres for temporary impacts to the riparian/riverine resources identilied
in the project footprint. The 0.123 acres of permanent impacts to riparian/riverine resources will be
mitigated by the purchase of mitigation credits at a local bank and the 0.480 acres of temporary impacts
would be mitigated by restoration/enhancement of RCTC owned property outside of the existing rail
right-of-way. The RCTC property would be adjacent to or near the project area. Kleinfelder noted that
the SJBL alignment crosses 53 drainage culverts in the PVI. project area, of which 30 of the drainage
culverts would be extended or replaced as part of the PVL project. Kleinfelder stated that the culverts
primarily focus sheet flow from one side of the railroad alignment to the other side and the areas
surrounding the culverts are primarily uplands with very small areas of potentially riparian habitat Soils
on site include fine sandy loam, rocky sandy loam, sandy loam, saline-alkali, very fine sandy loam,
coarse sandy loam, rockland, terrace escarpments, and water. No vernal pools were observed by
Kleinfelder during the time of the surveys that were wnducted on February 18, 19, and 20, 2009, and
Kleinfelder determined that fairy shrimp are not expected to occur within the site. Based on the above
analysis and mitigation provided in the email provided by Kleinfelder; that the project willmitigale its
riparian/riverine impacts at a I: 1 ratio, which will replace the functions and values tor the areas aflected;
and that the project's construction activity will be timed to avoid impacts on breeding riparian birds
within the project area, the project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 ofthe MSHCP,
b. Section 6.1.3: The project alignment is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
(NEPSSA) for San Diego ambrosia, Many-stemmed dudleya, Spreading navarretia, California Orcutt
grass, Wright's trichocoronis, and Munz's onion. Plant surveys were conducted by Kleinfelder on April
9,2010 and June 9, 2010. None of the NEPSSA species were observed during the lime of the surveys,
Kleinfelder noted that there were species identified outside of the project tootprint; therefore the bloom
period was veritied. Based on the information provided by Kleinfelder, the project demonstrates
compliance with Section 6.13 of the MSHCP.
c. Section 6.3.2: The project alignmellt is located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CAS SA) fbr
Nevin's Barberry, Smooth tarplant, Round-leaved filaree. Coulter's Goldfields, Davidson's saltscale,
Little Mousetail, Mud Nama, Parish's brittlescale, San Jacinto Valley Crownscale, and Thread-leaved
brodiaea. None of the CAS SA species were observed during the time of the surveys. Kleinfelder noted
that there were species identified outside of the project footprint; therefore the bloom period was
verified. The proposed project is located within an Additional Species Survey area for burrowing ow!.
Helix conducted a burrowing owl habitat assessment on November II and 12, 2010 and identified
potential owl burrow locations on the project site. Since, potential owl burrows were identitied, Hel ix
conducted focused surveys on July 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 20]1. No burrowing owls or owl signs were
6017
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
PUBLIC PROJECT
JPR #: 11:06-16-01
Datc;}-12-1 J
observed during the time of the focused surveys. Based on the information provided by Kleinfelder and
Helix, the project demonstrates compliance with the requirements of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
d. Section 6.1.4: To preserve the integrity of areas adjacent to the project alignment which are proposed
Conservation Areas, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for
development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area should be considered by the Permittee in their
actions relative to the project. Specifically, the Permittee should include as proje~1 conditions of
approval the following measures:
i. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP
Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated
surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas.
ii. The use chemicals or generation of bioproducts (I.e.) manure, which are potentially toxic or may
adversely affect wildlife species, habitat or water quality shall not result in discharge to the MSHCP
Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and run-off.
iii. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within
the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project
designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased.
IV. Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate
setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources
pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards.
v. Consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving
landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to
the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include
proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting
plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to
invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography and other features.
vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where
appropriate in individual project dcsigns to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal
predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may
include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or appropriate mechanisms.
Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the
MSHCP Conservation Area.
ST/JM
7 of!
4 II.
7
IZl
·....___.Jf..---·-,
~-~==s""" e
_
i!Wi#ll
A 4 4
/ III
"..... -'"
""'_.-""'"
Proposed Linkages:
Constrained Linkage
Linkage
Existing Channel
Existlng Cores & Linkages:
III Constramed Linkage
"Core
Unkage
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks:
~;Core
Proposed ExtenSion of Existing Cores
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
JPR Log No. 11-06-16-01 I EXHIBIT I
Vicinity Map with MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages A
_ Montane Coniferous Forest I[i]Cell Group wilh Identifier _ Woodlands and FI;lrasls "
_ Coastal Salle SGrub# I3J] JPR PrOject Slle
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub r~Arnflric::an Indian Lands (Not a Parl) _ Desert Scrubs
~PubllcfQuasl-Public Conserved Lands Chaparral f~l:~ Preexlstmg Conservation Agreemflnts PlaYa& arld Vernal Pools ?Z-::;Z Sart Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional AcquISition Grassland
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Foresl
_ MeadoW'S and Marshes
_ Ci5montane Alkali Marsh
_Water_~=F"t a Developed, Dlslurbed limd
5,000 W
Agricullursl Land
JPR Log No. 11-06-16-01 I EXHIBIT I
Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Vegetation and Project Location· NORTH B
~
_ Montane Coniferous Forest
..Woodland~ and Forests
irutVI,; Coastal Sage Scrub
Rivers,desrl Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
American Indian Lands (Not a Pari) _ Desert Scrubs ;"'''" '''T~'I:;~: ~ '1 ..'~!::;:t;;""1 F'TT"] Public/QuasI-Public ConserIJed Lands Chaparral
'1"< ,-<~"'" "'''''"", " Preexls!ingConservalionAgreemen!s Play~s and Vema' Pools
San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional AcqUISition Gras.land
Ripaflan Scrub Wood laM Forest
_ Meadows and Marshes
Ci~monlane Alkali Marsh
it.lllititi: Water_=>." 6 De~eloped. DI;turbed Land
5,000 W
AgficultlirElI Land
JPR Log No. 11.06.16.01 I EXH'BI' I
Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Vegetation and Project Location. SOUTH B
}.............. t>
~'
1 Soil Type.!!; _ Hanford fine !a~dy loam. 0 10 2 percent slopes 97 101 ~ ~Arlington fine sandy 103m. 2 to 8 percent stope5 _ Hanford sandy lo~m 210 1S percenlslopesrO I~
il&~fi Arlington ~ne SMdy 103m. deep. 2 to 8 percent slope5 ..Madera !ne S3ndy loam. 0 10 2 percent slopes 146 147 '148 1'9
'.,Ir,
Clenebe rocky sandy toem, 15 to SO percent stopes erod ed
Cleneba s3ndy loam. 15 to SO percent 5lopes. eroded
IiIIII Fallbrook fine 88~d~ loam shallow. 6 10 15 pBrce~1 slo pes eroded
Fallb'ool; sandy loam, shallow. 15 to 35 pe10enl slopes. eloded
y
( I
I
Monselale undy loam, 0 10 5 percent slopes IIi .:Monserale sandy lo~m, 15 to 25 percent slopes. severe~ erooed
at Monserale s~ndy IDam, 5 to 8-percent slopes, eroded p
_ Monserale sandy loam, e to 1S per~ent slopes, erDded ':\
" _ Monser~le sandy loam, shallow,S 10 15 percent slope~, eroded
F' ~..;; Pachappa fiM sandy loam. 0 to 2 perc.;nl slope!
ii·li1f;~i Pach~pp~ ~~e san(lY loam. "2 to 8 percent ~Iope~, eroded
_ Ramona ~3r1dy loam C 10 2 percent slopes
_ Ramona sarldy loam. 0 10 5 peroenl ~Iopes. severely erod Old
_ Ramona sa~dy loam. 2 10 5 f"',cenl slDpes. 8fOded
~j!ili Rockland
l1li T..'r9ce es~~rprn"nls
_Water01
Willows .i~y day. deep. sallne-~Ibll
Willo_ si~y clay. deep. strongly s~line-alkall
l1li WiIlD ...... si~y clay. sabne--elkai
!J>
'""
~ r
'" Cell with Unique 10# J
I[i]Cell Group with Idenllfler
~
E,S1 American Indian Lands (Not 8 Pan)
~PubliclQuasl·Public Conserved Lands ti&t ll~ Preexisting Conservation Agreements
r22Z: San Jacinto Wldlife Area Additional Acquisillon
I. F,,' e ....
JPR Log No, 11-06-16-01 I EXHIBIT I
Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Soils and Project Location. NORTH C
Fallbrook ~andy IDem. ~h~lIow, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded m~Rockland
Hanford coarn sandy IDem, 8 to 15 pef""nl .klpes, "rod 00
BIIIII' Terrace escarpments
BIIIIIIIWaler
Wilkl""'" Silty clay, deep, salne-alka~
Wllklws Silty clay, deep strongly s~llne-~ibt'
III Willows Silty cI~y, s~hne-alka~
2451
2554 I 2555 I 2556
~
~Afll~glon ~ne $~ndy lo~m, 110 8 paroenl slopes
~Arhnglon fine sandy loam, deep. 2. \0 a p81~6nl ~lope6
Cleneba rocky s~ndy loam 15 to 50 percent sklpes, Brod "d
CIBneba sandy loam, 15 \0 50 percenr slopes, eroded
_ Hanford ~ne sandy loarll, 0 10 1 peroent slopes
~Hanford sandy loam, 2 10 15 percen! sklpe&
HI Madara ~ne ~andy klam, 0 to 2. percent slopes
Mon~arat~ sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent sklpes
__ Monserate sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slope~ sev~rely aroded
II1II Monserate sandy "'am, 5 (0 8 percent sklpes, eroded
\
_ Oo",;no ~Ih loam, sallne-alkai, _ MOnserale s~ndy kl"m, B to 15 percent sklpes, erod~d
... Oo"';no s,~ toam, strongt;i sallne-alt;all ..MOl1serate s~ndy klam, ~Mallow, 5 to 15 11",<;"01 510p85_ eroded
_ Exeter sandy loam, 210 e percent slopas, eroded ji¥1iiii\ Pachapp~ ~ne SIIndy 10Bm 010 2 percent "Iop~s
~EJeler eandy 109m, deep, 0 10 2 percent slopes _ Paohapp~ ~ne l"lndy lo~m 210 B percent slop"6, erodBd
BIIIII' E~eler sandy klam, deep, 2 to e percent sklpes, eroded _ Ramona sandy loam 0 10 2. percBnl slopes
... E~et..r ~ery fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes IIII!IIliI R~mona "andy loam 0 10 5 percenl elopes, severet,-"fod "d
_ Fallbrook l'if1e sandy lo~m_ sMllow, 0 to 15 perce"t sill pes eroded _ Ramona sandy loam, 2 10 5 percent slopes, eroded
2334
2433 I 2432
I 286/~
.1 L\"41 [][]Cell Group With Identifier
,m
3176
e
"' -Preexlsling Conservation Agreements
San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional AcqUISition
JPR Log No. 11-06-16-01 I EXHIBIT I
Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Soils and Project Location. SOUTH C
Regional Map
JPR 11-06-16-01
Cell Tower No Conservation
Proposed Development
Proposed MSHCP ConsarvatlonArea
Proposed Other Conservation Area
(Rlparianl Rillenne 404 Permit)
Restoration ProjectlMSHCP Conservation Area
UNKNOWN
PubhcIQuesl-Publn: Conserved Lands
RCA MSHCP Conserved Lands
Highways
C~ies
II _Feet IRough si~pu~ii~;i1,2::i,.iJ
o 12,000
GRESHAM
100
Tracy.OwenSI!PG:reshamSavage.com . San Bernardino OfficeSAVAGE
(909) 8904499 ' fax (909) 890-9877
July 12, 2011
VIA E-MAIL [erosso@rctc,orgj.
FACSIMILE (951) 787-7920,
AND U.s. FIRST CLASS MAIL
Ms. Edda Rosso
Capital Projects Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside. CA 92502-2208
Re: Opposition to Perris Valley Line Project
Dear Ms. Rosso:
This office represents Riverside Unified School District ("RUSD"), and is submitting
this letter on behalf of RUSD to further expand on concerns with the Perris Valley Line
Project ("PVL" or "Project") passenger rail service expansion, as is currently proposed,
for approval by the Commission on July 13, 2011.
We have previously provided comments to both the Perris Valley Line Dratt EIR
("DEIR", State Qearinghouse No. 2009011046) prepared under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). as well as the Supplemental Environmental
Assessment ("SEA") prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act
(HNEPA"). dated May 21, 2010 and January 6, 2011, respectively. Both comment
letters expressed numerous concerns regarding the PVL and its potential adverse
impact on the safety of children attending both Hyatt and Highland Elementary
Schools. located short distances from the existing rail-line.
RCfC provided responses to our comment letter to the DEIR on June 30, 201L
Although we appreciate the willingness of the RCrC staff to engage in discussions to
reach an amicable and mutually agreeable resolution of RUSD's concerns, based on
our review of the responses, the Final EIR ("FEIR") and staff report materials, we
believe that the PVL Project still poses serious safety risks to students and staff at
Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools which have not been adequately analyzed
and mitigated in the FEIR. For this reason, we urge the Commission to continue its
consideration of the proposed PVL Project to a later date. to allow for more time to
reach mutually acceptable solutions to the issues discussed herein.
"1750 I!lIl\crslly (\Y~lIllC. Stille 25ft .. IU\,\'·f~l(h:. Calitilr!'lw 91501
550 La ..t !h)'l.Pllilllly I <lUC. ')IJIIC ilJO • Sail l1.:rn,irdij\f). ('ali(nrniJ 'J241)(\
Ms. Edda Rosso
July n2011
Page 2
Below are the continuing concerns with the Project and the legal adequacy of the FEIR.
As always, RUSD is open to further discussing adequate resolution of these
outstanding issues. This letter highlights only the major issues of concern that are still
inadequately addressed by the FEIR; however, each of the issues raised in our
previous comment letters are incorporated herein by reference, and are still relevant
for consideration by the Commission.
• RUSD was not provided with a complete copy of the Responses to Comments
within the timeframe required by CEQA. Section 15088(b) of the CEQA
Guidelines requires the lead agency to provide a commenting agency with a
response to its comment letter at leest 10 days prior to taking action to certify an
EIR. The responses to our May 21, 2010 letter Were received within this
timerrame, but referred to "Master Responses" in over forty locations, but were
not included or attached. Although we appreciate that RCTC provided a copy
of the Master Responses upon request, the Master Responses Were still not
provided in the timeframe required under Section 15088(b), which denied
RUSD adequate time for review of the full Responses to Comments.
• The project deSCription remains unchanged and still is not descriptive enough
to allow for a complete understanding of exactly what work will take place
along the rail segments closest to Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools.
• With regard to the depth of the jet fuel pipeline that is in close proximity to
Highland Elementary School, Response 13-10 states that: "[D)uring
construction, areas within RCTC ROW where the fuel line is less than three feet
deep, a non-permeable material will be placed over the fuel line where soil
erosion has taken place." However, this is not included within the Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan contained in Section 0.4 of the FEIR, and should be
included as an enforceable mitigation measure.
• Response 13-14 states that: "because construction for the PVL project would
comply with all applicable Kinder Morgan construction requirements, the
project would not have significant impacts for construction work around the
pipeline and no mitigation measures are required." Admittedly, based on this
statement, potentially significant impacts to the jet fuel pipeline could occur
during construction if the Kinder Morgan protocol is not followed. Thus,
adherence to all applicable Kinder Morgan construction requirements as
outlined in Response 13-14 must be included as enforceable mitigation
measures for the PVL project.
• RUSD's request to limit the hours of construction activities adjacent to
Highland Elementary to those hours when school is not in session was
Ms. Edda Rosso
July 12, 2011
Page 3
dismissed as "infeasible". Contrary to Response 13-17, this request was nQ!
due to noise concerns, but rather to ensure that as few children as possible
would be exposed to risks from damage to the jet fuel pipeline during
construction. RUSD did not request that this limitation apply to early morning
and evening hours, but suggested a mitigation measure that would only
prevent construction near the jet fuel pipeline during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. 'This request appears to have been summarily dismissed with no
justification other than that "the constriction period would be extended and the
ability to complete the proposed project within a reasonable period of time
would be substantially compromised." 'This conclusion does not appear to be
consistent with the magnitude and severity of the risk that RUSD's suggested
mitigation measure was intended to reduce.
• No pipeline risk analysis was conducted, as suggested in our May 21, 2010
letter. Instead, Response 13-12 summarily dismisses this request, stating that
the 1,500 foot guideline established by the California Deparhnent of Education
is inapplicable because Highland Elementary School is an existing school site.
Regardless of the zone of analysis set by state law for siting of new schools,
common sense dictates that a pipeline risk analysis should be conducted where
a jet fuel pipeline exists a mere ~from an elementary school, within the
railroad right-of-way.
• In March 2011, RC"fC caused the preparation of an "Analysis of Safety Issues for
the Proposed Commuter Rail Service on the Riverside County Transportation
Commission's Perris Valley Line in the Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Schools" by
Zeta-Tech ("Zeta-Tech Study"). This constitutes Significant new information
that was not circulated as part of the EIR or made available for public review
and comment, as is required under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. RUSD was
not aware of the existence of the Zeta-Tech Study until the release of the FEIR,
and would have appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on the
Zeta-Tech Study at an earlier date. We disagree with RCTC's conclusion in
Master Response 1111 that recirculation was not required on the basis that no
new, Significant impacts would result, because as outlined below, the Zeta
Tech Study actually identified a new potentially significant impact that could
occur from derailment if train speeds at Highland Elementary were not limited
to 30 miles per hour, as discussed below. 'This failure to recirculate the EIR with
the Zeta-Tech Study included renders the EIR defective as an informational
document.'
I Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21092.1; CEQA Guidelines 1508S.5; Laurel Heights Improvement A.s.!ln. v. R~nts ofthe University
af Odifornia (1993) 6 Cat 4th 1112; Save our Pt'rIinsu/tt Ccmmitl« v. Monterey County lild. of Supervisors (2001) 67 Cal. App.
4th 9'), 131.
Ms. Edda Rosso
July 12, 2011
Page 4
• The finding that "no significant impacts" will oocur from derailment risks iii
dQ1endent upon train :weeds of approximately 30 miles per /wUT at Highland
Elementary School, and train speeds of less than 30 miles per hour at Hyatt
Elementary School. Master Response No. 10 states that with regard to Hyatt
Elementary, "train speeds in that area are estimated at less than 20 miles per
hour." In fact, the Zeta-Tech Study specifically states that: "Based on the risk
analysis presented here, it is recommended that passenger train speed be
limited to 30 mph in the vicinity of the Highland School". (Zeta-Tech Study, at
7, fn. 9). Thus, the Zeta-Tech Study infers that a potentially significant impact
could occur from derailment if train speeds are not so limited. However, there
is nO such speed limit currently in effect; and a 30 mph speed limit is not
included within the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan contained in Section 0.4 of
the FElR. Speed limits along track segments adjacent to both elementary
schools should be included as enforceable mitigation measures.
• The distsnce analysis in Response L3-21 still fails to account for the fact that the
playground of Hyatt Elementary is at least 20 feet below the grade of the rail
right-of-way, and fails to account for the potential additional velocity if rail
cars were to slide down the slope.
• The FElR is contradictory and inconsistent in its discussion of the landscape
walls. For example, Response L3-7 states that the landscape walls are
"supplemental design features, not mitigation for any identified impact".
However, Response L3-7 goes on to state that at Hyatt Elementary School,
"excavated soil will be used to create an earthen berm against the landscape
wall" and that "the objective of the wall is to minimize the risk of rail cargo
and debris reaching the school grounds in the event of a train accident." This
suggests that potentially significant impacts could occur from derailment, yet
the landscape walls are not included as enforceable mitigation measures.
There is also no discussion of engineering or design of the walls Or their
efficacy as a debris and cargo barrier. Response 1.3-7 merely states that the wall
will be "of similar material to a noise barrier, concrete block."
• The Zeta-Tech Study's derailment risk anaiysis is based solely on train weight
and speed, and does not take into account high curvature, heavy grade, track
conditions, number or volume of trains in reaching its "freight train energy
calculation." Zeta-Tech Study, at 7). As a result of this "ratio of passenger
energy to freight energy" stated to be "62.6%", the report states that " .. .it can
be seen that the passenger train will develop 63% of the energy developed by a
freight train at this location should a derailment occur. This more than
compensates for the small increase in derailment risk associated with the
addition of the passenger trains, with a resulting combined risk of the order of
Ms. Edda Rosso
July 12, 2011
PageS
90% of the current freight operations," Not only is this analysis unclear, but it
seems to only account for the severil;y of a derailment, not the risk of
occurrence. The Zeta-Tech Study goes on to mention the "severe nature of the
track alignment in the vicinity of the Hyatt School, with severe grade and
curvature conditions", but dismisses this risk due to track upgrades and
improvements that will occur as part of the PVL Project. (Zeta-Tech Study. at
13). In sum, the Zeta-Tech study cannot provide adequate support for its
mathematical quantification of risk, and thus none of the concerns related to
risks to Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools from potential derailment
have been adequately addressed,
• Master Response 8 states that "Poarch Road in Riverside ... would be dosed by
the PVL project." However, Response 1..3-28 goes on to state that nIn the event
of a derailment near Hyatt Elementary School, emergency response would be
able to reach the train by entering the RCTC ROW at Poarch Road. ,,". This is
inconsistent, and highlights the fact that emergency response concerns have
not been adequately addressed.
• In response to comments regarding potential impacts to children from
construction emissions, Response L3-30 pertains only to operational emissions.
Contrary to Response 1..3-31, compliance with SCAQMD daily emissions
thresholds are regional in nature and do not negate potential health effects to
nearby sensitive receptors, nor do they relieve RCTC of the responsibility to
evaluate such impacts under CEQA and prepare a health risk assessment and
locali7.ed emissions analysis for construction emissions.
• In reviewing the revisions contained at Section 0.2 of the FEIR, several traffic
mitigation measures (TT-3, TT-S and TT-6) appear to have been deleted on the
basis that the traffic signals contemplated by these mitigation measures are
planned to be installed by other projects (unrelated to the PVL Project) as part
of the future conditions without the Project. However, this reasoning is
contrary to well-established CEQA case law, which states that traffic
improvements which are assumed to be in place in the future to mitigate
cumulative traffic impacts are only sufficient if those measures are based on a
reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agenqt commits itself 10
implementing.' That is not the case here, In the absence of any mechanism for
RCTC to ensure that these traffic improvements are completed, the FEIR
2 Anderson first Coalition v. City ofAnlmon (2005) 130 CalAppAlh 1173, 1187, citing In Napa Citizens for Honest
Government u. Napa County Bd, of Supm:n:sars (20(1) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 363-364; 5tnJe Our Peninsula Committee "Q.
Mrmterey County 84, afSupervisors (2001) 'in Cal.App.4th 99, 141; SacrQmenm Old City Assn. v. City Courtcil (1991) 229
CaLApp,3<j 1011, 1029; FederatiDn of Hi//sid".d Canyon A5scdiJlions v, City ofLos Anfl'"" (2000) 83 CaI,App.4!h 1252,
1261-62'_
Ms. Edda Rosso
July 12, 2011
Page 6
contains no legally adequate basis for the deletion of these traffic mitigation
measures.
In sum, the PVL Project and its proximity to Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools
result in attendant risks to student life and safety that-as a policy matter-cannot be
quantified, and even from a purely technical perspective, have not been adequately
quantified within the environmental documents. Thus, based on the current
environmental documentation there is no legal basis for the Commission to determine
these impacts to be "less than significant".
Furthermore, certain feasible measures as identified above {i.e., additional coverage of
the pipeline, adherence to Kinder Morgan construction requirements, prohibition of
construction hours near pipeline during school hours, and a 30 mph speed limit)
which could potentially reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level have not even
been included as legally enforceable mitigation measures. Yet, CEQA mandates that a
lead agency should not approve a project as proposed, if there are feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project.'
We appreciate RCTC's willingness to work with RUSD to explore mutually acceptable
solutions to ensure the safety of students and staff. Until this occurs, however, we
urge the Commission to continue its consideration of the PVL Project until the
environmental issues outlined in our letter and previOUS correspondence have been
fully and adequately addressed through enforceable mitigation measures-or
alternatively, to deny the PVL Project as it is currently proposed.
c62~
Tracy M. Owens, for
GRFSHAM SAVAGE
NOLAN & TILDEN,
A Professional Corporation
TMO:ld
cc: Dr. Rick L. Miller, RUSD Superintendent
Dr. Kirk Lewis, RUSD Assistant Superintendent, Operations
Mr. Michael H. Fine, Deputy Superintendent
Ms. Janet Dixon, RUSD Director, Planning & Development
Riverside Unified School District Board of Education
, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§2I00l; 21081 (.~ 2108!.5_
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
R e a l E s t a t e D e v e q J l 1 ' 1 E n t 8 . J l M ! s l m a n l ~
J u l y 7 , 2 0 1 1
M s . E d d a R o s s o
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ' J ' r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
P . O . B o x 1 2 0 0 8
R i v e r s i d e , C A 9 2 5 0 2
R e : M e t r o l i n k P e r r i s V a l l e y l i n e
D e a r E d d a :
I t h a s b e e n b r o u g h t t o o u r a t t e n t i o n t h a t t h e R C T C h a s s c h e d u l e d a m e e t i n g f o r t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e
r e f e r e n c e d M e t r o l i n k P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e t h a t w o u l d i n c l u d e a M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y t o
t h e N o r t h o f o u r T n t e l l i c c n t e r O f f i c e D e v e l o p m e n t a t 1 4 3 5 0 M e r i l l i a n P k w y . , l o c a t e d i n t h e M a r c h
B u s i n e s s C e n t e r d e v e l o p m e n t . A s a n i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y i n t h i s p r o j e c t , K D C w o u l d l i k e t o c o n v e y O U I
s n o n g s u p p o r t f o r a p p r o v a l .
W h e n K D C c h o s e i n 2 0 0 7 t o d e v e l o p a 1 5 0 , O O O s f o f f i c e b u i l d i n g i n t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d
d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e p r o p o s e d R C T C M a r c h F i c l d S t a t i o n w a s a v e r y i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n o u r d e c i s i o n
t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h e p r o j e c t . T h e L E E D G o l d C e r t i f i e d R i v e r s i d e I n t c l l i c c n t e r b u i l d i n g c a n p r o v i d e
u p t o 1 5 0 0 n e w j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t h e C o u n t y w h e n f u l l y l e a s e d a n d f e c i t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e
t r a n s i t f a c i l i t y i s c r i t i c a l t o t h e g r o w t h o f t h e M a r c h B u s i n e s s C e n t e r i n g e n e r a l a n d t h e s u c c e s s f u l
o c c u p a n c y o f t h e K D C b u i l d i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r . W e c u u e n t l y a r e p r o p o s i n g o n a c o n u n e r c i a l p r o j e c t
t h a t w i l l c r e a t e 1 0 0 0 n e w j o b s f o r R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y a n d a k e y c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e p o t e n t i a l t e n a n t
i s t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e p r o p o s e d M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n .
O n c e a g a i n , K D C w o u l d l i k e t o r e i t e r a t e o u t s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r t h i s i m p o r t a n t p r o j e c t a n d h o p e f o r
a f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n i n t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e M e t r o l i n k P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e .
V c r y t r u l y y o u r s ,
K D C
8 1 1 5 P J ' C S W l l R o a d . S u i r e 7 0 0 . D i l l l a ~ , T X 7 ' ) 2 2 5 . P 2 ' 1 4 6 9 6 1 7 0 0 . f 2 1 . 1 . 3 7 3 3 1 0 8 . w w w . k d c . c o m
July 12, 2011
Ms. Edda Rosso
Riverside COUllty Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502
Re: RCTC Perrill Valley Line
Dear Ms. Rosso:
The March Joint Powers Authority has received a notice of public hearing for the upcoming
review of the Perris Valley Line project. The March loint Powers Authority has worked
coUaboratively with RCTC on the project over the past 8 years, and would like to continue to
express our support as this project moves forward towards approval.
The March Joint Powers Authority is tasked to create 38,000 jobs over the next 20 to 30 years as
fonner portions of the March Air Force Base are redeveloped. In working with RCTC, the
March JPA has been able to dedicate land for the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station,
and ensuring that supporting infrastructure is in place. This station will provide a key public
transit opportunity fur these 38,000 jobs, and it will be critical fur the continued growth of the
Meridian Business Park and March UfeCare project.
Again, the Mardi Joint Powers Authority would like to reiterate our full support for the Perris
Valley Line project and hope fur a favorable decision on the proj~t.
Sincerely,
\ . '.. i r'!~·l7J; ~~ .. Loti M. Stone
Executive Director
2 1 5 ~" M j-Y I: K !) R . ... R I V ~ JI. S I [J F CAL I F n H. ~ I Pi 'f 2 5 i l!I * \~ ;; \ I b i h "' n (l n " FAX l 'I 5 I ) r; 5 j 5.,:; II
July 25, 20 II
Dear RCTC Board Members,
I am deeply disappointed with your proposed Perris Valley Line as outlined in the FEIR
before you today. V.'hile I and my neighbors have many objections (most of which are covered
in other written comments and public testimony), I wish to share one glaring problem which is a
major safety problem. As the SJBLlPVL runs through UCR neighborhood, it divides the county
Box Springs Mountain Park and the City of Riverside Islander Park, and the neighborhood.
Ibere are long established trails along whieh the public has used to access the Box Springs Park
which require crossing over the rail tracks. For example, it is a tradition at UCR for students to
hike to the concrete "C", and trail starts at the top of Big Springs Road, crosses over the rail
tracks, and then up the side of the mountain. This has been a tradition since the "C" was
installed in the early 1950's. Safety was never much of a problem as trains were few and slow.
Hikers could always feel the vibration and hear the approaching lumbering train, and get out of
the way. The trains of the proposed PVL will be ofa drastically different nature. It is proposed
that instead oflumbering along at 10 mph, speeds will increase to 40 mph or higher. The trains
are supposed to quieter and with greater number. The section of track where the trails cross is
curved and with high banks, making the line of sight limited. Hikers would not be able to see a
fast train coming until it is too late.
We have raised our safety concerns with your staff and consultants and have been told the
solution is easy: these people are trespassing.
This is no solution. We believe the time to deal ",-jth this problem is before someone gets killed.
The time to deal with the problem is during the eonstruction phase of this project. There needs
to be pedestrian crossings installed as part of this project as it is not a point oflF someone will be
run down by a train but WHEN. The cost of installing a crossing now would be minor and
certainly less if incorporated into the initial project construction.
I hope you will direct staff to make this important inclusion to the project.
Regards,
Kevin Dawson
269 Goins Ct.
Riverside, CA 92507
951-781-0386 h
To: Riverside County Transportation Commission Submitted July 24,2011 by email
Re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley Line,
Riverside County, California, Agenda Item 6 for the July 25, 2011 RCTC special
meeting.
Wheel squeal noise from trains going by the many tight-radius eurves on the SJBL in the
part of the UCR neighborhood near the base ofBox Springs Mountain is a major issue
that the ErR fails to adequately analyze. The ErR makes inaccurate claims ofless than
significant impact even though it fails to quantify the projected wheel squeal noise of the
project. The EIR says the project proposes the use of wayside applicators to lubricate the
rails around tight-radius curves. However it wls to require the use of wayside applicators
as a mitigation measure. The FEIR, e.g. in Response L20-22, mentions assessment of
wheel squeal noise at just one curve, stating "the ·Citrus Connection curve" was
assessed and impacts were predicted to occur, however, impacts surpassed the FTA
criteria by only one (1) dB. This indicates that even at minimal effectiveness, the
proposed mitigation using wayside applicators would be successful at eliminating noise
impacts from PVL Metrolink trains in this area. This assertion is based on the dominance
of wheel squeal noise at this location when compared to the other elements of train
noise (Le. hom, engine and wheel noise) at this location. Testing of wheel squeal noise
is not proposed for any segment of the alignment, however, the FTA Manual shows that
wayside applicators are effective at reducing wheel squeal noise (FTA Manual, Table 6
12). In all other areas with tight radius curves, wheel squeal would be reduced for
Metrolink PVL trains."
Why only analysis of alleged reduction of wheel squeal noise reduction at the Citrus
Connection curve? Regarding the EIR's claim of dominance of wheel squeal noise over
other noises at the Citrus Connection curve, that applies more strongly at the UCR
neighborhood sites along the base of Box Springs Mountain: far from hom noise and,
unlike the Citrus Connection site, far from the main line tracks. Indeed, the FEIR says,
e.g., in Response L8-5 that "The principal source ofnoise near the curved area would be
wheel squeaL", referring to a UCR neighborhood location. Moreover, the UCRfBox
Springs Mtn. neighborhood area near the tight radius curves has rather quiet existing
noise levels, as shown in FEIR vol. 2 (the newly revised DEIR, herein FEIR2) Table 4.10
3 (p, 4.10-9 (292): existing Ldn levels of 54 and 56 dBA respectively at two sites (396 E.
Big Springs Rd and 298 E. Manfield St) close to the tight radius curves in the UCR
neighborhood. By contrast, all of that Table's sites n the general vicinity of the Citrus
Connection curve (but all are actually quite far from it) are noisy, with Ldn dBA levels in
the 70s and as high as 78 and 79.for two of them. FEIR2 Table 4.10-2 "Allowable Transit
Noise Level Increases (Ldn and Leq in dBA)" (p. 4.10-6 (289) shows "Allowable Project
Noise Level" of respectively 55, 60 and 65 for "Existing Noise Levels' respectively of 55,
65, and 75. It follows that a substantially greater reduction in wheel squeal noise would
be needed in order to meet Allowable Project Noise Levels for the 12 PVL passenger
trains a day in the quiet UCRlBox Springs Mountain area curves than for the Citrus
Connection curve, where the EIR alleges that only minimal reduction would be needed.
The ErR fails to analyze the amount of wheel squeal nOise reduction that would be
needed for the curves in the UCRlBox Springs MIn. Area. The EIR states, e.g. in
Response L20-21 , that 'Wayside applicators will not eliminate wheel squeal, but they do
act to reduce wheel squeal. The wayside applicator~ are a project design feature, not
mitigation: Thus the EIR fails to analyze the Project's wheel squeal noise at curves in
the UCRlBox Springs Min. Area and the amount of reduction that would be achieved by
its "proposed" use of wayside applicators. The failure to quantify and analyze wheel
squeal noise in that area invalidates the EIR's analysis of Project Noise levels for that
area. Moreover the EIR fails to make the use of wayside applicators in that area an
enforceable mitigation measure. It also fails to consider other methods of wheel squeal
noise reduction. such as resilient wheels on the cars. which the 1997 Wheel/Rail Noise
Control Manual that it cites says are "Well demonstrated to be effective" as a wheel
squeal noise control treatment. providing "10 to 20" dB noise reduction. Further. it fails to
state what lubricants would be used in the proposed wayside applicators. and fails to
analyze the impact on biologically and/or water-quality sensitive areas, including Box
Springs Mtn. Reserve and Islander Park (which are adjacent to the R(JoN where the
ROW is only 100 feet wide) of any weeping of said lubricants off the tracks. Wayside
applicators are not cheap, and require maintenance. The recently obtained "2009 Small
Starts Project Update RCTC-PVL" sent by RCTC to FTA shows project costs for many
different types of things, e.g., at its p. 45 it shows Station Trash Receptacles, Old cost
$32/ea, New cost $475/ea your tax dollars at work. But it does not list wayside
applicators. So there is a concern that unless provided as enforeeable Mitigation, the
"proposed" Wayside Applicators may at some point, uh ..., fall by the wayside.
The validity of the EIR's Altenatives Analysis, and much else in consideration of the
Project, is dependent on baving reasonably valid ridership forecasts for thc PVL, and
reasonable consideration of a TSM (Express Bus) Altcrnative to thc PVL. Here is
evidence, first that the EIR's PVL ridership forecasts are invalid. The EIR for its
alternatives analysis relies on its Techoical Report A, San Jacinto Branchlinell-215
Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (herein. Tech A) which dates from May, 2004;
unlike many of the other Appendices and Technical Reports of the EIR. there is no later
revision. Three PVL rail alternatives are considered, similar to each other, of which
Alternative D (using the Citrus Connection) is the chosen alternative, and there is one
Express Bus alternative, called TSM. Tech A p. 9 Exhibit 4 gives projected ridership
flQures for 2010 (and 2025). For the proposed PVL Project the Exhibit shows 4,151
"Daily Passenger Boardings' in 2010. More detail of such boardings is given on p. 97 in
Exhibit E-2 "Station to Station Boardings -2010". Exhibit E-2 not only shows the
boardings from the (then) proposed PVL stations, and the destination of those ..
passengers, but also shows the projections for boardings and destinations of the other
stations, i.e., the existing stations, on the 91 line (the PVL is planned to operate as an
extension of the 91 line). Thus the "From Total" column shows flQures not only for the
(then) 6 planned PVL stations, but also for Riverside Dntn, La Sierra, Corona, West
Corona, Fullerton, NorwalklSFS, and LAlUnion Station. Adding up the Exhibit's figures
for those 8 existing stations gives a From total of 3.828 for those stations, and
subtracting the total of 77 of those 3,828 with Destination listed as PVL stations gives a
total projection for 2010 of 3,751 boardings from an existing 91-Une station to an
existing 91-Une station (one can see from the table that these are daily "from" boardings
and do not count the return trip, so in effect the figures are round-trip numbers).
(Similarly, the "from" total of 4,073 for the 6 PVL stations added to the 77 from existing
stations to PVL stations give the 4,151 total use in Tech A Exhibit 4.) However, without
the projected existence of the PVL, many of the projected riders going from PVL stations
to existing 91-Line stations beyond Riverside would use car or bus to go to an existing
station, mostly Riverside Downtown; e.g .• ofthe 1,458 "from" the Alessandro station,
respectiVely 421, 32 and 273 have destinations listed respectively as Fullerton.
NorwalklSFS, and LAJUnion Stn , while from the Spruce St station (since replaced by
Marlborough) the Exhibit's corresponding figures are 578 ("from"). 315, 19, and 59.
Absent the PVL, many (indeed, probably most) of these people would go by car or bus
to the Riverside Downtown station. Thus a conservative estimate would add at least 700
to the above total projection of 3,751 using the existing 91-Une stations without the PVL,
so a total projection for 2010 of at least 4,451 daily passengers on the existing 91-Une
with no PVL. But those are projections for 2010, and the 2010 daily ridership figures for
Metrolink, including the 91-Une, are already in, contained in the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 17,201
METROLINK QUARTERLY REPORT, available on the web at
http://www.metro.netiboard/ltemsl2011l03 Marchl20ll 03 I 60PItem9 .pdf
and incorporated herein by reference. The Report, at p. 1, states "LACMTA is a member
of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which operates the
Metrolink commuter rail service. Staff provides a quarterly update on Metrolink ridership,
revenues, and other issues of importance to LACMT A ... Metrolink operates eight
commuter rail lines. There are 55 stations and 388 route miles in the six county service
area. 144 trains operate weekday, 40 on Saturdays and 26 on Sundays. Ridership
averages 39,000 weekday boardings. " (RCTC used to regularly provide such ridership
data in reports for Agenda items, and so easily publicly available, but recently were not
found there.) The Report's p. 7 gives a table "METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY
RIDERSHIP BY LINE", showing in the July through December 2010 column 2,215 for
the 91 Line and 38,515 total for all lines. It is assumed in this letter that the 2,215
weekday 91-Une ridership figure is for 2,215 passengers "going-and-returning". I.e., the
number of round-trips, and not for merely half that many, 1,107, "going". Then actual
daily ridership of 2,215 is a bit less than half of the 4,451 daily ridership figure calculated
above from the Tech A projections (and 2,21513,751 =59% ofthe 3,751 figure
calculated above). When the projected ridership fgures without the PVl tum out to be
about double the actual ridership figures, that impeaches the entire EIR, and shows that
whatever advantages are claimed for the PVl altemative are greatly exaggerated.
Consider, e.g., the Air Quality analysis, FEIR2 p. 4.3-29 (166) Table 4.3-12 2012 Net
Change in Operational EmiSSions (in pounds per day) lists, for NOx, train emissions,
114; vehicle emissions reduced, 73; net project emissions, 41; and SCAQMD
Significance Thresholds for Operation, 55. But if the projected ridership used in
calculating the 73 Ibs vehicle reduction fgure is about double the realistic ridership, then
the 731bs figure changes to about 37 Ib, and 114 -37 = 77 Ibs is far above the 55 Ibs ,
threshold. Even if the realistic ridership projection is as much as 80% of the exaggerated
figure used in the EIR, the 73 Ib figure would be about 58 Ibs, and 114 -58 = 56, still
above the 55 Ibs threshold. Thus the EIR's Air Quality analysis is dependent on
reasonably accurate ridership forecasts, which the EIR fails to have, as evidenced
above. Further evidence impugning the EIR's NOx analysis: the pVl DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION 4(1) EVALUATION July 2004 (herein, EA)
at p. 111, Table 3-2.5: Net Change in Operational Emissions (in pounds per day) for
Commuter Rail Alternative, states for NOx: train emissions 90 Ibs for 10 trains instead of
12, and Vehicle Emissions Reduced 51 Ibs as compared with FEIR2 Vehicle Emission
Reduction estimate of 73 Ibs, even though the EA"s PVl ridership projections would be
the same as those of the 2-months earlier Tech A and similar to PVl projections that are
out there today, with no accounting for so large an increase in the Emission Reduction
estimate from 51 Ibs to 73 Ibs per day.
The Alternative Analysis fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives by failing to
include a robust Express Bus (or TSM) alternative. Instead it includes what appears to
be an almost perversely handicapped TSM, with, among other things a route much
slower than an available better route, and questionable ridership prOjections. The
analysis in the present comment letter focuses on the portion of the TSM route northerly
of Alessandro, since 1-215 south of there is not congested to the extent it is north of
there. The Express Bus route northerly of there is described in Tech A p. 32: "Leaving
the Alessandro Boulevard stop. service will travel via Box Springs Blvd. and Sycamore
Canyon Blvd. to the Box Springs Interchange w~h 1-215/SR60, with a stop provided at
this location. Continuing north on 1-215/SR60 the route will stop at University Avenue
and provide access to the University of California, Riverside campus. The route
continues along University Avenue to downtown Riverside, with stops at the Metrolink
Station and the Downtown Bus Terminal.» However the EA (issued just 2 months later)
at p. 16 describes a better route: "after reaching the Alessandro station, the service would
not return to the freeway, but would follow local streets to a proposed Box Springs
express bus station in order to avoid the very congested East Junction. The service would
then return to SR60/I·215 until exiting either at University Drive. or at Martin Luther
King Drive to counect to the transit hub at the University of California Riverside that is
located on that street. The service would continue along Martin Luther King Drive, then
turn north at Vine Street to connect to the Riverside Metrolink Station. This route avoids
the high volumes of traffic on University Avenue:' Thus RCTC's own analysis, done two
months after Tech A, shows a route that not only avoids heavier traffic volumes but is
also shorter, as a map consultation shows. But there is more. Why (heading inbound) get
back on the 1-215 after the Box Springs stop to go to University Ave., since, as noted
elsewhere in the EIR. this is one of the most congested segments of the freeway? A
proper TSM Alternative would continue on Sycamore Canyon Blvd. to Central Ave.,
crossing the latter onto EI Cerrito to Canyon Crest to Martin Luther King Dr. (or
alternatively from Sycamore Canyon Blvd west on Central then north on Canyon Crest to
MLK) for the stop at the UCR transit hub (much more practical than a stop on congested
University Ave, and just as close or closer to the heart of the campus), then (as the EA.
but not Tech A, suggests) west on MLK to Vine and the Metrolink Station. Tech A
Exhibit 21 (p. 52) gives TSM projected travel times for 2010 and 2025. For 2010, the
times given for Alessandro to Box Springs, Box Springs to UCR. and UCR to the
Riverside downtown Metrolink station are respectively 6, 9 and 13 minutes. for a total of
28 minutes from Alessandro to the downtown. Station. By comparison. the time given for
the PVL from Alessandro to downtown Riverside is 22 minutes, a figure which is too low
because it assumes too-high specds around the UCR neighborhood tight radius curves
and the 60 mph speed near Highland School is to be reduced according to the MOU
between RUSD and RCTC. With the faster express bus route proposed here, the times
should be about the same. Moreover, most passengers departing Riverside downtown do
not take the 91 Line; e.g., it is much faster to go to LA on the Riverside Line, and far
more people take that than the 91 Line. ThePVL is an extension of the 91 Line, so would
not be convenient for people continuing on from Riverside downtown on other lines who
would have to wait a substantial time for their ongoing train. Express buses, if sufficient
in number (i.e., shorter headway than the 30 min in peak hours considered in the
Alternatives Analysis) and well-timed, would be more convenient for many people.
Moreover, capital and operating costs for the Express Bus alternative would be much
lower, so more express buses with the shorter headway of a more robust bus alternative
could be scheduled and fares could also be much lower, both of which would provide
incentive for bus ridership vs. PVL, However, the Tech A Exhibit 25 ( p. 54) projection
for 2010 is only 238 TSM (i.e. Express Bus without PVL) boardings at Alessandro vs.
,•
1,468 PVL hoardings there. Such a disparity, for which no explanation is given, defies
reason and impugns the entire EIR Alternatives analysis. One possibly contributing factor
might be that only 100 parking spaces are projected for the Alessandro Bus station (SA p.
17) but 720 parking spaces for the Alessandro PVL station (SA 23) later reduced to under
SOO in FEIR2 (in each case many riders would arrive by feeder bus). There is no
explanation given for the great disparity in projected parking spaces, or whether it is
cause or effeet of the great disparity in projeeted ridership. It should be noted that the
alternative Express Bus route suggested above would reduce traffic on some of the most
congested parts ofI-2IS, achieving goals of the project at much lower cost. Since the
weak TSMlExpress Bus alternative considered in the EIR is (aside from the No Project
Alternative) the only alternative to the 3 very similar PVL rail alternatives considered, the
EIR fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives.
Thank you for your consideration .
. Submitted on behalf of residents of the OCR neighborhood, Friends of Riverside's Hills,
and myself, by
Richard Block
424 Two Trees Rd, Riverside, CA 92507-3212
rblock31@chartcr.net
" " =
Johnso~edlack
ATTQR SQtLAW
Raymond W. Johnson. Esq. AICP 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula CA 92590 E~ms:UL' EsqAICP@Wildblue.net
Carl T. Sedlack, Esq., Retired
Abigail A.Dl'oodling, Esq. Abby.JSLaw@Gmail.com
Kimberly Fay, Esq. Kim.JSLaw@Gmai1.com
Thkplwnec 951-306-9925
F_imil<'c 951-506-9725
July 24, 20 II by email
To: Riverside County Transportation Commission
Re: Comments on Perris Valley Line Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley
Line, Riverside County, California, Agenda Item 6 for the July 25, 2011 RCTC special
meeting.
The EJR for the project is fatally flawed because it does not disclose and evaluate significant
environmental impacts associated with undisclosed cut and fiU part of the project. The EIR,
by failing to adequately analyze a number ofthe project impacts, leaves the public and
decision makers in the dark as to whether a flawed project can be made to work,
We have just discovered a major discrepancy between what RCTC has reported to the FTA
and what has been discussed in the EIR, a defect in the EIR that will require a more
adequate analysis and recirculation ofthe EIR. This discrepancy was found upon analyzing
a document that was made available to us by RCTC only a couple of weeks ago, a document
dating from 2009 that RCTC, upon sending it to us on July 7, 2011, said "was not in our
records system at that time", referring to an April2011 public records act request. The 129
page document is dated August 31, 2009, addressed to Leslie Rodgers of the FTA from
Anne Mayer, RCTC Executive Director, and labeled RE: 2009 Small Starts Project Update
RCTC-PVL. That document, which RCTC has a copy of, is hereby incorporated by
reference, and referred to as 2009 Project Update.
It gives "PVL Preliminary (30"/0) Design Cost Estimate Base Cost Estimate Track-Networks
System", on its p. 85 updated to June 1,2009, There are cost figures given there for
"Trackwork", including for "Unclassified Cut" at $20 per CY (cubic yard), "Unclassified
Fill" at $25 per CY, and "Sub-ballast" at $45 per CY. For the "UCR" segment, from "SJBL
MP 2.4 to SJBL MP 6,0", the amounts shown for cut are 113,320 CY (costing $2,266,400),
for fill: 14,670 CY ($366,750), and for sub-ballast 17,195 CY ($773,775), For the Project
totals (quantity and base cost without contingency) the figures givcn are: cut 430,855 CY
($8,617,100), fill 35,215 CY ($880,375), and sub-ballast 81,360 CY $3,661,200). (These
figures on p. 85 are from "Revision 12a, June I, 2009"; earlier figures on p. 52 that appear
to be from Revision II a, June 4, 2008, show the same amounts for the UCR segment, but
slightly smaller amounts for the project totaL) That is a vast amount of cut. (If the figures
sent to the FTA for the amount of CY of cut is significantly in error, it is an error that
persisted through both the 2008 and 2009 Preliminary (30%) Design Cost Estimates, and
there would have to be a corresponding error in the $8.6 million estimated cost for the cut
reported to the FTA.) For the UCR segment, 3.6 miles 6,336 yards long, that is
113,320/6,336 = 17.9 CY per track yard, or about 6 CY per track foot.,
Page lof 4
If the width of cut is assumed to be an average of9 ft, (3 yds), the cut would be an average
of about 18/3 = 6 yds = 18 ft deep along the entire 3.6 mi. UCR segment. The EIR fails to
describe where and why this amount of cut will be done. Subtracting the CY of fill and sub
ballast from the cut to obtain the approximate amount of CY that will be exported gives
113,320 -14,670 -17,195 = 81,455 CY as approximately the amount to be exported just for
the UCR segment, and 430,855 -35,215 -81,360 314,280 CY as approximately the
amount of CY to be exported for the total project. (In calculating the amount to be exported,
we have been conservative by subtracting the amount not only of the fill but also ofthe sub
ballast from the amount of cu!.)
The EIR fails to analyze (or even consider) where the vast amount of exported soil would be
placed, and the potential impact at such locations. In its Air Quality chapter, the 2010 DEIR
version claimed "the proposed PVL project would not involve extensive soil work" That
statement has been crossed out in the Revised 2011 version (FEIR2 p. 4.3-23 (=160»
(FEIR2 herein designates vol. 2 of the FEIR, Le, the July, 2011 revision of the DEIR). The
2010 DEIR version claimed "No construction sites would require the import/export of soil
material." That statement was already contradicted by other statements in the DEIR and has
now been replaced (FEIR2 4.3-24 (=161)) by "Some construction sites would require the
export of soils. The amount of soils that would be removed is based on the "90% Mass Haul
Diagram Exhibit" provided in Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix D." However,
there is no such Exhibit in Appendix D of said Tech Report B or anywhere else in said Tech
Report B or anywhere in FEIR2. The FEIR2 continues to claim that "The "Embankment
Construction" is the only task with extensive soils work.", which is in apparent contradiction
of the fact that the overwhelming proportion of the soils work would be cut (430,855 CY)
rather than fill (35,215 CY) (unless "Embankment Construction" means "Embankment
Removal" -but there is no mention ofwhat and how much presently existing embankment
would be removed).
The Project Description (FEIR2 p. 2-14 (50) et seq) is defective in that (among other things)
it fails to disclose any such proposed extensive "Embankment Construction" or where it
would be. Elsewhere, FEIR2 p. 4.11-33 (=359) states that "no significant excavation is
expected" for the project, a claim that is not simply a mistaken carryover from the April
2010 DEIR, since the sentence from which those :5 words have been quoted contains
wording that was added in the July 2011 Revision; the claim contradicts other EIR
statements quoted above and again exhibits the inadequacy of the project description and
analysis of impacts.
There is also the matter of the dump trucks that would be required to export the excess cut,
and the inadequately analyzed impact of that on air quality, traffic and noise. FEIR2 p. 4.11
59 (359) states "In terms of estimated truck volumes, the cut/fill estimates were examined to
identifY volumes of earth that would potentially be moved off site. A conservative approach
estimated truck volumes using an average number of tons of material in a cubic yard of
earth (1.35 tons/cubic yards) and the typical weight capacity ofa dump truck (15
tons/truck)." 15 tons /1.35 tons/CY 15/1.35 CY 11.1 CY per dump truck at its full
weight capacity. For the approximately 314,280 excess CY (81,455 CY for just the UCR
segment) that would be exported, that requires approximately 314,280/11.1 = 28,313 full
dump truck loads (and 81,455111.1 =7,338 such loads for just the UCR segment). (It may
Page 2 of 4
be that some of the exported soil would be moved by rail, but presumably would then
require dump trucks to move it from the end point of its rail movement to its final location.)
How many dump truck loads a day is the total of28,313 dump trucks? FElR2 p. 4.3-23
(=160) states "Emissions estimates for soils exports are based on the first 12 months of
construction when the great majority of soils would be removed." For approximately 250
work days (local noise regulations would constrain weekend and holiday construction), that
would mean approximately 28,313/250 = 113 dump truck loads per day, day after day after
day, for the project. FElR2 p. 4.11-59 (359) continues its dump truck discussion with "Also,
a single work shift was included, though two work shifts per day would be more likely. The
estimate yields 30 empty trucks in and 30 filled truck trips out. Again, using a single work
shift, this would indicate on average four "ins" and 4 "outs" each hour, which is a low figure
not likely to generate any significant traffic impact." However, the figure calculated above
shows that there would instead be about 113 filled dump truck trips a day, which amounts to
over 14 "ins" and 14 "outs" each hour of one shift or about one trip ("in" or "out") every
two minutes. This is no longer a "low figure", but instead a significant traffic impact that the
EIR fails to adequately analyze. (As for the possibility of a second shift, that would also be
constrained by local noise regulations, and would merely spread out the air quality, noise,
and traffic impacts.) The potential impact of so many dump trucks would be especially
significant on residential streets near the tracks, including those in the UCR neighborhood.
On such residential streets, in addition to other impacts, thc wear and tear on the pavement
from so many heavy trucks on streets with a much lower load limit than 15 tons is another
impact that the E1R fails to consider.
Additionally, there is the air quality impact of all that excavation and all those dump trucks,
greatly exceeding the amount analyzed in the ErR, as shown by the fact that the EIR came
up with the figure of only 30 dump truck loads a day of export vs. the more realistic 113
loads calculated above based on the figures provided by RCTC to the FTA. Estimates of
dust or exhaust emissions from all of the construction-related sources (on-site and off-site,
one of them being dump trucks), mentioned in FEIR2 at pp. FEIR2 4.3-23,24 (160-1),
would be greatly increased (in a ratio of about 113 to 30 for dump trucks, as seen above) if
the EIR took into account the full extent of the project's proposed excavation as reported to
the FT A. The EIR fails to adequately analyze these air quality impacts.
Similarly, the construction period traffic impacts from all of said construction-related
sources (one ofthem being dump trucks) would be greatly increased (in a ratio of about 113
to 30 for dump trucks, which alone would add 2 x (113 30)18 > 20 trips per hour). In its
Transportation and Traffic section, }'EIR2 p. 4.11-33 (=359) claims that "The volume of
construction traffic would be expected to be modest (less than 50 vehicles per hour) given
that no significant excavation is expected ...". But the claim of "no significant excavation"
is contradicted not only by the Small Starts Project Update but also by the figures (30 dump
truck loads of export per day) on the very same page ofFEIR2 Thus the claim in traffic
section 4.11 of only "expected to be modest (less than 50 vehicles per hour" is without
foundation, and the EIR fails to adequately analyze construction period traffic impacts.
The FEIR2' sTable 4.3-11, "Perris Valley Line Predicted Daily Construction Emissions
(lbs)", p.4.3-26 (163), shows PVL Total Emissions for NOx as 98 lbs (aschanged in the July
201 J Revision from 881bs in the April 2010 version) and SCAQMD Construction
Emission Limits as 100 Ibs, and so barely avoiding a "Yes" in the Table's "Significant
(YeslNo)" categorization. The figures provided to the FTA show, as discussed above, that
Page 3 of 4
the amounts of grading and soil export would to be many times greater than those used in
the EIIR in arriving at the 98 lbs figure. The much greater grading and soil export would
involve much greater use of diesel-powered equipment, which implies a substantial increase
in NOx emissions. Since it would take an increase of only a bit over 2% to push the NOx
estimate over the daily emission limit of 100 Ibs, this would push that estimate up into the
"Significant" category. The EIR's Air Quality analysis is defective in failing to adequately
analyze the amount of grading and the associated significant amount of construction-related
NOx emissions.
Because the EIR fails to disclose and evaluate these impaets the DlER must be redone to
adequately disclose and evaluate the impaets and be re-circulated. Thabk you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Johnson & Sedlack
By:
Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP
Attorneys for Petitioner
Page40f 4
--
•
•
• J
~
Ii
I,
"
I
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
J " I
- - - _ . , I
I
ATTACHMENT A
Pen1$ V<'Iev une SInaI stKts -case for tile Project.
RIversIde County Transportation CommI$llOn Federal Transit AdmInIIItratlon ~I < .; 1
• case for the project -Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail extension .f:,: .~ ;; 4"
Project Sponsor: Rillerslde County TfansportaUon Commission fir . ~' •
~! J :~,
The Perris Valley Une Is a 24.4 mile extension of the Southern Clil1fomla MetroUnk commuter rail system I: .;. ...••
from the eldstIng sIiItIon In RIversIde to communitIEs to the east and southeast, Indudlng the rapidly ! .
growing dttes of Moreno Valley and Perris. I'.r ,.
setting
~.
The dty of RIvEr.Jide Is one of the two prlndpal ea5Ulm Il!rmlnals of the MetroIInk sysbIm. The city Is ...~,
Iocab!d 50 miles east of downtxMn Los Angeles and 30 miles I"IOI"theast of cenb1lI Orange County, the ~ ,
primary employment cenII!rs In the R!!J1on.
Rgure 1 shows a map of RIveIslde COUnty and neIghboI1ng areas, WIth the MetroIInk lnes and major
. highway fadIItIes In the area. The principal market fOr the project Is the Perris Valley, wIlIdllndudes the '
communities of PerrIs and Romoland along IIIteistiIIII215 (1-215), lind Moreno Valtt!; along state Roub! .
60 (SR-60). 'l'h!ee MetrcIInk lines QlITeIltJy serve RIversIde County: the RIYeI'SIde LIne amectJng to Los
Angeles UnIon S!aI:Ion vta Pomona; the 91 Une COIVtedlllg to Los Angeles Union SI".i!IUon vta F\JIIeI1:oo;
and the Inland EmpIre -Orange County (lEOC) Une comedIng to Santa Ma, Irvine, and oth!r ~'."
.. In centr.ll and southern Orange County. c ,.' .
I j~!'
Purpose
•
The PerrIs Valley Une project: Wilt I~aooI!lS$ to the Metlollllk system from the Penis Valey, and help .
shape future land use patterns l)y OIIentlng new development around the new stallOnS. .. .
• August 2009
leslie Rogers
•August'31,2oo9
Page 5
funding for the PVL Is given in the 30% design cost estimate and New Starts Standard Cost
Categories worksheets that are aUached.
Land Use Plan
A Land Use Plan for Ihe PVL corridor was developed by RCTC and submitted 10 FTA in 2007. There
are no major updates to the Land Use Plan included with this year's submittal.
Project Management Plan
A Project Management Plan to affirm RCTC's technical capacity to complete the project was
submitted to FTA with the ;Z007 Application to Enter Project Development. The management of the
project is continuously monitored by the FTA and its PMOC. with meetings held on a quarterly basis.
There are no major updates to the Project Management Pian included with this year's submittal.
We trust that our submittal. as well as previously submitted documents, contains all the information
required by FT A to evaluate the continued progress of the PVL through the Small Starts process.
Please contact. me at (951) 787-7141. or Cathy Bechtel. our Project Development Director, at (951)
787-7934 or cbechtel@rctc.org If you have any questions or would like clarification of the information
we have supplied.
Sincerely •
•NAnne Mayer
W Executlve Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Attachments:
A) Case for the Project
B) Small Starts Templates
C) Capital Costs -New Starts Standard Cost categories
D) Capital Costs -30% DeSign -Detail Worksheets
E) Capital Costs -30% Design -Cost Methodology Tech Memo
F) Operations and Maintenance Costs Worksheets
G) SUMMIT User Benefit Maps
H) November 10. 2009 Operations Changes Tech Memo
I) Februa:l: 26, 2009 Operations Changes Tech Memo
J} BNSF 4 Main Track Status Tech Memo
K) RCTC Board Repotl. June 2009 -UC Riverside Station Deferral
L) SUMMIT User Benefit Reports
•
Leslie Rogers
•Augusl'31, 2009
Page 4
Cost Categories format as Attachment C and a detailed 30% cost estimate as Attachment O.
The technical memo detailing the capital cost es~malion process is also included for reference as
Attachment E.
Travel Demand Model
The travel demand model for the PVL project underwent only minor changes in 2008 and 2009. The
basic structure of the model remained unchanged since last year's submittal, and several model
elements were detailed and confirmed in memos to the FTA on November 10, 2008, and
February 26, 2009, (induded as Attachments H and I). Minor modifications were made to the model
this year to take into account the deleUon of the UC Riverside station and change in operating plan
detailed previously, and revised user benefit and ridership figures have been generated. SUMMIT
maps are included as part of this submittal as Attachment G, with SUMMIT reports included as
Attachment L.
Small Starts Templates I Cost Effectiveness
The standard Small Starts Templates for the project have been updated to indude the latest cost,
user benefit, finanCial, and land use data. This includes a recalculated Cost Effectiveness Index
(CEI) of $17.82Ihour saved. The Small Starts Templates are Included with this submittal as
Attachment B.
• The Case for the Project Document
A document discussing the Case for the PVL has been updated regularly over the past several years,
with an updated version included in this year's submittal package as Attachment A. This updated
document inetudes the latest data for the projed, included updated ridership and cost info.
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the PVL project were recalculated for this year's
submittal to take into account the deletion of the UC Riverside station, revisions to the operating plan,
and updated Metrollnk and Riverside Transit Agency O&M costs. The overall strudure of the model
for this year's submittal is the same as previous years. The updated O&M costs are induded as
Attachment F.
Financial Plan
A FinanCial Ptan for the PVL was submitted with the 2007 Application to Enter Project Development.
This plan described the capital and operating costs and revenues for both the PVL project and RCTC
as a whole from 2001 to 2027, affirming the ability of the agency to finance the construction and
operations of the project. The FTA has been updated on the Financial Plan during the normal
quarterly review meetings, and ReTC affirmed its robust and continuing funding support for the
project at the most recent meeting. The changes to the project's Financial Plan for this year's
•submittal mainly focus on the additional funding that wiD be required 10 support the revised
$233 million project cost. The approximately $60 million in additional project costs will mainly be
covered by larger allocations from local and state sourCes, such as Riverside County's Measure A
local sales 1ax and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Further detail on the
leslie ~ogetS
• AugUSI 31, 2000
Page 3
BNSF 4" Main Track
At the FTA Quarter1y Review meeting on March 6, 2009, RCTC provided a matrix showing the scepe
additions to the project, and asked for clarification on non-project acti'vitles that should be excluded
from projecl cost and cost-effectiveness calculations. There was clear direcllon that FRNSCRRA
mandated safety enhancements would be considered integral to the proJeci. RCTC did note that the
fourth main track currently planned for construction by BNSF within Ihe BNSF right-of-way Is optional
and PVL can operate with or without this addition. FTA agreed that the BNSF 4*' track could be
removed from the projecl, and requested that RCTC document the decision to remove \he BNSF 4 111
from \he scope of the project. A report documenting the removal of the BNSF 4111 Main Track from the
PVL project is included as Attachment J.
Operations Plan
•
The Operations Plan for the PVl project previously assumed three peak hour, peak direction trains in
each direction along with one reverse commute train during eacl1 peak period and two midday trains
in each dlreclion (for a total of 12 daily passenger trains along the PVL). In 2009, the operating
assumptions were modified to allow for additional peak hour, peak direction service. Now, there will
be four peak hour. peak direcllon trains, one reverse commute train. and one midday train In each
direction. The overall number of trains will remain the same for Opening Day service, but the core
peak hour, peak direction service will be enhanced. The changes in the opElfating ptan are
summarized below' and Incorporated into the Operations and Maintenance Costs and Ridership
Estimate.
Perris Valley Line Operating Plan
Revised
AM M'dda PM
. • I Y Peak
1
Capital Cost Estimate
The PVL project submitted a planning-level capital cost eSl\mate with its application to enler
Project Development, projecting a projecl cost in Year-of-Expenditure (yOE) dollars of $168.2 million.
While additional deSign work was done as part of the Conceptual Design process In 2008, an updated
project cost was not available in time for the annual submission 10 FTA in ear1y September. For last
year's SUbmittal, the planning-level estimate was updated with modifications to the unit costs and
quantities. and a revised project cost of $168.9 million was submitted. With the completion of 30%
design for the project In spring 2009, a detailed englneering-level cost estimate has now been
•completed for the project and is included with this submittal. This estimate Includes suggested cost
estimate modifications from the FTA and PMOC that were incorporated in August 2009. Changes in
matertal costs as well as additional safety features and other additional projecl elements have
Increased the projecl's capital cost for Ihis year's submittal to approximately $233 million In YOE
dollars. The project capital costs are included wilh lhis submittal as both the New Starts Standard
Leslie Rogers
•Augusl'31. 2009
Page 2
significant changes to several aspects of the PVl projecrs design. including adding provisions for the
implementation of Positive Train Control for the PVl project. Conceptual Design activities were
completed in fan 2008.
Preliminary (30%) Design activities commenced In late 2008. and were completed in May 2009. The
projed cost esllmate for 30% design was completed and refined with Input from the FT A Project
Management Oversight Commillee (PMOC) in July 2009. and Is described belOW. Advanced
Preliminary Engineering activities will commence in August 2009. and are expected to be completed
in early 2010.
Environmental Aetlvltles Update
•
A Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was COlll>leted for Ihe PVL project in conjunction with the
FTA in 2004 to oblaln dearance for the federal National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
process. A draft Initial StudyJMitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project in
early 2009 to obtain clearance as part of the state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
process, Final environmental clearances for bolh of Ihese processes were originally planned to be
completed in 2009. Due to changes in the project. and the length of time since the Draft EA was
Initially submitted In 2004, the decision was made to submit a Supplemental EA and is currently
schedule to be submitted in September 2009. This document is expected to be completed in early
2010. In addition, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currenUy being prepared as part of Ihe
CEQA process in order 10 clarify concerns and address new station Sile options that arose during the
preparation of the IS/MHO document. The EIR is expected to be completed later In 2010.
Station Locations
When the PVL project entered Project Development in 2007. six stations were planned between
Riverside and Perris along the alignment. As part of a station phasing study In spring 2007.
implementation of the Ramona Expressway station was deferred unlll after Opening Day. In June
2009, the RCTC Board elected to defer the implementation of the University of California (UC)
Riverside station due to community concerns expressed during the Is/MNO outreach process and the
mismatch between the initial service plan (trains in . the early morning and afternoon) wilh the
schedules of most .stUdents and faculty at the university. Service to UC Riverside will be provided by
shuttles from the Hunter Park station and the existing Downtown Riverside station. The RCTC Board
report pertaining to the deferral of the UC Riverside station is induded as Attachment K.
The supplemental environmental process has also provided an opportunily to reassess the location of
a stalion in the Hunter Partl area. The station is currently planned al a location near Palmyrlta
Avenue in Riverside, but alternative locations in Ihe immediate area will also be examined 10
determine if other parcels are better suited for the station.
The PVL will begin operation with four stations: South Perris, Perris, Moreno ValleyJMarch Field. and
Hunter Park. An additional two stations may be added in the future at Ramona Expressway and UC
Riverside .
•
-. 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA
Moiling Addre ••: P. O. Box 12006 • Ri.....ide, CA 92502·2208
1951) 787·7141 • Fox (951)787-7920' www,!'dc.erg
August 31. 2009
leslie Rogers
Regional Administrator for Region 9
Federal Transit Administration
201 Mission Street. Suitel650
San Francisco. CA 94105-1839
RE: 2009 Small Starts Project Update
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) -Perris Valley line (PVl)
DearV~
•
We are pleased 10 submit this annual update 10 the FTA for the RCTC's PVl commuter rail project.
The 24.4 mile extension of the existing Metrolink system further into Riverside County received
approval from the FTA to enter Project Development In December 2007, and is currentiy undergoing
Preliminary Engineering.
The PVL will provide new trarlSlt OptiOrlS for residents and workers in the cities of Riverside,
MorellO Valley, Perris, and other fast growing areas to the east and south of the tine's terminus in
Perris, and is expected to carry approximately 4,350 riders per day when it opens in 2012. The
Metrolink commuter rail system currently serves as the main regional transit connection in the los
Angeles metropolitan area, and its extension Into the Perris Valley will Introduce new trarlSit
alternatives for residents who currenUy face long commutes over congested freeways into the job
centers of los Angeles and Orange Counties. The PVl is a crucial component of Riverside County's
transportation network, and Is needed to ensure continued mobility for residents in what is projected
to be the second most populous county In California by 2050.
The following sections describe the projecfs progress In the year since data was last submitted to
FTA, as well as changes in the project configuration, operations, costs, and other areas. The malor
areas for this year's update are updated cost and ridership information based on the completion of
30% design, as well as a revised station phasing ptan. The major components of the PVl's
application with FlA and updates for this year are described below. with supporting documentation
induded as attachments lhat are summarized at the end of this dOcument.
Engineering Activities Update
•
ReTC received permission from the FlA to enter Project Development in December 2007.,
Conceptual (10%
) DeSign commenced In early 2008, with the initial 10% design package completed
In summer 2008. Revisions to the 10"10 design and cost estirreting were not completed in lime for the
September 5,2008, annual project update to flA. so interim planning cost and design data was used
for the purposes of the update. The Chatsworth Metrolink accident in September 2008 also led to
c
PERRIS VALLEY LINE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
AND RESPONSES
JULY 25, 2011
Letter
No.
..' , . ,« .
Commenter,',' I,· Date '.'
" Page "
No.;
1 . Gresham Savage for RUSD -Tracy Owens July 12, 2011 2
2. Richard Block July 12, 2011 16
3. Kevin Dawson July 12, 2011 32
4. Len Nunney July 12, 2011 45
5. March Joint Powers Authority -Lori Stone July 12, 2011
July 12, 2011
56
586. Barney Barnett
7. KDC -Jim Wrightman July 7, 2011 64
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 1
Gresham Savage
July 12, 2011
GRESHAM I SAVAGE Trncy.Owenst!lGtmhamSavage.«tm . San Beman:Hno Offia;o;
('lO9) 8'J()4499 , "'" ('lO9) ll'X>-9877
~ J ":I/,:/•
!OO~:
July 12.2011
VIA E-MAIL fetOSSO!!Orctc.o,¥!.
FACSIMILE (951) ?l!7-?920,
AND U.s. FIRST CLASS MAIL
Ms. &ida Rosso
Capital Projects Manager
Riverside Coun!y Transportation Commissimt
PD. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
II<!: Opposition t. Perris Valley Lin. Project
Dear Ms. Rosso:
This office represents Riverside Unified School District ("RUSIY'), and is submitting
this letter on behalf of RUSD to further expand on concerns with !he Perris Valley Line
Project ("PVL" or "Project") passenger rail service expallSion-as is currently 7IW'os¢,
frn: approval by the Commission on July 13, 2011~
We have previously provided comments to bofh the Perris Valley Line Draft EIR
("DEIR", State CIearingh","", No. 2009011(46) prepared under the California
Envirorunental Quality Act ("CEQA"), as well as !he Supplemm:otal Environmental
Assessment ("SEA") prepared under !he National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA"). dated May 21. 2010 and January 6, 2011, respectively. Both comment
letters ex:pressed numerous concerns regarding the PVL and its potential adverse
impact on !he safety of children atrending both Hyatt and Highland Elementary
Schools, located short distances from the existing rall-line.
ReTC provided responses to our comment letter to !he DEIR on June 30, 2011,
Although we appreciate !he willingness of !he RCTC staff to engage in discussions to
reach an amicable and mutually agreeable resolution of RUSD's concerns, based On
our review of the responses, the Final EIR ("FEIR") and staff report matoti.ls, we
believe that the PVL Project still pose. SErious safety risks to students and staff at
Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools which have not been adequately analyzed
and mitigared in the FEIR. For this reason. we urge the Comm.ission to continue its
consideration of the proposed PVL Project k> a later dale, to allow for more lime to
rearh mutually acceptable solutions to the issues discuBaed herein.
'. ,". 1151l1lflh'c,~itl' AVI.'1Jue. Salle l:'iil • Ri~r~Hf...:" Catifomill ?~:50!
~5(1 b"~t H""PIl/lhl)' I ;HI<':. Smlc HlO '" ~!ll\ BtrtlJtdillo. l'Bh(oml.;) <Jl41111
} L1-1
L1-2
L1-31
926661PVL FEIR 2 July2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT LEITERS
Letter 1 (cont'd)
Gresham Savage
July 12, 2011
Ms. Edda Rosso
july 12, 2011
Page 2
Below are the continuing concerns with the Project and the legal adequacy of the FEIR.
As always, RUSD is open to further discussing adequate resolution of these
L1-4outstanding issu... This tetter highlights only the major issues of concern that are still
inadequarely addr....d by the FEIR; however, ""ch of the issues raised in our
previous c:onunent letters are incorporated heTein by reference, and are still relevant
fOr consideration by the Commission.
• RUSD was not provided with a comple!e copy of the Responses '" Comments
within the _arne requin!d by CEQA. Section 151l81!(b) of the CEQtI
G.idelines requires the lead agency '" provide a oommenting agency with a
response to lIS """""""I letter qj _ 10 _ prior to laking adion to certify an
EIR. The responses 10 our May 21,. 2010 _ were _ved within this L1-5
tim_me, but referred to"MasU!r Responses" in over forty locations, but were
not included or attached. Although"" appreciate that ReTC provided a copy
of the Master Responses upon request, the Master Responses were still not
provided in the timeframe required under Section 15ll68(b), which dettied
RUSD adequate time for review of the fun Responses to Comments.
• The project description remains unchanged and still ill not descriptive enough
to allow for a complete underStanding of exactly what work will take place } L1-6
along the rail segments closest to Hyatt and Highland Elemenlary 5chco1s.
• With regard to the depth of the jet fuel pipeline that is in close proximity to
HighIami Elementary 5chcoL Response L3-10 slates that ff[DJuring
COnstrocti011, areas within ReTC ROW where the fuel line is Ieso than three feet
deep, • non-permeabIe material will be placed over the fuel line where soil L 1·7
erosion has taken place:' However, this is not included within the Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan contained in Section 0.4 of the FEIR. and should be
included as an enforceable mitigation .measure.
• Response L3-14 states that "because cons_on for the PVL project would
comply with all applicabIe Kinde, Morgan _on requirements, the
project would not have signifiamt impacts for oonotruction work around the
pipeline and no mitigation mea.."". are required.' Admittedly, based on !hill L1-8
statement, potentially significant imparts to the jet fuel pipeline could occur
during cons_on if the Kinder Mo<gan protocol is not followed. Thus,
.dhereru:e Ie all applicable Kinde, Morgan construction requirements as
outlined in Response L3-14 must be included as enforce.ble mitigation
measures for the PVL project.
• RUSIYs request to limit the hours of construction activities adjacent to
Highland Elementary to t.hose hours when school is not in session was } L1·9
92666/PVL FEIR 3 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 1 (cont'd)
Gresham Savage
July 12,2011
Ms. Edda Rosso
July 12-2011
Page 3
dismissed as "infeasible". Contrary to Respon.<e 1.>-17, this req_t was Il!lI
due to noise concerns, but rather to ensure that as few children as possible
would be exposed to risks from damage ro the jet fuel pipeline during
construction. RUSD did not request that this limitation apply to early ruoming
and evening hoursf but su~a mitigation measure that would only
prevent construction near the jet fuel pipeline during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. This request appears to have been su.mmarily dismissed with nO
justification other than that nthe constriction period would be exte.r\ded and the
ability ro comple.. the proposed project within • reasonable period of time
would be substantially compromised.'" This conclusion does not appear to be
consistent with the magnitude and severity of the risk that RUSD's suggested
mitigation measure was intended to reduce.
• No pipeline risk analysis was conducted. as suggested in our May 21, 2010
letter. In.sread, Response L3-12 st:lIYllTlarlly dismisses this request. staling that
the 1,500 foot guideline establiJ;hed by the California Department of Education
is inapplicable because Highland EJemen!aTy &:hoo! is an existing school si...
Regardless of the zone of analysis set by state Jaw for siting of new school.,
cornman sense dictates that a pipeline risk analysis should be conducted where
a jet fuel pipeline exists a mere ~from an elementary school, within the
railroad nght4way.
• In March 2011, RCfC caused the preparation of an "Analysi' of Safoty Issues jlr
lire Proposed C"",muler Rail Service On lire Riverside County T"""'I"""alitm
Com_n'. Penis Valfey Line in lire Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Sclwols" by
Zeta-Tech ("Zeta-Tech Study'). This constitutes Significant new information
that was not circulated as part of the EIR or made available fur public :review
and oommen~ as is reqofred under CEQA Guideline Section 15OiJ8.5. RUSD was
not aware of the existence of the Zeta-Tech Study until the release of the FEIN.
and would have appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on the
Zeta-Tech Study at an earlier date. We disagree with RefC's conclusion in
Master Response 111 that redrculation was not required on the basis that no
new, significant irn~ would NSuIi; because as outlined below, the Zeta
Tech Study actually ident!fied a new potentially significant impact that could
occur from derailment if train speeds .t Highland Elementary were not limited
to 30 ,,"los per hour, as discussed below. This faUure to recirculate the EIR wIfh
the Zeta-Tech Study induded renders the EIR defectivt! as an infonnational
document.1
: Cal. Pub. RoN, Codes 21D92.1; CEQA Guid.~l508S5; LoW'4t Heights ~I~.Q. &gdtTt5l1fllut U~
ofC4liftmrlU (11)93)6 Cal. 4th nl2; ~au, f'enimlwlII Q.m1'i'litter19. Montm:y Calmty Bd."~(2001) f!l Cal. App.
4th 99, 131.
l1-9 (conl'd)
l1-10
l1-11
92666/PVl FEIR 4 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 1 (cont'd)
Gresham Savage
July 12, 2011
Ms. &Ida Rosso
July 12.. 21111
Page 4
• The finding that uno signUiant impacts" will OCCUr from derailment risks §
dependent upon train speeds gf mrorimate1y 30 miles W iwyr at Highland
EJemenlary Schoo~ and train speeds of Jess than 3(J miles per bour at Hyatt
Elementary SchooL Master Response No. 10 states that with -reg"d to Hy.tt
Elementary, Htrain speeds in that area are estimated at less than 20 miles per
hour." In fact, the Zela·Terh Study specifically states that "Based on the risk
analysis presented here.. it is recommended that passenger train speed be L1·12
limilEd to 30 mph in the vicinity of the Highland School". (Zeta--Tech Study, at
7, in. 9). Thus, the Z2ta-Tech Study i.nfers that a porentiaUy significant impact
could occur from derailment if train speeds are not SO limIll!d. Howe"",", there
is no surh speed limit cwren!ly in effect; and a 30 mph speed limit is not
included within the Mll:igation and Monitoring Plan _!aIDed in Section 0.4 of
the FEIR. Speed limits along track ..,gments adiaoent to bll.lh elemenlary
schools should be included as enforceable mitigation measures.
• The distance analysis in Response L3-21 still fails to account for the fact that the }
playgmWld of Hyatt Elementary is at least 20 feet below the grade of the rail L1·13
right-of-way, and fails to account for the potential additional velocity if rail
cars were to slide down the slope.
• The FElR is contradictory and inconsistent in its discussion of the landscape
walls. For example, Resp"""" L3-7 states that the landscape walls are
"supplerrumtal design features, not mitigation for any identified impacr'.
However, Response L3-7 goes on to state that at Hyatt Elementary School,
"excavated soil will be used to cre.te an earthen berm against the landscape
waif' and that "the objective of the wail is to minlrniU! the risk of raU cargo L 1.14
and debris reaching the school grounds in the event of a train accident." This
suggesls that potentially Significant impacts CQuld occur from derailment yet
the landscape walls are not included as enforceable mitigation measures.
There is also no discussion of engineering or design of the walls or their
efficacy as • debris and cargo barrier. Response 1.3-7 merely stares that the wall
Will be "of sinnl.r material to a noise barrier, concrete block."
• The Zeta·Terh Study's derailment riak analysis is based solely on train weight
and speed, and does not take into account high curvature.. heavy grade, track
conditions, number or volume of trains in reaching its "'freight train energy
caku.lation.'T Zeta-Tecil Study, at 7). AI; a result of this "ratio of passenger
energy to freight energy" stated to he "62.6%", the report states that " .. .it can L1-15
he seen that the passenger train will develop 63% of the energy developed by a
freight train at this location should. derailment occur. This more than
compensates fur the small increase in deraliment risk associated with the
addition of the pessenger trains. with a resulting combined :risk of the order of
926661PVL FEIR 5 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 1 (cant'd)
Gresham Savage
July 12, 2011
M.. Edda Rosso
July 12. 2011
PageS
90% of the current freight operations." Not only is this analysis unclear, but it
se£:O:\$ to only arorunt for the ~of a dera:iltnent not the risk of
oocurrence. The Z,et,a..Tech Study goes on to mention the Nsevere nature of the
track alignment in the vicinity of the Hyatt School, with severe grade and
curvature conditions"', but dismisses this risk due to track upgrades and L 1-15 (cont'd) 1
improvements that will occur as part of the PVL Project. (Zeta-Tech Study, at
13). In sum. the Zeta·Tech study cannot provide adequate support for its
mathematical quantification of risk.. and thus none of the concerns related to
risks to Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools from potential derailment
J
have been adequarely address.d.
• Master Response 8 states that "Poarch Road in Riverside ...would be do8ed by
the PVL project 11 However, RespOflSe L3-28 goes on to state that "'In the event
of. d""ailment near Hyatt Elementary School, emergency response would be LH61
able to r.ach the train by entering the RcrC ROW at Poarch Road ...". This is
inconsistent and highlights the fact: that emergency :response concerns have
J
not been adequately addressed.
• In response to comments regarding potential impacts to clUldren £rom "" crmstruction emissions, Response I..,3..30 pertains oruy to aperaoOJ'flll. emissions.
Cootracy to Response L3-31, rompliance with SCAQMD daily emissions
thresholds are regional in nature and do not negate potential health effects to LH7
nearby sensitive receptors, nor do they roli."" Rcrc of the rospormbility to
evaluate such impacts under CEQA and prepare a health risk assessment and
localized emissions analysis for qmsiructimt emissions,
• In reviewing the revisions <:nnt:ained at Section 02 of the FEIIt several traffic "'\
mitigation mfasores (TI-3, TI.s and TI-6) appear to have been deletEd on the
basis that the traffic Signals contemplated by these mitigation measures are
planned to be installed by other projects (unrelated to the PVL Project) as part
of the future conditions without the Project. However, this reasoning is
rontrary 10 weU-estabfuohed CEQA '""'" Jaw, which states that traffic
L1-18
improvements which are assumed to be in place in the future to mitigate J
cumulative traffic impacts are onJy sufficient if those measures are bgsed 0'1f a
reasonable plpn rt «dual mitigation thqt the felrumt a~ncy commits itseU to
implem.entmg,2 'That is not the case heTe. In the absence of any mechanism for
RaC to ensure that these traffic improv.ments are completed, the FEIR
1 Mdtrsott FitJi Cwfitiml;/, City at Am/mIm (7.fm) l3OCal.App.4Ih 117.\ 1157, dtiffg If NItp<Icm-jiNi'ItJnt:lt
~RN.lpcCmlIfly8d·af~(2OO1)91Cal.App."h342.J&.36otSCtrc01W~~a
Milnt.:!t"l!y OAIt'tIy &L af~(lOOt) ff1CalApp.tth99.141; ~ad City kl8n. v, CiJy COImcl:1 (1991)229'
CtLApp.3d 1011. W29;:~1I afHilltItk 1fII4~~II.CilyiJf.ta~(2IXX)) 83 CaLApp.4tb U51..
1261-62.
92666IPVL FEIR 6 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 1 (cont'd)
Gresham Savage
July 12,2011
Ms-EddaRosso
July 12. 2011
Page 6
contains no legally ade<juam basis for the deletion of _
measures.
traffic mitiga&>n } L1-18 (con!'d)
In sum, the PVL Project and its proldmity to Hyatt and Highland lllilmenlary SdIoolo
result in a!!end.mt risks to stud<!nt life and safdy _-as. policy matrer-cannot be
quantHleri, and even from a purely technical p"'pecttve, ru.v., not been ade<juamly
quantified wiIhin ll1e environm.en.tal d"""""",ts. Th.... , based on the current
environmental ~tation there is no !ega! basis for the Commission to _
_ impacts In be "leaall1an sigruficanl".
}
ll-19
FUl'!hennore, <ertain feasible measures as identified aibove (I.e., additional """""'&" of
the pipeline, adherena! to Kinder Morgan oonsIruction requirements, prolnDition of
construction hours near pipeline during school hours, and • 30 mph speed limit)
whl<;h could po!l!nI:ialIy reduce impacts to • less-than-<lgnlcanlleveJ have not even l1-20
been included as legally enforceable mitigation measw:\!S. Yet; CEQA mandat.s that a
lead ageocy should not approve a project as pt~if there are feasible mitigation
me""""'" available which w<ruld substantia1Iy t.saeo the significant environmental
effects of the project.'
We approcia'" Rcrc'. willingness to work will1 RUSD to explore mutually a=ptable
soIutiono to ""'""'" the safEty of students and staff. Until !IUs occurs, ho_. "'"
urge the COJnJIlission to rontinue Its consideration of the PVL Project until the L 1-21
environmenlal is8ues oatiined in OUT letter and previOUS correspondence haw been
luOy and adequately addreased through enforceable mitigation measures-Of
alternatively, to deny the PVL Project as it is cummtly propooed.
Y ,Verytrufb~.
TracyM. for
GRFSHAM SAVAGE
NOLAN" TILDEN.
A Professional Corptnal:ion
TMOld
cc: Dr. Rick L Miller, RUSD Superinlendent
Dr. KJrk Lewis, RUSD Assistant Superin!enden~ Operations
M<:. Michael H. Pine, Deputy Superintendent
Mo. Janet Dixon, RUSD lJirectnr, P1anning" DeveloJ'n1"1'l
Riverside Unified School DisIrict 1!oard of Edumtion
J Cal. NLRm. Cod!! §§ 2tOOl;ll()81 (.);11031.5.
92666IPVl FEIR 7 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Response to Letter 1
Gresham Savage
July 12, 2011
As an initial matter, CEOA does not require that RCTC respond to this comment letter. (See
State CEOA Guidelines, § 15088(a) (responses not required where letters are received after
close of CEOA comment period).) Moreover, it should be noted that this comment letter was not
submitted until immediately prior to close of business on July 12th, the afternoon prior to the
July 13th noticed public meeting at which the Project is to be considered. Nonetheless, RCTC is
providing these responses in order to provide a complete and accurate record.
L 1-1. This comment is introductory in nature and expresses RUSD's overall opposition to
the Project. However, it does not raise any specific environmental concerns. Thus,
no further response is required. (See State CEOA Guidelines, §15088 (responses
should address comments on "environmental issues").)
L 1-2. RCTC is in receipt of the May 21, 2011 comment letter previously submitted by
RUSD. A complete written response to that comment letter is included in the Final
EIR. (See Final EIR pp. 0.3.2-19 through 0.3.2-81.)With regard to any January 6,
2011 RUSD comment letter on the Project's Supplemental Environmental
Assessment under NEPA, it should be noted that NEPA and CEOA are separate and
distinct laws with separate and distinct standards and processes. RCTC did not
receive a letter from RUSD January 6, 2011 comment letter on the Project or its Draft
EI R as part of the CEOA process. Thus, this January 6, 2011 letter referred to in this
comment is not part of the administrative record.
L 1-3. As set forth in the Final EIR, there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion
that no potentially significant safety risks to RUSD students will result from the
Project. (Final EIR Master Responses # 2, 3, and 4.)Moreover, the Project's
environmental review and analysis process has been ongoing for nearly five years
and has included many public meetings, hearings, and informational sessions. (See,
e.g., Revised Draft EIR p. 1-3.)RUSD has been extensively consulted as part of the
public consultation and review process. Given that there is substantial evidence
supporting RCTC's conclusion that no potentially significant impacts will result from
the Project, a further continuance of RCTC's consideration of the Project is not
required. However, RCTC continued the consideration of the PVL project to July 25,
2011, due to allegations concerning procedural notice issues. Furthermore, on July
13, 2011, RCTC hand delivered responses to RUSD's May 21, 2011 comment letter,
including the Master Reponses.
L 1-4. This comment is summary in nature expresses RUSD's overall concerns regarding
the Project. However, it does not raise any specific environmental concerns. With
regard to RUSD's "previously comment letters" and incorporating those letters by
reference, it is unclear which previous comments letters are being referred to or
incorporated by reference since the dates of those letters are not provided. RCTC
prepared full written responses to all RUSD comments received by RCTC on the
Draft EIR. (Final EIR Responses to Agency Comment Letter #3 [responding to
RUSD comment letter] and Responses to Public Hearing #3 [responding to multiple
RUSD representative comments].)Without further clarification, no further response
92666/PVL FEIR 8 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETIERS
can be provided. (Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d
852 [where a general comment is made, a general response is sufficient].)
L 1-5. RUSD acknowledges that it received the written responses to its May 21, 2011 letter
at least 10 days prior to RCTC's proposed certification of the Project EIR. This
satisfies CEQA's noticing requirements. Pursuant to CEQA's "10 day rule: and
contrary to RUSD's implication, CEQA does not require that all supporting
information relating to the responses be provided to commenting public agencies.
(See Pub. Res. Code, § 21092.5; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.) Here, the
written responses to RUSO's May 21st letter did respond to each of the comments
made. Although some cross-references to the Master Responses were included in
those responses, those cross-references were also accompanied by a short
summary of RCTC's actual response and conclusion as to each of RUSO's
comments. (See Final EIR pp. 0.3.2-62 through 0.3.2-81.)lndeed, the written
responses provided to RUSO included over 20 pages of single-spaced responses.
Accordingly, the written responses to comments provided by RCTC, at worst,
constitute substantial conformance with CEQA's requirements. (See generally Gilroy
Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911
(holding that even mere statements on the record that the 10-day rule was met was
adequate evidence of compliance).) Moreover, the Master Responses were made
available to RUSO's legal counsel only two days after the written responses were
sent out. As such, any minor delay in RUSO's receipt of the Master Responses was
not prejudicial. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on July 13, 2011, RCTC hand
delivered to RUSD a copy of RCTC's responses to RUSO's May 21, 2011 comment
letter, including the Master Reponses. Given that RCTC continued its consideration
of the PVL EIR and project to July 25, RCTC has satisfied the lO-day rule.
L 1-6. RUSD's comment is unclear regarding what further information it would like to see as
part of the EIR's Project description. The EIR includes a detailed Project description
that provides both textual explanation and numerous figures and maps showing the
Project and its features, including Project features in the area of Hyatt and Highland
Elementary Schools. (See revised Oraft EIR, § 2.0; see generally, Draft EIR, p. 4.1
12 through 4.1-15; 4.3-29 through 4.3-30; 4.7-1 through 4.7-19; 4.10-27 through
4.10-43 [discussing environmental impacts near Hyatt and Highland Elementary
schools].)Additionally, the Final EIR provides additional information regarding the
noise barriers and landscape walls, pipeline treatment, and rail pedestrian crOSSing
features that will be provided as part of the Project. (Final EIR Master Responses #1,
2,3,6,8, 9, and 10.)Without more specificity, no further response can be provided.
(Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852 [where a
general comment is made, a general response is sufficient].)
L 1-7. RCTC has committed to, as a condition of the Project's construction, a requirement
that the depth to the fuel pipeline be increased in areas where it is less than three
feet beneath the surface. {Final EIR Response L3-10.)Although RUSO may prefer
that such a requirement be imposed specifically as a mitigation measure, that is not
required by CEQA. Specifically, mitigation measures are required to be imposed for
any potentially significant environmental impacts. (State CEQA GUidelines, §
15126.4.) Here, there are no potentially significant impacts related to the pipeline.
(See Revised Draft EIR pp. ES-10 through ES-12; Final EIR Master Response
926661PVL FEIR 9 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L1-8.
L1-9.
L 1-10.
2.)Accordingly, no mitigation is required. The Project feature that RCTC has,
nonetheless, agreed to implement as part of this Project is therefore adequate and
need not be phrased as a mitigation measure. Moreover, this Project feature is an
enforceable part of the Project because -in the event that RCTC took discretionary
action to modify the Project by deleting the feature -RCTC would have to conduct
supplemental environmental review prior to the taking of any such discretionary
action as required by CEQA.
Again, RCTC has committed to, as a condition of the Project's construction, a
requirement that the construction nearby the fuel pipeline follow Kinder-Morgan's
Guidelines for Design and Construction. (Final EIR Response L3-14.)lndeed, the
Final EI R itself confirms that those requirements "must be met" for all construction
nearby the line. (lbid.)Accordingly, compliance with these Guidelines is a Project
feature and a part of the Project's description. Although RUSD may prefer that these
Guidelines be imposed specifically as a mitigation measure, that preference is not
required by CEQA.(See discussion in Response to RUSD-7, above.)
RCTC is limiting night-time and weekend construction to the fullest extent possible in
order to minimize noise impacts consistent with local agency requirements. (Revised
EIR p. 4.10-37.)Accordingly, construction is generally limited to the hours of 6 a.m. to
7 p.m., Monday through Friday. (Ibid.)RUSD now requests that construction hours be
further limited by forbidding construction during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in
areas nearby the schools. What this would amount to is a construction schedule
whereby construction might be able to proceed for two hours in the morning
(between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m.), but then would have to cease until 3:30, at which time
it could resume for the three and a half hours between 3:30 and 7:00 p.m. Such a
limited and segmented construction schedule would effectively preclude responsible
and efficient construction management, as crews and equipment would have to be
moved on and off the site twice a day. Additionally, and as set forth in the Final EIR,
such a limited schedule would result in a dramatic extension of the total time required
to complete construction in the areas of the school. (Final EIR Response L3-17.)For
all these reasons, adopting the strict construction hour limitations proposed by RUSD
is infeasible. (lbid.)Moreover, such restrictions are not required by CEQA because all
potential environmental impacts are already mitigated to a level of less than
significant and mitigation is not required to be imposed for insignificant impacts. (See
State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4.)Thus, there is no requirement that further hours
restrictions be imposed. Nonetheless, RCTC will keep RUSD fully apprised of
construction activities and coordinate with RUSD to ensure construction proceeds in
the most responsible manner possible.
Contrary to RUSD's comment, an analysis of risk associated with Project operations
nearby the pipeline was conducted. Specifically, a world-renowned expert in train
movement (Dr. Zarembski) was retained to analyze the Project. Dr. Zarembski's
conclusion was that, 'the addition of commuter rail to the existing railway line does
not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of the Highland Elementary
School and the Kinder-Morgan pipeline near that school." (Final EIR p. 0.3.1-11;
Zeta-Tech Report at p. 5.)Although RUSD asserts that "common sense dictates" that
there is a risk "where a jet fuel pipeline exists a mere 50 feet from an elementary
school, within a railroad right-of-way," it appears that any such risk exists regardless
92666/PVL FEIR 10 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L1-11.
L1-12.
L1-13.
of whether the Project goes forward. RCTC had no role in the siting decision that led
to placing that school in its current location, adjacent to the existing pipeline and the
rail line. Ultimately, however, the proposed Project will not result in any potentially
significant increased safety risks, and no further response is required. (Final EIR
Master Responses 2 and 3.)
The Zeta-Tech Study does not constitute new information of substantial importance
that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA. (See RUSD-12
above.)1t is clear under CEQA that recirculation is not required where information is
added to an EIR that merely clarifies or amplifies the existing analysis. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15088.5.) Although the Draft EIR does provide an analysis of rail
related safety risks, RUSD commented that the analysis provided was not enough.
{See Final EIR pp. 0.3.2-22 through 0.3.2-25.)Accordingly, an independent expert in
the field of rail movements (Dr. Zarembski) was retained to provide a more detailed
study. In this way, RCTC merely responded to RUSD's request and CEQA
comments by providing further information. Ultimately, both the Draft EIR and Dr.
Zarembski's study confirm that the Project will not result in any potentially significant
safety risk. (Final EIR Master Responses 1, 2,3, and 9.)Thus, the Zeta-Tech Study
merely clarifies and amplifies the Draft EIR's existing Significance conclusion and
does introduce any change in significant conclusion, mitigation requirements, or
circumstances that might otherwise constitute new information of substantial
importance under CEQA. (See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.)No recirculation
is req ui red. (Ibid.)
Commuter trains in the area of the Hyatt Elementary School will be operationally
limited to 30 mph. This was confirmed by RCTC through consultation with the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Further, rail speeds are even further
limited in that there is "a maximum 20 mph speed limit currently in place" for freight
operations. (Final EIR p. 0.3.1-14; see also Final EIR p. 0.3.1-25.)No potentially
significant impact will result and, again, inciuding these Project features as mitigation
measures is not required. (See generally Response to RUSD-7, above.)
Contrary to RUSD's claim, the EIR does account for the location and grade nearby
the Hyatt Elementary School Playground. The Final EIR shows that, although the
playground is somewhat lower than the rail line, the playground and the rail line are
separated by between 95 and 125 feet. (Final EIR pp. 0.3.1-25 through 0.3.1
26.)Additionally, trains move very slowly through that area (-20 miles per hour for
freight and 30 miles per hour for commuter). (Final EIR p. 0.3.1-14; Final EIR p.
0.3.1-25; Response to RUSD-12, supra.)
Moreover, RCTC fully analyzed potential derailment risk in the area of the Hyatt
Elementary School. For example, the Zeta Tech Rep'ort acknowledges that "the
[Hyatt] school playground is located at a lower elevation than the track elevation" and
includes pictures showing that elevation difference. (Zeta Tech Report p. 8 and
Figures 2A-2C.) Moreover, the area's elevation characteristics were specifically
accounted for in the Zeta Tech Report. 'lB]ecause of the severe nature of the track
alignment in the vicinity of Hyatt School, with severe grade and curvature conditions,
a more detailed derailment analySiS was performed focusing on the key potential
high severity types of derailments for track with these conditions of severe curvature
and grade." (Zeta Tech Report pp. 10-11 [emphasis added].) Despite the area's
926661PVL FEIR 11 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
elevation and the specific focus on how elevation influence derailment and safety
risk, the Zeta-Tech Report still concluded that "the addition of commuter rail to the
existing railway line does not significant increase the safety risks in the viCinity of
Hyatt Elementary School." (Zeta Tech Report p. 8.) In view of this substantial
evidence, RCTC's conclusion that the Project will not result in any potentially
significant safety impacts is fully supported. (See, e.g., Final EIR pp. 0.3.1-23 et
seq.)
L 1-14. The EIR is internally consistent The EIR makes abundantly clear that the landscape
walls being provided nearby the schools are merely "good neighbor" measures that
are not required to mitigate for any potentially significant impact. (E.g., Final EIR
Response L3-7; Revised Draft EIR pp. 2-11, 2-14, and 2-49.)Nonetheless, the
presence of the wall would provide a form of physical barrier between the schools
and the existing railroad tracks that may prevent rail cargo or debris from rolling onto
school property. To be clear, the Project is commuter rail and will not result in any
potentially significant safety impact. However the wall may provide an ancillary
benefit to the schools against existingfreight-related cargo incidents. Accordingly, the
EI R is fully internally consistent. The walls are not mitigation and not required to
mitigate for any Project impact, although they may provide a physical barrier in some
instances that shields the schools from freight cargo unrelated to the Project. (Final
EIR Response L3-7; Revised Draft EIR pp. 2-11,2-14, and 2-49.) Moreover, RCTC
does not have an obligation under CEQA, or otherwise, to mitigate for existing cargo
issues.
L1-15. Contrary to RUSO's comments, the Zeta-Tech Study does account for curvature,
grade, and other rail characteristics in its analysis. The Study both describes and
discusses the existing conditions and includes pictures of the track in the area of
Hyatt Elementary School. (E.g., Zeta Tech Study pp. 8-10.)The Report further
discusses track geometry and even track conditions. (E.g., Zeta-Tech Report p.
11.)Ultimately, however, the curve, grade, and other track features are the constants
in the determination of potential derailment risk. The only elements that vary are the
type of trains that actually run on those tracks. Accordingly, the Zeta-Tech Study
focused on the differences between freight and commuter rail (weight, number of
cars, etc.) when calculating potential derailment risk. (Zeta-Tech Study p.
7.)Moreover, the Zeta-Tech Report does not merely discuss the severity of potential
derailment, but also specifically quantifies the risk of occurrence. Indeed, the Report
specifically found that the risk of derailment per year was 0.0001255. (Zeta-Tech
Report p. 13.)Additionally, and again contrary to RUSD's comments, the upgrades to
the track proposed as part of the Project were accounted for by the Zeta-Tech
Report. (Zeta-Tech Report at pp. 2, 10.)Furthermore, Dr. Zarembski is an expert in
this field and a widely published author on rail movement issues (see Qualifications
attached to Zeta-Tech Report), such that his Report constitutes substantial evidence
in that it is "expert opinion supported by facts: (See State CEQA Guidelines, §
15384.)Accordingly, and contrary to RUSO's assertion, RCTC may rely upon it for
purposes of their CEQA analysis. Finally, it should be noted that RUSO selected this
site, immediately adjacent to the existing pipeline, to build Hyatt Elementary School.
Thus, RUSD cannot now try to put RCTC on the hook for a decision that was beyond
RCTC's control.
926661PVl FEIR 12 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L1-16. There is no inconsistency in the EIR. The EIR is very clear that Poarch Road will be
closed. "but will continue to be accessible to emergency vehicles (with a locked
gate)." (Revised Draft EIR p. 2-43.)Accordingly, both of the concepts cited in
RUSD's comment letler are correct and consistent with each other: Poarch Road is
being closed to the public as a result of the Project, but will remain open for use ill!
all emergency responders.
L1-17. As set forth in the EIR, there currently are no regulatory concentration targets for
Toxic Air Contaminants that arise during the development process. (Revised Draft
EIR p. 4.3-12.)Moreover, trying to estimate health risks based on emissions from the
construction process would be pure speculation for this Project. Health risk impacts
are based on a long-term (i.e., typically 40 year) exposure scenario, whereas
construction emissions only exist for a few days or weeks. (See Revised Draft EIR
Technical Report B.)Particularly for this Project, localized construction will only occur
for a very short period of time until the construction moves to a new location.
Accordingly, there will be no potentially significant health risk due to construction
emissions. Finally, the construction emissions analysis that was performed confirms
that potential construction emissions (including those for carbon monoxide) will be
less than significant. (Revised Draft EIR p. 4.3-26.)
A health risk assessment (HRA) measures risks from long term exposure to MSATs
such as diesel particulate and acrolein.' Diesel particulate matter (DPM, also known
as diesel exhaust particulate) is the prinCipal toxic pollutantemitledfrom construction
equipment. The existence of any other construction related, toxic pollutants would be
negligible. The carcinogenic risk for DPM is assumed over a 70 year time frame.' As
such, a construction project such as PVL (lasting less than 24 months) will have a
negligible effect on long-term cancer-related health risk. For non-cancerous long
term impacts, the linear nature of rail construction for the PVL project would not
expose sensitive receptors to construction activities for more than 2 to 3 months
(there are no reference exposure level for non-cancer short term impacts).
Operational emissions are long term as they will be permanently associated with
implementation of the project and generally in a stationary location. (I.e. the rail
corridor). Long term exposure to these pollutants and their associated cancer rates
are measured from a specific distance from the source and reported by a HRA.3
Construction emissions are Short-term in nature and not in a fixed location for
extended periods of time: A HRA and its focus of long term effects are not designed
to measure short-term construction impacts since there is no permanent, fixed
distance from the sources.
As a result, a HRA is neither required nor germane for assessment of the
construction phase of this project. The more meaningful, short-term effect of
• SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2010)
, Perris Valley Line Air Quality Technical Report pg. 31
3 Perris Valley Line Air Quality Technical Report pg. 31
4 Perris Valley Line Air Quality Technical Report pg. 23
926661PVL FEIR 13 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L 1-18.
L1-19.
L 1-20.
construction related particulates was assessed and measured against the SCAOMD
daily emissions thresholds, as described by the commenter. In addition, the
application of therequired Best Management Practices for construction activities will
reduce diesel fuel particulate emissions.s
The Draft EIR publicly circulated for review identified four traffic mitigation measures.
(Draft EIR pp. ES-12, ES-13, and 4.11-37.) Accordingly, there never were mitigation
measures titled TT-5 or TT-6, and hence no such measures were deleted from the
EIR. With regard to mitigation measures TT-3, that measure was not deleted from
the EIR. To the contrary, TT-3 remains a fully enforceable mitigation measure
included in the EIR. Although a clarification was made to explain how it would be
implemented, the revised measure is actually more specific in that it confirms that
RCTC will complete the mitigation measure unless the local jurisdiction with authority
over the traffic improvements completes it themselves. (Revised Draft EIR p. ES
16.)Accordingly, and to address RUSD's concern, mitigation measure TT-3 is based
on a reasonable plan of actual mitigation because, to the extent that the local
jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to do so, RCTC has committed to directly install the
improvements themselves in satisfaction of the mitigation measure. Ultimately, and
as set forth in the EI R, all potential impacts to traffic and circulation will be less than
significant with mitigation. (Revised Draft EIR pp. ES-15 through ES-17.)
The EIR provides a full, complete, and accurate analysis of all potential
environmental impacts and risks associated with the Project. RUSD has provided no
substantial evidence showing that any of the RCTC's analysis is incorrect or
incomplete. Ultimately, many of the concerns expressed by the commenter seem to
relate to existing conditions and existing freight activities over which RCTC has no
control and as to which the proposed Project would have no effect. As previously
stated, RUSD elected to construct Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools next to
the pipeline, not RCTC. Please see above responses for further specifiC responses
to comments_
CEOA requires a lead agency to impose mitigation measures for impacts that are
identified as potentially significant (State CEOA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a) ["an EIR
shall describe feasible measure which could minimize significant adverse impacts"].)
To the extent that the Draft EIR identified significant impacts, RCTC imposed
feasible mitigation measures to reduce all of those potentially significant
environmental impacts to below a level of Significance. (Ibid; See Final EI R pp. 0.4-1
through 0.4-15.) Thus, there are no significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts that might result from the Project. Although RUSD appears to prefer that
certain Project features be carved out and identified as mitigation measures, CEOA
does not require RCTC to do so. Indeed, State CEOA Guidelines section 15002(h)
says that a lead agency may minimize environmental impacts by, among other
things, either changing the proposed project or by imposing conditions on the project.
This is a-disjunctive list, meaning that RCTC may choose the method for responding
to environmental impacts that it believes is best. Thus, it is completely within
RCTC's discretion to design the project in a way that reduces environmental impacts
5 Perris Valley Line Air Quality Technical Report pg. 34
92666/PVL FEIR 14 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
rather than addressing impacts with mitigation measures. Please see Response to
RUSD-7, above.
L 1-21. This comment is conclusory in nature and expresses RUSD's overall position
regarding the Project. However, it does not raise any specific environmental
concerns. Thus, no further response is necessary. (See State CEQA Guidelines,
§15088 (responses should address comments on "environmental issues").)
92666/PVL FEIR 15 July 2011
FINAL eNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 2
Richard Block
July 12, 2011
To: Rh·.rude Cmmty Transportation Commission July 12. 2011 byeJ1lllii
Rc: Comments OR Perm Yalley Line EnvironmentaJ Impact Rep<)rt for the Perris Valley Line, Rh'erside
County, c.nrorrUa, Agenda Item 10 for <be July 13, 2011 ReTC meeting.
Ple~ consider the comm~nts herein on the Environmi!tltal Impact Report (ElR) for the proJX)sed Perris Valley
Line Metrollnk (PVL). This Jetter is being '''Titten on behalf of resident.. of the TJCR neighbomood, including
myself: and on behalf of Frieuds of Riverside's Hills, I request that this letter ~part ofthe public record. The
CCR neighborhood is the residential neighborhood extv~ding north and east of the Cniversity ofCa1lfomia
Riversidr: campus, betw~t1 the campu.,> and ~Box Springs ~IQuntains. TIle route of the PVL, along the San
Jacinto Branch Une railroad right of way (SJBL), goes throughthr UCRneighborhood from about !viP L7
(north of Spruce SL) to about YiP 5.1 (north of Gernert Rd), induding passing close hy hundreds of residences
plus two public elementary schools, child care renters, chun;hes, and parks. Friends of Riverside's Hills is a
Caliibrnla non-profit corporation concerned with protecting the o.'!'rlvu-Qnment in the ",estern Riverside County
area.
The EIR is serIously deficient. As discuss~d bdQw~ there are a number ofpo"L."1ltiaJly signifi("<lIlt impacts that the
EIR fails to consider or fails to analyze adequately, if}J:;:ludillg impacts for which consideration is segmented,
deferred, an&or <!\'aded entirely. 1bese deficiencies need to be corrected and the EIR recirculated.
In what follows. FEIRI indicat~s voL 1 of the FEIR. FEIR2 indicates vol 2 of the FEIR 'l.vhich is the revised
July 2011 version of the DEIR, and SEA indkates the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the PVL
\Vhen referring to page numbers in docu~ntso foc the ;;onveniencc of the reader an attempt has been made to
alsO' include the page number in the PDF version of the, document.
FO~.lble future double traclUng
The ReTC DC.\1anual, at p. 15, states
"All reqUirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General
Configuration shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional
requirements.
• The PVl will be double tracked along some of its alignment and potentially in the future
along the full alignment BNSF will be providing freight service atong the PVL with most of
their customers located along the west side of the property. Potentially the western most traCK
will be allocated for BNSF freight service, with sporadic Metrolink use. therefore the platform
design should antiCipate this rail usage and the platformls should be placed accordingly"
(emphasis added)
Elsewhere (RCTC DCManual, p. 31), the single track is described as just a 'start up condition",
"Based on the start up conditions, stngle track. an Undercrossing aUhis LUCRI station location
would not be necessary," (emphasiS added)
\Vhile the la.nguag~ about double-tracking doGS not say that double tracking IS certllin to be done. jt implies that
it will be don,. Compa.. the quite diITerent bmguage lLwd in the RCTC DCMimu.1 (at p. 19) on.
dlliennt issue f')I' 'ft"bich future action is Jess c('rtain:
"At the time of issuance of this manual it is not anticipated that pedestrian overcrossing will be
required at any of the proposed Stations along the PVL. Even though overcrossings are not
envisioned at this lime, the platforms should be constructed to allow their placement in the future if
necessary." (emphaSis added)
In contrast, th~ Janguag,;: referring future doubl~tt<lcking shons that it is. a reasonably foreseeable improvement.
~IoreoveL future double tra..:ling through ~part of the RO\V along the bitSe of Box Springs Mountain and
through the HCR netghborhood WO'uld involve grading of steep slopes (some of hard granite) and work. adjacent
to enviromllentally s¢llSitj.... e axeas anti fesiden,;cs,. schools and churches. It ","'ould also involve staging impact...
similar to those dlscussed above. Thus it would have significant environmental impact:;, 111erefore the EIR is
~!!gmenting and def~rring consideration of those impacts by not consic:kring them now, in ,rio[ation ofCEQA,
7. Further ~?'~idence that the above proje-ct improvemenu (station amenity expansion, maintenance road+
double tra","king) are reasonably foreseeable
Here is the evidence: The ReTe Sept. 2009 M,;eting Agenda Item 7F, p. 3,4: states
"Add itional MOUslAg reementsiAmendments
L2-1
L2-2
L2-3
926661PVL FEIR 16 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 2 (cont'd)
Richard Block
JulV 12, 2011
It is anticipated that four additional MOUs, agreements, or amendments wm need to be entered into for
the continuation of SCRRA's support during design, construction. operations and maintenance, and
future improvement. along the PVL The scope and timing of these MOUs is summarized below
Future Improvements Along the PVL
This ~IOU \vill detHil SCRRA. requested fu1:l.lte iruprovctnen1s to th,;:; PVL after th.:: initial ~o years of operations.
Certain scope items requested b)' SeRRA. were detennined to not be needed for the opening of revenue service in
2012, but will he needed for tbe efficient and cost-effective long term operation.'J. on the P\'L. This MOl) witt L2·4 (cont'd)
outline these req~ted improvements and the anticipated schedule to implement the improvements after the initial
tv.'O years of operatioru.. Additional items may be identified during the initial operations and they ..vill be included in
this MOU, This ~vIOU will be the subject of a future agenda item near the C1ld of the finttwo yeal"9 of operatiomt.lt
is anticipated that it will be pres~n1ed to the Commi5.1lion in late 2014." (emphasis added)
It is impropoo;r segmentation. deferral or evasion of em.-ironmental reviC'.'''-, in -violation of CEQ.--\' to not provide
sucb review as part ofth~ ('urr~nt EIR
Construction Noise
In th< Project Description section, T"",k Improvemelll8, the DEIR2 at p. 2·14 (-SQ) soys
"!ViP 1.40 to ~IP 5.10 (;opproximately Marlborough A ve...,e south to Poarcb Road): 'The track would be
upgra.ded with new l.'"Onerde ties, new welded mil, and new ba11ast as required,»
11 should be noted that this segment, ftom a point !>etwoen Marlborough and Spruce to a point north of
PoorehiGernert Rds, lS the segment through the UCR neighborltoad, with its hundreds of residences near the
tracks, some ofthem as close as about 60 ft from the tracks (as shown e.g. in the SEA noise measurement
Tables 3.4·5. 3.4-5 and 3.4-7 and in the sit. description' in SEA Tech ReportC Appendix F. p. 31 etseq.).
'The DElR2, p. 4.1(J.37, 38 (321, 322) stare.
"Allbough the overall length ofcooslnlction for the ""tire PVL project would be 'l'proximatcly 18 m_,
disturbmces at individual receptor locations would not last for more than several months .... both SpOradic and
temporary increases in construction noise-above local coostruction noise ordinances levels may occur. Any L2-5
remporary incre .... would be based on poI.eDtial OC<U1'1'Cllces of alypi<at events given tho mconsisrent and
transitory nature ofsome <onstru<:tioo activities and equipment usage. Consequently, tho cooIrnctor would!>e
required 10 use st.andHrd construction ooise control.measures such as temporary construction no.ise bruriers-~ Jow
noise emission equipment, and tho use of acoWltic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment 10 re<loce the
likelihood of any increases in (:onstruction noise above the local noise ordinam;e maximum levels.
AccOfding '"the PVL Construction Staging Plan, ..,...., night-tlm. oonstruction is sdJeduloo ro .......r
.I'.dlkally for new trock layout. Because local cod .. allow const:ru<1ion only during day·time lIDurs, any
project-related night~time construction activity would require the p!ojeL1: to obtain from the municipality written
consent fur an exemption, or variance to these codes," (emphasis added)
Such variances. while solving legaJ problems would result in slgnificant environmental impacts since )
noise levels would exceed jurisdictional standards.
The DEIR2 at p. 4.11)..38 (~321). with "Olher I""",tions" ....f.rring 10 other ioeations than for pil. driving
a••o<:;"lI>d wtth the bridge replacements neartha South Perris Layover Facility, states
"Olher ioeations along tha alignment would also be pou.nlially impected by ""nstrucliQn noise. To determine
wIIether construction of tha proposecl PVL project would result in any noise impacts 10 sensitive
receptors at these locations, an FTA general asaeument procedure for con.struction noise was
conducted for a representative residential location at 228 C 'mt in Perris. Ibis location was chosen
beca!!se it would be representative of a prnparlv wIIic:b would be affected by typical track laying
construction represented by activities such as cutvert modifications and embankment work as well as track
and road crossings construction. In addition, due to the proposed Perris Station, H: would also be affected by L2-6construction noise from station and perking elements, which Include earthwork. utlity work and landscaping
among others."...
Importantly, the chosen so called "representative property which would be affected by typical track
laying construction" i$ very far from the tracks, and so will not be nearly as much affected by the
construction noise as homes in the UCR neighborhood much closer to the tracks. Indeed the house at
228C Street, beMeen 2nd and :r Sts in Perris, is so far from the tracks that the noise level is the same with tlNo
fr.ight trains in a day as it would be without any trains (SEA Figur. 1.7·12 (p. 77) and SEA Tech Report C
Appendix F. p. 39). Noi •• m.asur.ments for 22e C. St ar.listed in SEA Table. 3.4·6. for 2005. and 3.4-7. fur
2009, with listed distances from the tracks of 240 feet and 244 feet. As seen in tile aerial photo in SEA Figure
926661PVL FEIR 17 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Leller 2 (cont'd)
Richard Block
July 12, 2011
1.7-12, the residen"" !hera is vary close to the properly line, with perhaps a 201001 setback, so that the
properly 8118 is at about 224 f.at from !he tracks,
The DEIR2 at p. 4,10-38,39 (;322, 323) prolrldas the following information about the construction noise at that
properly:
"As a resull. based on construction noi ... projections shown in 1M Noise and Vibration Technical Report C, 1M
combined noise level for two of the noisiest pieces of construction equipment would result in a construction
noise level of 19 dBA at 1M properly line of tile .....idential home. This would be beloW the FTA
construction noise _ria de""ribed in Chapter 12 of the FTA GuidanCG Manual. It would also be below the 8()
dB noi.. level set by Section 7.34.080 of the Perris General Plan. Therefore, although the total project
construetion period is eslim_to last .pproxim.~1y 16 months, beea_ the FTA construction noise .rifI>ria
leval for both day and night-time construction would no1 be surpassed, noise impects due 10 construetion noi..
actMties are not expe~and would be leD than significant: (emphasis added)
In arrilrlng at this 79 dBA figure, the EIR is using the following formula (FEIR Tech Report C, Noise and
Vibralion Technical Report, Relrlsed May 2011, p. 47,46):
"Noise levels are predl~using Ihe folloWing equation for each eonslruetion piece
Leq(equip) ;EL + 10 Log(U.F) ZO/og(DI5O)-IOGIog(DJS(})
(as given in !he FT A Noise and Vibration Manual, here corredng typos. This correction ",as poirrlBd out in the
Johnson letter ofJan. 6, 2011)
where,
Leq (equipment = !he Leq at a receiver ",suiting from the opera,on of. single pjece of equipment
L2-6 (cont'd)EL ; The noise emission level of a partkJular pi$!;" of equipment
UF = The usage factor thet accounts for the fraction of 5me that a pjece of equipment i. in USe Oller a
specJfied time period
D ; distance from !he """';VfIr 10 the PI""" of equipment
G ; accounts for topography and ground effects (G ; 0 over herd ground, per FTA Manualj
Since G is taken to be 0, the tenll here that depends on distance from the receiver is
·201og(D'jO). For D 224 at 228 est., Perris,
-20 log(D/50) -20 .log(224!50) -20 loge4.48) . 20(0.651)" -l3.02
On the other hand, many ofth¢ residences itl the VCR neighbomood (mduding those along E. Campus View
Dr., where the railroad right ofway is only 100 feet wide, as welt as Sishet \\'ay residences and Citrus St.
resid~n.;es) have property lines only 50 f.:.ct (or even slightly less) from the tracks, For these r.csidcnces, ,,,ith D
~ 50, one has -20 IQg(D;50); -20 log(l) O. This is a huge 13 dBA differc'Ilce in applying the formula at the
EIR '5 :.'O--ca11ed "representative residential location" and such loC'ation.,<; in the VCR neighborhood. Adding this
13 dBA to the 79 dBA at the Perris location" we gct 92 dBA., wdl in excess of even the outrag.::ously annoying
cutoff levels ofLeq dBA level, of90 day and 80 night listed in me ITA chart at the FEIR Tech Report C p. 4&.
(Yes, the Perris property constructiou noise win invQtve station construction noise as well as track construl.1:ion
nosie. but the station will be on the east side of the n,;wly constfUl..~d bypass track w-bich itself is to the east of
the existing freight track~ and thus all even significantly farther from the 22$ C property line. which accordmg )
to the formula gives a less~r noise level at the property lin~,)
)"'foreover~ the EIR faib to consider the construction noise involved jn the constmction of the proposed sound l
wall'S near residen.::es in the CCR ndghborhood. While the prQPi!rty tines of many ofthcsl! residences arc
already very dose to tho.: tracks (which is one reason why the sound \valls are proposi:d), they an: even closer to
the props~d sound walls~ which apparently in many case will be immediately adjacent to the pro~rty boundar»
(as stat~d in the ~IR ~Qr the propos.ed landscape waH by Hya~E1~mentary School). For sllch,dOS.e ~istanc~. theJ
L2-7
tenn -20 log(D/)O). For example. if the sound wall constructIon 1$ 5 feet from thi: property hne. thIS tennlS
-20, thus indicating a major noise impact The EIR fails to consider the noiSe impacts 'Of sound wall
constructi'On.
~lor~over, in choosing a so-call~d "repres,;mtative Nsidcruial site" tMt is in Perris and then noting the 79 dBA is
bel'OW an 80 dBA level in th¢ Perris General Plan, the EIR ign'Ores thai th~ City of Riverside has a much mote
string~nt restrictiun on noise" in,;luding construction noise. Th¢ FEIR Tech R~ort C, p. 46, Table 15: City of L2-8 Riv~rside -Ext.mor Noise Standards. notes that for the resldentialland use t,;at~gory~ tlw Noi:'i¢ Level standard
for .:-;ight (10 p.m lQ 7 a.m.) i. 45 dBA and for Day (7 a.Ul to 10 p,m.) is 55 dBA, with certain limited
exceedance allowed f'Or eXl:rem~ly short periods .. Tet-il Report C then states, at p. 46,
926661PVL FEIR 18 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADOITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 2 (cont' d)
Richard Block
July 12, 2011
"Section 7.35.010 {of the Riverside Municipal Code] specifically addresses construction-related activities.
Construction work that exceeds the allowable nojse standards in Table 15 may not occur between the hours of
7 PM and 7 AM on weekdays, between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or federal
holidays."
This is grossly misleading. What Section 7.35_010 actually says pertaining to construction is
"B. It is unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any disturbing,
excessive or offensive noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal
sensitivity_ The following acts, among others, are declared to be djsturbing. excessive and offensive
noises in violation of this section:
5. Construction: Operating or caus.ing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling,
repair, alteration, grading or demolition work between the hours ot 1:00 p,m, and 7".00 a,m, on week days and
between 5 p.m, and 8 a.m. on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or federal holidays such that the sound
therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line or at any time exceeds:
the maximum permitted noise level for the underlying land use category, except for emergency work or
by variance. This section does not apply to the use of domestic power tools," (emphasis added)
In other words, construction noise that is disturbing is prohibited not only at night. but during daytime as well.
Exceeding the municipal noise standards even during the daytime, even if it were to be allowed with or
without a variance, and even if it does: not exceed the extremely high dBA levels in the FTA noise
criteria listed in the FEIR Technical Report C (p. 48, Table 16), is the issue. The issue is not whether or
not the FTA Construction Noise Criteria are violated (although there is substantia' evidence that they
wilr be, as shown above). but whether there will be a significant noise impact on residents by
community standards a. exemplified in iIle Municipal Code. Actually, the F1 A Manual, at p. 207,
regarding Qualitative AssesslTk..."I1ts for construction noise, states that (among other things) there should be
"Commitments to limit noise levels to certain I~totcl.s. Including any focal Ot'dinan(:~s that apply" (emphasis added)
as weI! as '"'monitoring nfnois~". It appears that there no such c()mmitment and no such monitoring provided by
the Project. ;vloreover, merely complying ·wi.lII: daytime code requirements does not reduce the
enl,tromnental impact., it merdy cli:mbtates legalliabiH1y as a nuisance.
As noted above_ the SEA st:lt.:s that --~cording to the PVL Construction Staging Plan, some nighttime
construction is schcdulw. to occur specifically for n~w trm::k layout.'· An ~xcuse for nighttime c.orutruction. and
more detail, is given lit DEIR p. 2-49 (~g5):
"Construction
11)~ work would be perfonned in a manner that aHows fr~ight de!iv~ies to continue wllile the PVL
improvements are being tmdertaken. Fnclglrt delivery schedules would b¢ adjuskd to accommodate the work,
balancing the need to support business activity of the freight shipperslreceivers with the need to remove old
track and jnstal! new track. Some construction work may be perf.ormed at night or on weekends: and some train
0pi:rntions rna\' shift to nights or we~kends to accomplish th¢ proje..."'1 schedule, In the event that nighttime and
w~ekend work are ~tennined nec~sary, coordination .."vith th.c affect.!d locrujurisdictions would b..;:
undertaken," (emphasis added)
This statement that "WID': tfaill 0P~lorrs may shift to nighl<t Of \\-o¢ekend,,'" raises yet another dlyiron.m.entai
impact that th~ SEA fails to <malyze. And 3.8 regards to any temporary inconvffiienc~ to BNSF Of freight
shippi'rs.receivoeTS, rather than plac.;: thl! additional burden of njght1im~ conslru..-nQn nois¢ on lo..:~l resid.:nts,
H~SF and frdght shipP"-'"'fs:rc\":¢ivers can live "\\lth interrup'ions~ as they did for.a couple ofw~ks aft~r irtorm
damage from the rec,,;nt stonn ¢"vent of Dec. 20, 2010 intt.:::ffi1pt~d r~gular freight traffic on the SJBL. And
regarding '"coordination with th~ affected local jurisdictions" wh<;!ther th~ noise is by day or by night, tm:rely
complying with cocJ.c, requirements does not re:du\!~ th.;l. ~nYifOmn~Jltal impact, it merely eliminates legal liability
as a nUisance. Similarly, the use of a varillll(;~ or other such \vaiver doe& not diminish the environmental impad.
jUirt the leg-,d liability for nuisance.
~oise from passenget trains
The FEIR'. Appendix C; Noise and Vibration Technical Report. at p. 40 states
"Wheel Squeal
In addition to noise from train horns, locomotives and crossing bells, wheel squeal on tight radius curves «10
times: the SCRRAlMclrolink locomotive wh~el base or 900 feet) can contribute to community noise levels.
Tahle 4 lists all short radius curves along the PVL alignment As wheel squeal noise can be signif}Cant~ wayside
applicatorn will be inmalIed as part of project implementation in .11 are.. oftbc corridQTwith short radius
L2-8 (conrd)
L2-9
L2-10
L2-11
92666/PVL FEIR 19 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 2 (cont'd)
Richard Block
July 12, 2011
curves. Wayside appJicators apply a fri","tion contraJ material to the top of the rail and the gage face to reduce l
the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Tra:nsit Cooperative Research Program
"Wheel/Rail Noise Conuel Manual" (Transportation Res.an:h Board, 1997) •• report which w"" spol1l!ored by
the FT.A.c the use of a petroleum lubricant would reduce squeal while the use of a water lubricant would
eliminate squeal." "'L2-11 (cont'd) This is a gross m"rep"'senla!ion of what th. Manual actually says, The "WIle.llRail Noise Con!rol Manuar r
that the SEA c~e. can be downloaded from the following link:
J
http://oolinepubs,Ilb,grg/Jlnlin_bs!tcnl!tcrp rot :n,pdf
The entire section of the Manual (at it. p. 1(4) i. included in the Ra:;mond Jebl1l!on Jan, 6, 2011 letter
c_nling on the SEA (We incorporate that 1_,here by reference,) There is no support in the Manual
for the EIR'. claim .. boot eliminating squeal,.
Appendix C at p.191ists source. of trainnoise relevant to residences in the UCR neighborhood, with the
reference SEL (SolIDO Equivalent Level) noise l",,"el in dBA-for each such source: hom noise, approximately
99dBA; locomotive engine noise~ 92dBA;. railcar noise. 82dBA.; grade crossing bell noise, l09dbA-i and
wheel!rail noise, i.e.~ wheel squeal noise on tight radius curves (of which there are many in the VCR
noighborhood, as shown Table 4 (p, 24). 136dRA 1hus wheel squeal noi,. should be a very importanl
component of any Project Koise Impact Assessment for residc:nces near a tight radius curve. H(M'ever~ the
wheel squc::aI noise at sensitive locations is not being estimated or included in the Noise Impact Assessment L2-12except for that at the Citrus Connection. Indeed, in its section laOOled "E8limate I'utute noise levels at the
repre_IM>-.Appendix C, pp. 35-36 states.
"Noise from wheel squeal (near the light radius curve al the proposed "Citrus Connection") was assessed
separately since the implementation of the PVL project wiD include wayside applicalws as part of the design
plans. which wi" significantly ,educe noise from wheel squeal for all tight radius curves."
although the EIR fails to quantify theleve! to which the wheel squeal will all"'ll"dJy be reduced (except for the
suspact figu,. althe C~ru. Connection).
Thus the EIR's Noise I mpact Assessment is irtvalid for all sensitive receptors near tight radius curves.
Landslides and drainage facilities
The Project Wi de!)4...'Tibed in the EIR involves drainage improvements including repJa,cem~nt or ~xtcnsioo of
numerous culverts (FElR2 p. 2-43 (~19»). SEAp. 3.9-13 slales
"Storm Water DraInage
Within the PVL corridor. there are 53 curverts of which 30 would be replaced or reconstructed as part of the
project"
The hea'\J" r.lin in the latter half of December, 2010, ~ulted in large mudOrmrg onto the tracks where the
tracks are ad.lacent to blonder Park (rougbly 8.0ut 1,100 pms feel north of the end of Big Spriog. Rd, .t
roughly :\IP 3,7), I""ving the tracks Impassible for an ..tended period ofUme, Duriog the ,.eek of Dec, 20
and again the follOl'ring wee1410cal residents observed a tractor busy rem(n:ing mud from the tr.u"ks and
dumping:it over the embankment On the IsJander Park side ofthe embankment that separates Islander
Park from DOl: Springs Resen·e. Regular freight senice only restarted about tft·o weeks after the stonm
part ofthut delay mal' ha'\"e invol'\'ed ~tonn damage t'lse'f\-here on the SJBL, the remedy for 'ft"hich also
needs to be described and analyzed as part of the present Projecl.. The mudftows on the track.\ adja('ent \ L2-13
to Islander Park ame from nphill adjacent private and COwtty park property to the east oftile truks
where portions of the mountain slope gave way. Since the soil cn:tSt theJ."'e to;; naw weuk~futtJ.rr.
mudftoo's can be expected after even nruch lesser rains.. The r.rllroad right ofwa~: in this segment is onJJ
IlK) feet wide, so there is IiDtited space to prm;ide meaSDns prote:ding a:ainst future mud-Rows..
1\loreover, pJ:'O'\idbtg adequate draina~there ",'ould not be sinlple. :\{ore than a t.'Ulvert is needed
because of the fad that on the west edge (ie., the side away from the mountain slope) of tile narrow
railroad right ofway at this location is a bluff(in Islander Park) towering over the railroad light of way.
Some substantial work needs to be done to remedy this situation to attempt to make the tracks suitable
for \letnJlink u.w. The public neetls to be informed about what is proposed to be done and its
endronmerual impacts. This needs to be exam.ined as pm of the en~ironmmtal rCl'iew process, and then
the documents need to reclrruJatoo. If considerntion ofplanning for the necessary drainage improvement
is postpuned until after the present SR<\ consideration, that would constitntc improper segmentation and
926661PVL FEIR 20 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AODITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 2 (cont'd)
Richard Block
July 12, 2011
di!'ferral of the environmental review process. Th~ ncccs.'ii1ll"Y drainage impro\:ements at this sensiU\'e site
(adjacent ro public parks) ReedS to 00 described and consldeeed as part mIlt. Project. }
In respons~ to a me. 30, 20lO email query' c:on~~g the mudflo\\' situation MId wh..-:th.;:r ccrrre(.,'tive tn~asures
"muld be inc1udC'd in Project environmental rlZvilZw. Ms Echeverria of ReTe has responded by email on Jan. 5"
2011. stating
"the Perris Valley Line, is currently under environmental review. The environmental documents. do indud.;:
discu%ion ofhydrology and dramtlge maUers and as part of the project, there is a plan to rehabHitate and !;lean
out existing culverts 1n the area of 1s.1ander Park Also. per Mt;trolink standards, track drainag~ ditches (swale.s)
will b,;: ..:onstructed on both sides ofthe tr3.l::k in that area, 'The culvert work and drainage ditches will apply to
the entire corridor."
With regard to these COnUll?11ts by Ms Echeverria, there is nQ existing culvert at or near the mudflow discussed
above. While the FEIR makes some sporadk general mention ofdrainage, aside from dis~ussions of culvert
work. as at DEIR p. 2-43 (where it mentions IUl ~valuation of culverts in an "EXIsting Conditions Report", 2008
but the changed situation in the aftermath Oftlle recent mudt10w was not an ··existing condition" then), it fails
to discuss the kind of substantial drainage channel that would be necessary to handl~ anything like the recent
mudtlow. And the mention of drainage brings to mind the biological issue of spade-foot toads, \vhich breed in
seasonal ponds that would be affec:ted by such drainag¢.
Timing
On p. 2 of the Agenda report for this Item 10, IT states
"The EIR process ""'as initiated on July 14, 2009. when the notice of preparation was submitted to the State
Clearinghou,e and made publicly av.ilable as required by CEQA."
That meOm that the ba'icline for the EIR shOUld be 2009, not the base year 200S that the EIR ls using as a baseline
for a ·'supplemental analysis ... primarily for informational putposes"CFETR1, p. p. 0.2·4 (=9). A.s for the use of a
baseline of 2012 (FEIRl p. 0,2-4 (=9»)~ and the claim of 2012 WI the "'opening year", since the necessary' Federal
approvals cannot o.::curbeforc late summer of 201 t and since the EIR is stating an approximate Project construction
time of18months (FElR2 p. 4.10-37 (=320), the opening date would not occur until at least some lime in 201J, n(lL
2012. Thus theEIR is using the wrong baseliJle(s).
1rforeova', while-ReTe 'vas required by CEQA to send written responses to corrun;:nts made by publh.: agencies
,uch as lhe Ri"f5ide l:nified School J)i<trict (RCSD) at lea,110 days before the .July 13 date ofthis Agenda
Item, tire written r~sp.ons.e$ they s.:nt to RCSD (actually through RCSD"s attorneys) included extenslve
rC'f~rences such as "'"See Master Comment # ..... but, as 1 have been informed by RCSD ,,;'\ssistant
Superintendent Kirk Le-wls, RCTe failed to actually include a copy ofsaid Master Corrun~nts, apparently in
violation of CEQA
I1Hlnk you for your consideration
Richard Block 424 Two Trees Rd. Rivef<3ide, CA 92507 951·683-8762 rblock31@charter.nel
L2·13 (cont'd)
L2·14
L2·15
L2-16
L2·17
926661PVL FEIR 21 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Response to Letter 2
Richard Block
July 12, 2011
As an initial matter, CEOA does not require that RCTC respond to this comment letter, (See
State CEOA Guidelines, § 15088(a) (responses not required where letters are received after
close of CEOA comment period),) Moreover, it should be noted that this comment letter was not
submitted until immediately prior to close of business on July 12th, the afternoon prior to the
July 13th noticed public meeting at which the Project is to be considered, Nonetheless, RCTC is
providing these responses in order to provide a complete and accurate record,
L2-1, As a representative of Friends of Riverside Hills, Mr. Block indicates overall
opposition to the project. However, it does not raise any specific environmental
concerns, thus, no further response is required, (See State CEOA Guidelines
§ 15088).
L2-2. Commenter alleges that the EIR is deficient because there are U a number of
potentially Significant impacts that the EIR fails to consider or fails to analyze
adequately, including impacts for which conSideration is segmented, deferred, and/or
evaded entirely," In this introductory comment, the Commenter does not specifically
list out the deficiencies in the EIR or the impacts that the EIR fails to analyze. To the
extent that the balance of Commenter's letter specifically addresses environmental
issues, those environmental issues are addressed in turn in Responses to L2-3
through L2-17 below, (See State CEOA Guidelines, § 15088 (responses should
address comments on "environmental issues").)
Moreover, Commenter alleges generally that the deficiencies in the EIR require that
the EIR be recirculated. Commenter does not specify or explain the bases upon
which Commenter believes that recirculation is necessary. No new significant impacts
or new mitigation measures have been added to the EIR after the time that it was
circulated for public review and prior to certification,(State CEOA Guidelines
§ 15088,5,)Moreover, it is clear under CEOA that recirculation is not required where
information is added to an EIR that merely clarifies or amplifies the existing
analysis.(lbid.)Thus, none of the circumstances requiring recirculation of the EIR
have been triggered.(See also Master Response #11 -Recirculate EIR and the
CEOA Process.)
Finally, Commenter references the Supplemental Environmental Assessment
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") for the Perris
Valley Line Projectlt should be noted that NEPA and CEOA are separate and
distinct laws with separate and distinct standards and processes. The SEA and the
DEIR are stand-alone documents. Com menter's attempts to use language in the SEA
to discredit or attack analysis in the Draft EIR is misplaced.
L2-3. Commenter alleges that the EIR is deficient because there are u a number of
potentially significant impacts that the EIR fails to consider or fails to analyze
adequately, including impacts for which consideration is segmented, deferred, and/or
evaded entirely." In this introductory comment, the Commenter does not specifically
list out the deficiencies in the EIR or the impacts that the EIR fails to analyze. To the
extent that the balance of Commenter's letter specifically addresses environmental
92666/PVL FEIR 22 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
issues, those environmental issues are addressed in turn in Responses to L2-3
through L2-17 below. (See State CEOA Guidelines, §15088 (responses should
address comments on "environmental issues").)
Moreover, Commenter alleges generally that the deficiencies in the EI R require that
the EIR be recirculated. Commenter does not specify or explain the bases upon
which Commenter believes that recirculation is necessary. No new significant
impacts or new mitigation measures have been added to the EIR after the time that it
was circulated for public review and prior to certification. (State CEOA Guidelines §
15088.5.) Moreover, it is clear under CEOA that recirculation is not required where
information is added to an EIR that merely clarifies or amplifies the existing analysis.
(Ibid.) Thus, none of the circumstances requiring recirculation of the EIR have been
triggered. (See also Master Response #11 -Recirculate EIR and the CEOA
Process.)
L2-4. The commenter states that future agreements between RCTC (the owner) and
SCRRA (the operator) regarding the future PVL facilities isreasonably foreseeable.
The September 2009 RCTC Agenda (Item 7F. page 3 and 4) indicates the
framework in which RCTC will communicate with SCRRA regarding future
improvements. These potential future improvements have not been identified,
funded. or planned at this time, only the framework for bringing these forward has
been established.
After two years of operation of the PVL, SCRRA is allowed to approach RCTC to
request changes or improvements to the service or facilities, should they be needed.
These changes or improvements have not been identified yet, and certainly not
agreed to yet by RCTC. Any consideration of unknown future improvements would
be speculative. The current project description, as presented is the Draft EIR.
Chapter 2.0, is complete and accurate. The project has not been segmented or any
analysis deferred. The Draft EIR clearly presents the project features. identifies
impacts. and appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to less than significant.
L2-5. Commenter claims that the use of written noise variances for night time construction
activities will solve the legal problems but cause significant environmental impacts
since the noise levels would exceed jurisdictional standards.
As stated on page 48 of the Noise & Vibration Technical Report, all construction
activities are expected to be performed in compliance with the respective municipal
noise codes. However, construction noise impacts of the proposed project were
evaluated using the established FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
methodology (see Noise and Vibration Technical Report. Section II G). According to
the FTA methodology, potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors are measured in
l"q, which accounts for sensitivity of particular land uses (see FTA Manual. Section
12.1). Local ordinances and noise codes were not used in the assessment because
they are typically associated with maximum noise levels (Lmaxl which are not to be
exceeded. While this represents useful information lim iting noise from a construction
site, they are not practical for assessing the noise impact of an actual construction
project since the human sensitivity to noise is related to both time and degree. and
local noise ordinance Lmax levels do not assess potential impacts over a period of
time. Conversely, the FT A construction noise criteria utilize an equivalent noise level
926661PVL FEIR 23 July 2Q11
fiNAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL CoMMENT LETTERS
(Le q ) which is applied over a specific period of time. Because these criteria are
assessed over a period of time. they are more effective at identifying impacts on
humans' daily activities and annoyance levels.
The commenter has correctly noted (citing pages 4.10-37, 4.10-38, 4.10-321 and
4.10-322), that the contractor would be required to use standard construction noise
control measures such as temporary construction noise barriers, low noise emission
equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment to
reduce the likelihood of any increases in construction noise above the local noise
ordinance maximum levels. Thus, all attempts will be made to minimize the noise
impact of construction activities during the construction of the project. This point that
the commenter raises is directly relevant to the commenter's stated concern with
regard to variances applicable to night-time construction noise. The commenter
states that "Such variances while solving legal problems would result in significant
environmental impacts since noise levels would exceed the jurisdictional standards."
A "variance: however. is not a "legal solution" to construction noise impacts, as the
commenter suggests, but is instead a practical measure integral to code
enforcement intended for use in specific cases where activity categorically
disallowed by code may be deemed exceptional and allowable in certain cases. As
stated on pages 44-47 of the Noise & Vibration Technical Report, the municipal
noise codes were designed to govern the ambient noise !evels in the community
such that the issuance of variances to perform activities would indicate that the
applicant has demonstrated that the severity of the noise impact will be insignificant
or so temporary in nature that the annoyance to the community would be minimal.
It should be noted that in the worst-case scenario (e.g., operating the two noisiest
pieces of equipment simultaneously for one hour), the FT A threshold for nighttime
construction activity would not be exceeded. In addition, both due to the measures
put in place by the contractor during construction and also due to the sporadic and
temporary aspect of any instance in which construction noise may exceed local
construction noise ordinance levels, as the commenter has also noted, a "variance"
would indeed be reasonable. Finally, Section 12.1.3 of the FTA Transit Noise and
Vibration Manual states that "Generally local noise ordinances are not useful in the
evaluation of construction noise" and that "FTA guidelines can be considered
reasonable criteria for assessment. Based on these facts, no impact has been
predicted and no mitigation would be required for night-time construction activities.
L2-6. Commenter states that homes in the UC-Riverside community along East Campus
View Drive are misrepresented in the construction noise analYSis and that the
resulting noise levels would result exceed the 90 dBA daytime threshold and 80 dBA
nighttime threshold.Commenter references the following fomnula:
Leq (equip) =E.L. + 10 Log(UF) -20 log(0/50) -tOG/og(d/50)
where,
Leq (equipment = the Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single
piece of equipment
E.L. = The noise emission level of a particular piece of equipment
UF. = The usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that a piece of
equipment is in use over a specified time period
92666IPVL FEIR 24 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
D =distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment
G = accounts for topography and ground effects
Commenter asserts that due to the closer proximity of the homes on East Campus
View Drive to the tracks as opposed to the representative property chosen in Perris
(240 feet compared to 50 feet), there will be a 13 dBA difference in noise levels,
which when added to the worst case scenario of existing construction noise of 79
dBA, would be a total of 92 dBA and in violation of the daytime noise threshold.
The commenter misapplies the formula in calculating the noise exposure level along
East Campus View Drive (UCR Neighborhood). The PVL construction assessment
was based on the examination of potential construction noise impacts at a
representative worst-case location. The criteria used to select a representative
location included: the proximity of construction activities to noise sensitive receivers,
and the extent of construction-related activities in the area. The location at 228 C
Street in the City of Perris was chosen because it is directly adjacent to the PVL
alignment and the proposed Perris Station. While track-related construction in Perris
may not be as close to 228 C Street as it would be for some residences in the UCR
neighborhood, other station-related construction activities in the Perris area would be
considerably closer. For example, elements of proposed station work construction
would affect residential locations as close to construction activities as approximately
60 feet, and this is in addition to construction-related traffic activity within the
adjacent street network. Therefore, the 228 C Street residence represents the only
sensitive cluster location located adjacent to the alignment that would be exposed to
both station-and track-related construction activities. Since impacts were not
projected at this location, impacts along other segments of the alignment that would
not also include station locations near sensitive noise receptors would be unlikely.
The commenter incorrectly attempts to use the distance variable contained within the
construction noise prediction equation to prove their assertion that 228 C Street in
Perris is not a representative site for PVL construction noise. However, several
elements of the argument are inaccurate.
First, the commenter assumes that the noise emission levels for the two noisiest
pieces of equipment would be the same for both the UCR neighborhood and the
Perris Station area. This is incorrect because, while both the UCR neighborhood and
the Perris Station area would inClude the usage of trucks, the Perris Station area
would include the usage of pavers, while the work in the UCR neighborhood would
not. Pavers are among the louder pieces of construction equipment (FTA Manual,
Table 12-1).
Second, the commenter is incorrect with the usage of 50 feet for the distance
variable of the construction noise prediction equation as the source-to-receptor
distance in the UCR neighborhood. The location in the UCR neighborhood where the
shortest distances exist between residential buildings and the alignment are the ten
homes along East Campus View Drive. While the shortest distance would be
approximately 65 feet (see EIR, Table 3.4-7, site #2), this represents only two
homes. For the remaining eight homes, the distance is more in the range of 75 feet.
926661PVL FEIR 25 July2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT lETIERS
Thirdly, the Usage Factor (U.F.) for trucks in the UCR construction areas is likely to
be less than the one assumed for the Perris Station. A U. F. of one (1) assumes full
power operation for the duration of the one-hour modeling period. While the Perris
Station area construction equation conservatively assumes a usage factor of one (1)
for trucks, this U.F. is most certainly too high for use with rail construction in the UCR
neighborhood. For construction within the UCR neighborhood ROW, trucks would
mostly be delivering and dropping off materials. Any trucks within the ROW would
likely be dumping or receiving soils materials, which would require the truck be
tumed off during loading.
The final issue which the commenter fails to consider is the difference between the
dynamic characteristics of construction in the UCR neighborhood versus the static
characteristics of construction that would be undertaken in the Perris Station area.
The procedures related to track and noise barrier construction that would be
provided in the UCR neighborhood would be linear, contained within the ROWand
would move quickly along the corridor. As a result, "given the linear configuration of
the construction corridor, only small area segments would likely experience
construction noise at any given time". This applies for both day and night
construction (see EIR Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Section G). Specifically,
the construction in the UCR Neighborhood would primarily comprise track
construction, progressing at approximately 1000 feet per day, and noise barrier
placement progressing at approximately 60 feet per day (see EIR Air Quality
Technical Report, Appendix 0). According to the FTA Manual, Section 12.1, when
the length of construction at noise-sensitive land uses (such as homes in the UCR
Neighborhood) would last less than a month, a qualitative assessment (which
assumes no construction impacts) is appropriate; and when construction would last
less than several months, a detailed construction noise assessment is not required.
In addition, some of the construction activities in the UCR neighborhood would
require no construction noise assessment at all (FTA Manual, Section 12.1). Based
on the rate of progression for the expected construction activities above, the
construction in the UCR neighborhood can be viewed as a series of small projects
since no one location would be exposed to major construction activities for more than
a few weeks. The one element of construction in the UCR area that would include
static construction activities would be for rail crossings. However, the typical
construction period at each crossing would only last approximately three weeks.
Again, as explained in the FTA Manual, Section 12.1 when the length of construction
at noise-sensitive land uses (such as homes in the UCR Neighborhood) would last
less than a month, a qualitative assessment is appropriate; and when construction
would last less than several months, a detailed construction noise assessment is not
required. As a result, while all local noise codes and ordinances would still have to
be adhered to during construction, construction noise in the UCR neighborhood
would not result in significant annoyance or impacts to local residents.
Conversely, in the PerriS Station area, the potential for annoyance to residences is
more pronounced given the stationary nature of the construction. While track
construction would progress in a manner similar to that in the UCR neighborhood,
station construction would last for approximately two months. Therefore, because the
station is a fixed location, sensitive residential land uses would be exposed to
construction noise for the full two-month period. This extended exposure time to
station construction activities in addition to the track construction makes the Perris
92666/PVL FEIR 26 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Station area the most appropriate candidate for the assessment of construction noise
impacts.
All of the above factors were taken into consideration when the Perris Station was
chosen as a representative construction noise assessment site.
Consequently, when all of the above factors are taken into consideration,
construction noise calculations within the UCR neighborhood would result in the FTA
construction noise criteria still not being surpassed during allowable hours of
construction.
L2-7. Commenter states that the EI R does not address the impact of the construction of
the noise barriers which will be built at a closer distance to property lines than the
new tracks.
The commenter should note that the source to receiver distances used for the FT A
construction noise assessment depend upon the location of the centerline or center
of the project construction activities (see FTA Manual Section 12.1) and not the
closest edge of construction activities as the commenter suggests (Le. noise barrier
construction on the ROW). As described above in comment L2-6, the PVL
construction assessment was based on the examination of potential construction
noise impacts at a representative worst-case location in Perris. Since operational
noise impacts were not predicted in this area, noise barriers were not considered in
the construction noise assessment. However, each of the two noisiest pieces of
equipment assumed for the construction noise assessment in Perris would be louder
than the noisiest equipment that would be used for typical barrier installation.
Construction of the noise barriers and all other elements of the PVL project will follow
all applicable construction noise regulations and restrictions such that any impacts
will be less than significant. As the commenter has indicated in previous comments
(refer to comment L2-5, Citing pages 4.10-37, 4.10-3B, 4.10-321 and 4.10-322), the
contractor would be required to use standard construction noise control measures
such as temporary construction noise barriers, low noise emission equipment, and
the use of acoustic enclosures (while not mentioned in the Noise & Vibration
Technical report, these enclosures could include lightweight, portable, temporary
noise barriers) for particularly noisy equipment and operations to reduce the
likelihood of any increases in construction noise above the local noise ordinance
maximum levels. These control measures would be applied during actual
construction. As a result, implementation of the foregoing standard operating
procedures would ensure that noise impacts would remain less than significant.
L2-B. Commenter states that municipal noise codes prohibit the use of construction
equipment without obtaining written variances and that even with the variance, the
resulting noise is still a nuisance to the community.
CEQA has defined threshold limits related to the exposure of persons to noise and
vibration. According to CEQA, a significant impact from noise or vibration would
occur if the PVL project exceeded allowable limits defined by federal, state or local
policies and regulations. Although local noise ordinances and standards do exist for
the various municipalities along the PVL corridor, the FTA criteria was used in ali
PVL noise analyses as it was deemed to be the most appropriate for assessing rail
926661PVL FEIR 27 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
noise impacts. Unlike local noise ordinances, which are based solely on absolute
noise limits, the FTA criteria is based on both absolute and relative noise annoyance
levels for humans and is specifically tailored towards noise impacts related to rail
transportation projects such as the PVL (FTA Manual, Figures 2-9 and 10). The
criteria are based on extensive human response noise study data conducted by the
EPA and other federal agencies. In addition, because the FTA Manual represents a
uniform noise assessment procedure meant to be utilized on a national level, it
applies a factor of conservatism to its criteria to encompass a variety of conditions
which local jurisdictions would not necessarily require. Finally. under CEQA, noise
impact thresholds can be contained in local general plans and noise ordinances or
applicable standards of other agencies, such as the FT A (see CEQA, Appendix G
XII-a.). Accordingly, the use of the FTA impact criteria is acceptable under CEQA
and was deemed most appropriate for determining any potentially significant
construction noise impacts from the PVL project (see Draft EIR, Section 4.10.1).
Finally, Section 12.1.3 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Manual states that
"Generally local noise ordinances are not useful in the evaluation of construction
noise" and that "FT A guidelines can be considered reasonable criteria for
assessment. As a result, the FT A construction noise impact level of 80dBA, and not
the maximum noise levels required by local ordinances, is appropriately used for the
PVL project.
Although the FTA Manual noise criteria were used for the construction noise
assessment, local noise ordinances were consulted to determine the allowable hours
of day during which PVL construction activities would be permitted and the maximum
noise levels that individual construction noise sources should not exceed.
Construction would be limited to the hours permitted by local ordinance. Because
these local codes allow construction only during day-time hours. if any project-related
night-time construction activity would be required. RCTC shall obtain from the
municipality written consent for an exemption, or variance. from these local noise
requirements. As stated on pages 44-47 of the Noise & Vibration Technical Report,
the municipal noise codes were designed to govem the ambient noise levels in the
community such that the issuance of variances to perform activities would indicate
that the applicant has demonstrated that the severity of the noise impact will be
insignificant or so temporary in nature that the annoyance to the community would be
minimal. In addition, although no impacts from construction were predicted with
respect to the FT A criteria, individual construction activities around noise sensitive
areas such as residences and schools could result in temporary noise increases.
However. these increases would not be considered a significant noise impact. These
increases would be based on potential occurrences of atypical events. given the
inconsistent and tranSitory nature of some construction activities and equipment
usage, and would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA. However, for all
construction activities, contractors will use standard construction noise control
measures such as temporary construction noise barriers, low noise emission
eqUipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment to
reduce the amount of construction noise above the local noise generated from the
project.
L2-9. Commenter states that merely complying with the daytime noise code requirements
does not reduce the environmental impact, it merely eliminates legal liability as a
nuisance.
92666/PVL FEIR 28 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
As described in comments l2-5 and l2-8, construction noise for the PVL project was
properly assessed utilizing the FTA manual construction noise impacts criteria. In
addition, the local noise codes and ordinances were utilized to ensure that the PVL
construction noise from individual sources would comply with the stated allowable
time of day for construction and associated maximum noise levels. The commenter
raises concern regarding the issuance of variance for construction noise. (Refer to
responses to l2-5 and l2-8 where this concern is fully addressed.) While the
characterization of the municipal noise code provided in the Noise & Vibration
Technical Report, as referenced by the commenter, is correct, the commenter states
that this characterization is misleading, supporting this statement with the assertion
that a noise impact would occur in the event that noise would exceed the municipal
code. However, a noise impact would not occur since for the PVl project, the FTA
criteria was used under CEOA to evaluate construction noise. In addition, as
explained in the responses to l2-5 and l2-8, any required variances would be
reasonable because as stated on pages 44-47 of the Noise & Vibration Technical
Report, the municipal noise codes were designed to govern the ambient noise levels
in the community such that the issuance of variances to perform activities would
indicate that the applicant has demonstrated that the severity of the noise impact will
be less than significant.
l2-10. The commenter blends references for the SEA and EIR. It should be noted that
NEPA and CEOA are separate and distinct laws with separate and distinct standards
and processes. The SEA and Draft EIR are stand-alone documents. Commenter's
attempts to use language in the SEA to discredit or attack analysis of the Draft EIR is
misplaced.
Nevertheless, the work on the bypass track will take place without significanlly
impacting the existing freight operations. If night-time construction occurs, it would
occur at grade crOSSings in order to limit the time of interruption of the crOSSing and
to complete the work as quickly as possible. Night-time construction at grade
crossings is preferred because of safety concerns and the desire to limit the time that
the crossing signals are non-operational. By continuing to work as long as necessary
to install the new crossing controls, the crossing will become much safer with the
new equipment installed. As explained in Response to Comment l2-5 above,
because the significance thresholds would not be exceeded, the project would not
result in a significant impact. Thus, no mitigation is required. (State CEOA
Guidelines, § 15126.4 (mitigation is imposed to minimize significant adverse
impacts).)
l2-11. Commenter states that the wheel squeal analysis was incorrectly done and that there
is no support in the referenced manual for the elimination of wheel squeal statements
made in EIR.
According to the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) -''Wheel/Rail
Noise Control Manual" (Transportation Research Board, 1997), a report which was
sponsored by the FTA, the use of a petroleum lubricant would reduce squeal while
the use of a water lubricant would eliminate squeal." Contrary to what the
Commenter suggests, the Noise & Vibration Technical Report does not explicitly
state and certainly does not imply that all wheel squeal will be eliminated. As it is
clearly pointed out in the above quote, the information comes directly from an FT A
92666!PVL FEIR 29 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT L.ETTERS
L2-12.
L2-13.
sponsored technical report that was produced by the well respected Transportation
Research Board. The statement was included in the Noise & Vibration Technical
Report on page 23, to demonstrate the effectiveness of rail lubrication on wheel
squeal noise. Moreover, if it were the intention of the EIR to utilize this quote (which it
was not) to bolster a claim of wheel squeal noise elimination, the EIR would have
specifically referenced water as the type of lubricant to be used with the wayside
applicators. Finally, the use of rail lubrication is a standard practice in many
municipalities and the FTA Manual itself (See Table 6-12) demonstrates that rail
lubrication is a recognized and effective method to reduce wheel squeal noise. As a
result, Mr. Block is incorrect in his assertion that RCTC has "grossly
misrepresent(ed]" what the TCRP Manual says.
Commenter states that the wheel squeal analysis does not account for all of the
curves near sensitive receptors.
For most rail assessments. short-radius curves are not studied in detail due to the
variability of squeal noise. However. for the PVL. project, a detailed assessment of
wheel squeal was performed in accordance with direct input. guidance and approval
from the FT A. Consequently, as directed by the FT A, a detailed assessment of wheel
squeal was provided at one curve (Citrus Connection). This would be the only newly
constructed curve track and would also be the longest curve on the PVL. alignment,
as explained on pages 20-24 of the Noise & Vibration Technical Report. All other
short-radius curves along the PVL project alignment were fully documented in the
Noise & Vibration Technical Report (See Noise & Vibration Technical Report pg 24).
Wayside applicators, which will dampen and reduce wheel squeal noise, will be
applied at all existing track curves and at the proposed new curve at the Citrus
Connection (See Noise & Vibration Technical Report Pages 23-24).
The mudflow that the commenter references in December 2010 originated on County
of Riverside property within the Box Springs Mountain Reserve. This mudflow was
an unforeseen event in an area where culverts are not located.
There are two existing culverts in the general vicinity of Islander Park: one located
approximately 1,200-feet east of Mt. Vernon Avenue grade crossing, and another
located approximately 2.700-feet southeast of the MI. Vernon Avenue grade
crossing.
In order to eliminate future mudflows the Reserve managers would need to stabilize
the slopes, but a solution at this time is speculative. The PVL project does not
propose to install an additional drainage culvert in this area. Thus, RCTC is not
segmenting the project or deferring environmental analysis. (Dry Creek Citizens
Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26 [CEQA requires a
"general description" of the project's technical characteristics and preCise
engineering designs are not necessary]; State CEQA Guidelines § 15124 [project
description should provide enough detail to determine potential environmental
impacts but should not supply extensive detail].)
Also see L2·13 above. The commenter quotes Ms. Echeverria correctly in noting that
there are no drainage culverts in the area of the December mudflow. It should be
noted that standard engineering practice is to account for a specific design storm
L2-14.
92666/PVL FEIR 30 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L2-15.
L2-16.
event when analyzing project hydrology and hydraulics. On page i of the Existing
Conditions Report it states that the Project engineers "reviewed the eXisting drainage
facilities along the PVL looking for signs of erosion, sediment deposition in culverts
or on tracks, adequate side ditches, ponding water, track flooding, embankment
deficiencies, culvert integrity, etc." Recommendations for culvert replacement or
drainage rerouting have been included in the design for this Project and are identified
on page 2-43 of the revised Draft EIR. Thus, this comment does not present
substantial evidence of any new or different significant impacts from what was
analyzed in the Draft EIA.
As indicated in the Draft EIR, RCTC acknowledges that western spadefoat toad has
the potential to inhabit the San Jacinto River area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.)
Furthermore, the Draft EIR discloses that the project proposes to replace the San
Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto River Bridge Overflow Channel. (Ibid.) As
a result, there is a potential significant impact to western spadefoot toad and
mitigation has been imposed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
(Ibid.) Specifically, RCTC has incorporated mitigation measure BR-9 requiring
preconslruction surveys for western spadefoot toad 30 days prior to site disturbance
to determine if western spadefoot toads are present within the designated
construction area. (Final EIA, p. 0.4-4.) If they are, the project biologist shall prepare
a relocation program that shall be approved by the RCA prior to implementation.
(Ibid.)
Moreover, the Western spadefoot toad is neither federally nor state endangered or
threatened. Rather, it is a state species of special concern. (MSHCP, p. A-62.)
Regardless, however, the Western spadefoot toad is a covered species under the
MSHCP (MSHCP § 9.2 and Species Account p. A-62 et seq.), and RCTC as a
permittee to the MSHCP and, thus, will comply with all of the MSHCP's requirements
with regard to toads, including survey requirements. (See, e.g., Mitigation Measure
SR-9.) As the MSHCP provides full and complete CEQA mitigation for all potential
impacts to covered species (MSHCP § 1.2.3), the EIR's conclusion that impacts are
less than significant (particularly with the impOSition of mitigation measure BR-9) is
fully supported by the record. (See Revised Draft EIR p. 4.4-22.) With regard to the
comment on the tadpoles and reproduction, please see Response to Comment L4-3,
below.
The EIR uses an appropriate baseline. (State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15125.) The 2008
conditions were used as the baseline conditions for the traffic impact analysis
because the traffic engineers had to start collecting the data in 2008 in order to
complete the study in time for the release of the Notice of Preparation in 2009. (Save
our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. of Sups. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99,
125-126 [alternative baseline acceptable so long as supported by substantial
evidence); see a/soCherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors v. City of Beaumont
(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316.) Thus, the dates reflect the practical fact that it takes
time to collect and synthesize traffic data to determine impacts. (See Final EIR, p.
0.2-3 through 0.2-16.).
See response L1-5. L2-17.
92666fPVL FEIR 31 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Kevin Dawson
July 12, 2011
To: Rivenide County T"'''''por1ation Conunission .July 12,21111 by email
Re: Comments on Perris Valley Line Envinmmffital Impact Report for the Penis vaUt>y Line, Riverside
Coont). California, Agenda [tem 10 for the .July 13.2011 RCTC meeting.
Pl.;';ase consider the CQlnment<; herein on the Environmental1rnpact Report (EIR) for the proposed Perris Valle-y }
Line \fe-trollnk (PVL). This letter is being written on behalf ofresid1:!nts ofthe ueR neighborhood, including L3~1Jmy~if. and on b~ha1f of Friends of Riverside's. Hills, I request that this letter be part of the public record. The ,
t:CR neighborhood is the [csido;!ntial neighborhood extending north and east ofthe University of California
Riverside .:ampus, between the campus and the Box Springs Mountains" lhe route of the PVL. along the San
Jacinto Branch Lin. railroad right of way (SJBL), goes through the t:CRneighhorhood from.bout MP 1.7 L3-2
(north of Spruce St.) to about MP 5.) (north of~""TI1ert Rd1 including passing close by hundred.. ofresidcl1ces
plus two public elementary schooL'), child car~ cente~ churches, and parks. Friends of Riwrside's Hills is a
California nOil-profit corporation concerned with protecting the enVrrOtnl:l.;:nt in the ,y~stem Riverside County
area.
The EIR is seriously defici~nt As discus",d below, there .,. • number of potentially significant impacts that tire} L3-3
ElR fails to consider or fails to analyze adequarely, including impacts for which considern1ion is segmented"
deferred, andior evaded <ntirely. These deficiencies n""d to bo corrected and the EIR recirculated.
In what follows, FEIRI indicates vol. 1 ofthe FEIR, FEIR2 jndicates vol 2 of the FEIR which is the revised
July 2011 version of the DEIR, and SEA indicates the Supplemental Environmental Assessment forthe PVL.
When referring to page numbers in documents, for the convenience ofthe reader an attempt has been made to
also include the page number in the PDF version of the document.
1. Ambiguous desttiption of tra<k improv........... and depill of oo_moo
In the DEIR Project Detail. Section 2.4.1 Track Improvement., p. 2-14 (~50), it says
"MP 1.4010 MP 5.10 (approximately Marlborough Av&nue south to Poarch Road); The track would b.
upgraded with new concrete ties, new welded rail, and new ballast as required_
MP 5.10 to !AI' 7.00 (approximately Pos"'" Road to Box Springs Boulevard): Wooden ijes would be "'placed
as needed and new ballast added: (emphasis added)
The modifier '"'as required" mea;os; that the extent of-the work remains ro be determined. Note the contrast with
lb. MP 5.10 to 7.00 section, where "and new ballast added" is not 50 modified.
The SEA atp. 1-49_
"Project implementation will improve operating c<>nditions by!:l.llll!!: upgrading (repI.... ballast, ties. and rail)
.2!: replacing existing trllCk. throughOut its length. including along adjoining Hyatt Elertl!mtary School. The one
exception is the two mile stretch between Poarcb Road and River Crest Road where thf;l track will be
rehabilitated (rGsurfac.ing and spo1tie replacGments ):-(empha.",is added)
The .:"¢ither"!"or·J statement (spet.ifically mentioning an att!3 adjoining Hyatt Elementary School, i.e., in the
eCR neighborhood, and not clarified in the 5ubseqt"ut FEIR) is another indication of inadequacy of the L3-4
dt:Smption of 1he extent of the work to be done.
The FEIR2 4.4-11 (~179)stat"" (about an are. itl the VCR neighborhood):
-After MP 3.50 the ROW enters Box Springs Mountain Reserve ... Additionally. there would be limited work
on the tracks in this area, but toore WQuld be noise barriers installed to shield adjacent residents from the
train noise. ,.:' (emphasis added)
The words "limited work on the tracks" would be a strang& way of describing complete replacement of rail. ties,
and baliast, so this statement contributes to the ambiguity of the EIR as to the extent of the track work planned.
~ot only the location and eX1en1 of track improvements needs to be more precisely d.;scribed. but the d..:pili of
the construction at those locations needs to be described, since that depth impacts the envirorun.:nt, including
hllZard, near the buried jctfuel pipeline. The SEA at p. 3.18-31 slales
"Portions of the existing SJBL ROW could contain burfed Pleistocene alluvium beneath areas that have been
previously disturbed by the original construction of the railroad. Proposed construction activities within the
ROW (for example, dOlJble~tracidng or track and tie replacement) in areas where the depth of previous
disturbance is less than the maximum depth of construction may result tn impacts to sensmvQ
paleontological resources:'
This statQment shows that some of the track improvements, including track and tie replacement, are
expected to involve depth of construction exceeding the depth of previous disturbance. The EJR fails to
describe the depths and locations involved, or the associated impacts, or to otherwise consider the issue.
926661PVL FEIR 32 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 3 (cont'd)
Kevin Dawson
July 12, 2011
These matters are environmentally significant. The amount of track improvement and depth of excavation
affect nearby sensitive receptors. Track and ties wear and eventually need to be repaired (e.g. by grinding of }
track) or replaced, and ballast settles. Construction noise impacts and the time period until necessary repair or
replacement can be significant to nearby residences, schools and churches. --{
The FEIR2, at page 4.10.43 (= 326) incorrectly describes the locations ("just south of Spruce Steet and north
of Hyatt Elementary School') where one of two mitigation measures (ballast mats or under-tie pads) will be
used; presumably it should be Highland, not Hyatt.
2. Inadequate description of location & depth of .Jet Fuel Pipeline near construction
TIle issue of depth of excavation for track and ti~ replac~ment is particularly important where su~h ~xcavation
"\viII tak~ place in the vicinity of the Kinder ~'Ilorgan jet fuel pipeline. The DEIR claimed that the pipeline was a
minimum of 3 feet deep. Now, in response to the RUSO letter pointing out that the depth near Highland School
is 2 feet 4 inches, the response L3-13 (in the FEIR) states
'The depth of the pipeline within the ROW varies. In some places it is as deep as 10 feet and in other places it
is as shallow as 2 feet 4 inches. The reason for this range of depths is that erosion and weathering slowly
remove topsoil and therefore reduce the overall depth of the line. Therefore, the description of the pipeline is
not inconsistent or inaccurate."
This and other statements in the FEIR shows that the FEIR continues to rely on incorrect and conclusory
statements, and is clueless as to the actual depth of the pipeline as well as to its precise location except
perhaps in the Vicinity of Highland Elementary School. The Raymond Johnson public comment letter on the
SEA (Jan. 6, 2011 -that letter is incorporated herein by reference, and referred to herein as the Johnson2
letter) included a copy of a letter by UCR neighborhood resident Merial Everett regarding the 2002 incident
involving the pipeline in her backyard, showing that Kinder Morgan was ignorant of at least some of the actual
locations and depths of the pipeline; furthermore the Johnson2 letter included pictures of the pipeline where it
was actually exposed because of past erosion -so much for it being only "as shallow as 2 feet 4 inches" It
should be noted that the (2010) DEIR claimed that t was a minimum of 3 feet deep; then the RUSD letter
pointed out that it was only 2 feet 4 inches deep near Highland School, and now the EIR is claiming that it is a
minimum of 2 feet 4 inches deep. It seems evident that Kinder Morgan doesn't know the precise pipeline
locations and depth (or won't admit it), and the EIR doesn't properly verify them.
Moreover, as the Johnson2 letter pointed out, because of the pipeline's location east of the tracks near
Highland School and west of the tracks in Mrs. Everett's yard, there have to be at least two places where the
pipeline actually crosses under the tracks, and thus where both construction work and metrolink train vibration
will be especially dangerous. The Project description not only remains deficient in not accurately describing
the location and depths of the pipeline in the vicinity of the tracks, but especially important is its failure to
specify all locations where the pipeline crosses under the tracks and the depths of the pipeline at those
locations, as well as its failure to describe the special mitigation measures to be taken as such locations to
protect against pipeline weakening and/or rupture not only during construction but also during train operation
(related to vibration).
In its response L3-14: the FEIR claims that
·'no engineering or construction acth.ities are expected to impact the pipdine during construction .... The Contractor must
expose all Kinder Morgan pipelines prior to crossing to detennin~ th~ exact alignment and depth ot"tlk: lines.'" (Here
··crossing" pr~sumably means crossing by equipment, and not to the undisclosed locations \vhere the pipelin~ cross~s
under the tracks.)
Since (as shown by the JOMson21etter and oth~r comments) ReTe clearly does not know "the exact alignment and depth
otthe lines", the claim that "no engineering or construction activities are expected to impact the pipeline during
construction·· is merely a conclusory statemcnt. Indeed, it would appear to be impossible to do track construction work at
a loeation where the track crosses over the pipeline without ""impacf'ing the pipeline.
It should be noted that the FEIR's newly added Appendix H the Zeta Tech Report (dated yLuch 22. 2011) addresses the
pipelined depth and condition, but only in the immediate vicinity ofHigbland Elementary School, where thc -'pipeline is
locat~d between 25 and 7S feet from the track·' (Zeta Tech Report, p. 5). Th~ Report contains no discussion concerning
the pipeline in other areas, in partieular regardinglocatjons where it crosses under the tracks.
Thll.'j the project description is inadequate. It should, but do~ not, give actual and true infonnation on the exact alignment
and depth at" the lines not Just adjacent to Highland Elementary School but especially with regard to wher~ th~ tra~ks cross
the pipeline. The impacts. especially at such crossing locatiQns. from construction on the-tracks and from vibration from
passing speedy Metrolink trains, are potentiall)' significant and need to be properly analyzed.
L3-4 (coni'd)
L3-5
L3-6
L3-7
L3-8
L3-9
L3-10
L3-11
92666/PVL FEIR 33 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 3 (cont'd)
Kevin Dawson
July 12, 2011
3. Staging
1be EIR... while listing severa} required lv't'iteria for its required construction staging area, fails to discuss any
feasible loeation. much less the environmental impa..."1s there.
Hcre are criteria that Ibe fIR states to be required. Its project description states, at FF.IR2 p. 2·49. 2·50 (85,&6),
"The next step would be the staging of construction materials and equipment. Where needed, the contractor
would perform rough grading for embankment changes and construction equipment access. _.. It should also
be noted that any equipment staging areas will be within disturbed area. of the ROW or RCTC
property, and not within 500 feet of environmentally sensitive areas.~ (emphasis added)
TIle EIR fails to specify whal constitute "environmentally sen'5itive areas" for this purpose. The FEIR2 adds at
p. 4.3·27 (164) (along ",th other relevant criteria)
"BMP AQ-8: Establish an onwsite construction equipment staging area and construction worker parking
rots, located on either paved s.urfaces or unpaved surfaces subject to soil stabilization," (emphasis added)
at 4.4·26 (194) (along w~h other relevant criteria)
"BR-3: Stockpiling of materia!s shall be limited to disturbed areas without native vegetation, areas to be
impacted by project development or in non~sen5itive habitats_H
and .14.10-38 (321)
"Also, staging yards wOldd be toealed strategically so as to limit the travel time for construction Crews.
These processes WQuld serve to limit the exposure radius of traffic-retaied construction noise in
sensitive are:as:" (emphasis added)
Other requirements are at FEIR2 ES-5 (19).
It should be noted that other aspects that a staging area would presumably involve, some Qf them apparently
not mentioned in the EIR, include the foHowing:
seeurity' fencing and lighting: construction traBers and restrooms; storage and use of construction materials,
equipment, vehides, supplies, water and fuel; contractor show~up and parking; and equipment and vehicle
maintenance.
Even though all the above quoted requirements and the geography of construction location, at least in the UCR
neighborhood, place severe constraints on the location of staging areas. the EIR fails to specify the proposed
location of the staging areas, construction worker parking lots. and stockpiling areas, or even a bst offeasibie
locations. That the constraints on such locations in the UCR area are severe IS evidenced by the following:
Tbe only public street access to the ROW in tht:. lJCR area is at the following streets:: Spruce. Blaine~ :\'It
Vel11Qn~ the narrow end of Big Springs Rd, the ~nd of \'Ianfidd, and Gem.;r1/Poarch. These access point'S are
widely separated, and most oft1wm traverse quiet residential neighborhoods. :Much of the area between these
access points is envirQnmentaUy sensitive (adjacent to Box Springs Res:en:e, Islander Park (a nature park),
)'fSHCP critical ('C:ILs or core areas), or immediately adjacent to residences, school.. or churches. 1he actual
ROW for much of its length in the UCR neighborhood is narrow (e.g., only 100 feet wi&' between ~t_ Vernon
and Big Springs Rd)~ and sometimes partly consisting of l>teep &lo~'i. (For a partiat deslriiption of i..'Ondition of
the ROW' in the FeR neighbomood, see FEIR2 p. 4A..ll (~179).)
It is not clear thaI there are any su~.ble areas for staging on the ROW or RCTe owned property in the UCR
neighborhood And the RO\V (5 the only ReTe-owned property in the VCR area. Thus the staging areas,
construction worker parking lots, and stockpiling areas may need to be a considerable distance away,
increasing construction equipment travel and construction crew travel through the quiet residential
neighborhood, with associated and unanalyzed environmental impacts.
Also relevant as showing what a huge additional burden the proposed PVL construction would be on the l:CR
neighborhood are the rssues nn.'lltloned in Mitigatjon :\feasure HH~1-3 (FEIRI p. O.4¥ 10 (= 755):
"HHM·3: Prior to construction RCTC shall prepare a traffic management plan. to determine detour
routes, lenglh and timing of any closures, temporary access routes, signage, coordination with police
and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes. An additional component oHhe
plan shall be coordinating with local emergency response agencies to identifY emergency evacuation
routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities ...."
The EIR fails to discuss or analyze the impact of these issues -delour roules, closures, etc. -in the
UCR neighborhood, where many residences already have very limited access, such as no-oullet
streets.
Thus the EIR's project description is deficient in failing to identifY suitable staging areas and the
impact, including from construction related traffic, of specific choices of those areaS.
L3·12
L3..13
L3·14
L3·15
926661PVL FEIR 34 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 3 (cont' d)
Kevin Dawson
July 12,2011
4. Foreseeable Expansion of Station Amenities
The failure to consider now the environmental impact of future improvements that
RCTC plans along the PVL constitutes improper deferral, segmentalion andlor evasion of
consideration of the environmental impacts. Here is evidence of ReTe's planning for future stattoo
irnprowmcnts in the RCTe Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual (as
approved by RCTC July 8, 2009, Agenda Item 8E) ("RCTC DCManual")' As stated on p. 1 oltha
Manual,
"The design and construction of the Stations along the PVL Will be funded with Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Small Starts grant monies. These monies are tied to a Cost Effective Index
(CEI) Criteria which if exceeded will result in the reduction or loss olthe funding. Therefore, RCTC is
limited by this funding as to what can be constructed on opening day of PVL Commuter Rail Service.
This DeSign Criteria Manual will outline the basic Station that can be designed and constructed for
PVL on opening day, while remaining within the limits established by the FTA funding. RCTC
recognizes that these basic design criteria may not address the various Cities, Agencies. and local
organizations expectations for a Commuter Rail Station, including the architectural look. aesthetic
L3-16
features, and amenities. RCTC will work with these groups, the State, and Federal Governments to
identify and procure other funding sources 10 deSign and construct add~ional Architectural and
Aesthetics Features and expand the Station Amenities after the opening day of the Station and
outside of the FT A funding. The current budget estimates the total station costs including
parking to average approximately $S million, this compares to most recent North Main Corona
Station construction costs of $10 million in 2002." (emphasis added)
Thus RCTC plans improvements to the four stations included in the present PVL version subsequent
to the PVL opening day. By statute, "modernization of existing stations and parking facilities" for
passenger rail is exempt from CEQA. However, new stations and parking facilities are not exempt.
For the proposed PVL stations, what is considered in the SEA Is a basic or stripped down version of
the facilities in order to maximize FTA Small Starts grant money. However the above quote from the
RCTC Manual shows that RCTC plans to improve the facilities later, indeed to "expand the Station
Amenities aller the opening day of the Station and outside ofthe FTA funding", thus doing It when It
can be done without Federal funding and so exempt from NEPA oswell as CEQA, thus evading
consideration of the full environmental impact of the planned facilities. 'Jole that the
subsequent "expanded amenities" to the facilities are not only reasonably foreseeable but would be
substantial, as shown by the difference between the $6 million cost for facilities as proposed in the
SEA and the .$10 million cost in 2002 for the North Main Corona Station. Indeed the .$10 million in
2002 dollars likely translates to $12 million in 2012 dollars, SO Ihe expanded version will cost about
twice as much as Ihe stripped down version and so can be expected to have substantially more
environmental impact which needs to analyzed as part 01 the ProJect.
The potential environmental impact of such future improvements is accentuated by the fact thet, as
the RCTC DCManual states at pp. 30,31:
"The Preliminary Engineering for the PVL Project determined that the proposed South Perris
Station is located in a 100 year Itood plain. During a 100 year storm event it was determined
that the station would be under Sleet olwater." L3·18Additional evidence that future station improvements are reasonably foreseeable: on p. 21 of the
RCTC DCManual, it states
'The base station design must include the construction of SCRRA's required 680-foot long platfonn
and must be designed to accommodate the future expansion of the platform to SSO-feet with
minimal impact to items constructed as part of the base design." (emphasis added)
I ["hould he nmed That. "" sTilled in the SEA at p. 3_13-2 (~372).
·'Th.e ReTC Commuter RBlt and ;"Iu:ltn':l;:)da~ Factlity :;:)estgn Critena }'£anJ3: was :.leveklped to ~st(;.blis3. the <.ii:slgtt3Uidclines tc b~
cscd fo, future faci;itlet:i. This ::nanual prQY!des guidehne:> fer d'::'lelcpmg commute: ,ai~ stations, park and ride facihttes, and
multll"Uodal trarulitccnters &vdoped by RCTe"
92666/PVL FEIR 35 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 3 (cont'd)
Kevin Dawson
July 12, 2011
6. Foreseeable Construction 01 Maintenance Road '\
The EIR fails to consider the reasonably foreseeable construction of a maintenance road for the PVl, \
in violation of CEQA. Here is evidence that such construction is reasonably foreseeable. •
The ReTe DC~lanual. at p. 15, state, .
"All requirements outline (sic) In SCRRA Design Criteria Manual' section 7.5.3 shall be applied to
RCTC Station design with the following addITional requirements.
Along the PVL aU att-empt'i. should be made to provide Ii maintenance road along the track alignment with
ac«ss points from adjacent City. County Str.;:ets, or ReTe owned property.'· (emphasis .added)
The SCRRA Design Critena Manual, at p. 59, states:
"S.11.2 SCRRA Maintenance Vehicle Access
Maintenance vehicle acoess, particularly to turnouts, Signals, and curve lubricalors', shall be
provided. These typically creale berms or "ditch blocks" across drainages. The designer shall provide
culverts or storm sewers, including the use of drop inlets and manholes, as necessary to provide
continuous drainage on SCRRA ROW." (emphasis and Iootnote added)
The FEIR2 p. 2-51 (;/l7).state.
"RCTC anticipates that project maintenance will be according to SCRRAlMerrolink
standard practices."
L3-19The appropriate lime to construct such a maintenance road would be during construction of new or
replacement track so that ~ could be used then, in particular for the use of some of the equipment that
is planned to be used during track improvemen!. Thus Response L3-6, citing the A~ Quality Technical
Re po rt. notes that
"For example, for the track construction, the analysis assumed that 1.000 feet of track would be laid
per day, wITh an estimated number of 131 total days. One end loader, backhoe, track laying machine
(TLM), track tamper, and ballast regulator would each be used for eight hours a day. One railroad car
would be used for six hours a day and one dynamic track stabilizer would be used for four hours a
day. Lastly, one water truck, one dump truck, and one welder's truck would be used for nine hourn a
day:
Construction of such a maintenance road is made more necessary by the facts (as noled above in the
comments on staging) that, at least in the UCR neighborhood portion of the ROW, access points from
public streets are velY limfted and much of the ROW is narrow and either on a ra,sed embankment or
conslricled by steep slopes. The Construction, operation, and maintenance of the required 20 plus
miles of such a maintenance road, including possible grading and even blasting of existing hard
granite rock slopes close to !he traCKS near some of the tight curves in the UCR neighborhood, would
have significant enVironmental impacts.
The DEIR, at p. 2-44. does say !hat, duting construction, "Whe", noeded.the contraclorwould portonn }
rough grading for embankment changes and construction equipment aocess K Here. the phrase ~\Nhere
needed" is vague and unspecific. It fails to adequately describe the locations or extent of such "rough L3·20
grading" and its enVironmental impacts (note that much of it would be near environmentally sensitive
areas and residences. schools or churches). Nor does such "rough grading" address the SCRRA
Design Criteria Manual's requirement, quoted above, to provide proper drainage, The EIR fails to
mention the required actual maintenance road, much less analyze the associated impacts. This is an
additional inadequacy in the project description. If portions of DC Manual's required maintenance
road are only to be constructed after the PVL opening day, then that would constitute Improper L3-21
segmentationideferral of the erwironmental review.
Thank you for your consideration and inciusion in the public record.
Kevin Dawson
269 Goins Ct., Riverside CA 92507
951 "781-0386 h kevindaw@aol.com
2 A,. stated in th. SE.... p. 3.13·2 (~3n), ''11Ie SCRRA Design Criteria Manuai servestQ defUlOthe procedures
that govern the initiation, progress and execution ofdesign work for the SeRRA."
3 Note that the PVL does plan to use curve lubricators in connection with its many tight~radius <:ucves.
92666IPVL FEIR 36 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LEITERS
Response to Letter 3
Kevin Dawson
July 12, 2011
As an initial matter, CEOA does not require that RCTC respond to this comment letter. (See
State CEOA Guidelines, § 15088(a) (responses not required where letters are received after
close of CEOA comment period).) Moreover, it should be noted that this comment letter was not
submitted until immediately prior to close of business on July 12th, the afternoon prior to the
July 13th noticed public meeting at which the Project is to be considered. Nonetheless, RCTC is
providing these responses in order to provide a complete and accurate record.
L3-1. The comment is introductory in nature and expresses that Mr. Dawson represents,
the UCR Neighborhood, and the Friends of the Riverside Hills. The comment does
not raise any specific environmental concerns. Thus, no further response is required
(See State CEOA Guidelines, §15088 (responses should address comments on
"environmental issues")).
L3-2. This comment provides a geographic description of what he considers the UCR
Neighborhood. Additionally, Mr. Dawson indicates that the Friends of the Riverside
Hills is a California non-profit corporation. The comment does not raise any specific
environmental concerns. Thus, no further response is required (See State CEOA
Guidelines, §15088 (responses should address comments on "environmental
issues")).
L3-3. Commenter alleges that the EIR is deficient because there are "a number of
potentially significant impacts that the EIR fails to consider or fails to analyze
adequately, including impacts for which consideration is segmented, deferred, and/or
evaded entirely." In this introductory comment, the Commenter does not specifically
list out the deficiencies in the EIR or the impacts that the EIR fails to analyze. To the
extent that the balance of Com menter's letter specifically addresses environmental
issues, those environmental issues are addressed in tum in Responses to L2-3
through L2-17 below. (See State CEOA Guidelines, §15088 (responses should
address comments on "environmental issues"); Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City of San
Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852 (where a general comment is made, a general
response is sufficient).)
Moreover, Commenter alleges generally that the deficiencies in the EI R require that
the EIR be recirculated. Commenter does not specify or explain the bases upon
which Commenter believes that recirculation is necessary. No new significant
impacts or new mitigation measures have been added to the EIR after the time that it
was circulated for public review and prior to certification. (State CEOA Guidelines
§ 15088.5.) Moreover, it is clear under CEOA that recirculation is not required where
information is added to an EIR that merely clarifies or amplifies the eXisting analysis.
(Ibid.) Thus, none of the circumstances requiring recirculation of the EIR have been
triggered. (See also Master Response #11 -Recirculate EIR and the CEOA
Process.)
L3-4. Commenter references the Supplemental Environmental Assessment prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") for the Perris Valley Line
Project. It should be noted that NEPA and CEOA are separate and distinct laws with
92666/PVL FEIR 37 July 2011
FINAL ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
separate and distinct standards and processes. The SEA and the DEIR are stand
alone documents. Commenter's attempts to use language in the SEA to discredit or
attack analysis in the DEIR is misplaced.
Contrary to the com menter's claim, the Project description is both fully adequate
under CEQA and internally consistent. The commenter implies that by stating the
ballast rock will be added "as required" is being ambiguous. In fact the ballast rock is
used to level the railroad ties to which the rail is attached. Since there is no way to
say exactly how much ballast rock is necessary to provide a level surface for the
track, the term "as required" was used. Regardless, the quantities of ballast rock
used will be very minor since the existing ballast rock is not being removed. (See
Revised Draft EIR p. 2-50 [construction would distribute additional ballast to level the
tracks].) Accordingly, the EIR presents a full analysis of the Project's potential
environmental impacts based on an adequate Project description. Moreover, CEQA
does not require a Project description to be absolutely exhaustive, as the commenter
implies. To the contrary, CEQA specifically states that an EIR "should not supply
extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental
impact." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15124.) To that end, the EIR should provide only
"a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental
characteristics." (Ibid.)
Despite the EIR's compliance with CEQA's requirements, and to further clarify in
response to comments, the track will be upgraded (in other words, completely
reconstructed) with concrete ties, new welded rail, and new ballast from MP 1.40 to
MP 5.10 (approximately Marlborough Avenue south to Poarch Road). The EIR
presented this information at Revised Draft EIR p. 2-14. This is the area with the
sharp curves.
From MP 5.10 to MP 7.00 (approximately Poarch Road to Box Springs Boulevard),
the track is in an area of more moderate geometry (i.e. larger radius curvature) and
in moderate to good condition. Therefore, only those ties needing replacement will
be replaced. Ballast will be added as needed to restore the track to proper alignment
and sound structural condition. The EIR also presented this information at Revised
Draft EIR p. 2-14.
The depth of proposed construction related to the Project is not significantly greater
than the original construction of the track (i.e. previous disturbance). The track is not
proposed to be lowered or significantly realigned. (Revised Draft EIR p. 4.5-10 ["the
proposed PVL project will not modify the setting and engineering of the track"].)
Where there may be subsurface work will be at the station locations and at the Citrus
Connection, as identified in the Draft EIR.(See, e.g., Revised Draft EIR p. 4.5-16.)
Since these areas are identified as having the potential to contain paleontological
resources, mitigation measure CR-3 is required. (Revised Draft EIR p. 4.5-13.) This
mitigation measure requires a paleontological monitor to witness excavation work
and recover paleontological resources in these areas. (Revised Draft EIR p. 4.5-16.)
Any area where the excavation will be four feet or greater in depth, requires
paleontological monitoring. (Ibid.)
926661PVL FEIR 38 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
With regard to the comment on the jet fuel pipeline, please see Responses to
Comments L3-7 and L3-8, below, and Master Response # 2.
L3-5. Construction will occur, as with most construction projects, during the day during the
week. The noise analysis specifically considered impacts to sensitive receptors such
as residences, churches, and schools. (Revised Draft EI R pp. 4.10-27 et seq.)
However, that analysis shows that, following the imposition of mitigation, no
potentially significant noise impacts will occur as a result of the Project. (Revised
Draft EIR p. 4.10-32.) Further, and for certain tasks, particularly at the grade
crossings, work will need to proceed until complete in order to return the crossing to
working order as soon as possible for safety purposes. Although construction work is
currently planned to be limited to the hours permitted by local noise ordinances,
should this work extend beyond the regular working day it will require a variance
from the local jurisdiction.(Final EIR Master Response #6.) Even if night-time noise
does occur, however, those noise levels will not be Significant, and contractors will
be required to use noise control measures as part of construction. (Final EIR Master
Response #6.) Specifically, contractors will use temporary construction noise
barriers, low noise emission equipment, acoustic enclosures, and other measures
that will prevent any significant noise impacts from occurring.(/bid.)
L3-6. The commenter correctly indicates that in the Draft EIR page 4.10.43, the location
reference should be Highland School and not Hyatt as indicated. It should be noted
that at the start of that sentence the stationing location information provided is
correct. Further, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan proposed for adoption
by RCTC correctly identifies that location as "north of Highland Elementary School"
and, if RCTC approves the Project and adopts the MMRP, will thus bind RCTC to
implement mitigation in the appropriate area. Accordingly, this minor typographical
error is not prejudicial and has been appropriately corrected in the proposed MMRP.
L3-7. The commenter claims that there is "inadequate description of location and depth of
Jet Fuel Pipeline near construction." Additional information regarding the pipeline is
provided within the Final EIR, Master Response #2, Kinder Morgan Pipeline
Segment Near Highland School. The commenter incorrectly claims that the location
and depth of the pipeline weren't adequately considered. Within the Draft EIR, on
page 4.7-1, is a description of where the pipeline is located with the RCTC/SJBL
ROW. The referenced paragraph indicates that the pipeline is located both within
and outside of the RCTC/SJBL ROW.
In regards to the depth of the pipeline within the ROW, a "pot hole" study was
conducted, as a standard engineering practice, to identify the exact location of any
utility. See Response L3-8, below, for a more detailed discussion of the results of
that study. Outside of the existing rail ROW, it is not a concern of the project
regarding where the pipeline is located because the Project would have no effect on
it. The reference to the pipeline being completely exposed is outside the rail ROW
and therefore not addressed by this project.
The commenter references a previous comment letter submitted by Raymond
Johnson, which indicated that someone outside of the ROW encountered the Kinder
Morgan pipeline while doing home improvements. The commenter infers that
because the pipeline was not previously identified in this area, how can the pipeline
92666/PVL FEIR 39 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
location be determined anywhere? This is a false premise since the previously
mentioned "pot hole" study determines the pipelines exact location, depth and plan
view. (E.g., Final EIR pp. 0.3.1-4, 0.3.1-7.) This same information is gathered lor all
utilities located within the RCTC/SJBL ROW, so that conflicts with existing utilities
will be minimized during construction. In fact, any minor relocations 01 public utilities
will actually be done by contractors hired directly by the utility owners. (Revised Draft
EIR p. 2-49.) With regard to the pipeline, there are various depths mentioned for the
pipeline because the "pot hole" study determined that the pipeline was at variOUS
depths in different locations. (E.g., Final EIR pp. 0.3.1-4, 0.3.1-7.) At the pipelines
most shallow depth it is 2 feet, 4 inches deep, and at the deepest it is close to 10
leet. (Pothole Study Results.) The reason lor the difference is because of local
topography, but also localized erosion within the ROW. Regardless, substantial
evidence in the record shows that there will not be any potentially Significant impact
to the Kinder Morgan pipeline as a result of the Project. Not only did the Draft EtR
analyze the potential for impacts and conclude that no significant impacts would
result (Revised Draft EIR p. 4.7-12), but the Zeta Tech Report further confirms that
the Project will not create a potentially significant salety risk related to the pipeline.
(Zeta Tech Report p. 5.) Moreover, and even though not required by either federal
law or to reduce potentially significant impacts, RCTC has nonetheless agreed to
add material atop the pipeline alignment in the area of Highland Elementary School
where the pipeline is less than three feet below the surface. (Final EIR p. 0.3.1-7.)
Ultimately, all construction in the area of the Kinder Morgan Pipeline would be
required to comply with all safety regulation and Kinder Morgan's Guidelines lor
Design and Construction near Kinder Morgan Hazardous Liquid Operating Facilities.
(Final EIR p. 0.3.2-66.)
L3-8. The locations and depths of the Kinder Morgan pipeline where it crosses under the
track are indicated below. (PVL Pothole Study, January 2011.)At all these locations,
the pipeline is encased in a 12-inch steel pipe casing that will protect it from all
construction activities and proposed Metrolink service, including the vibration effects
mentioned by the commenter.
MP 3.15 (approximately 1 ,300-feet west of Mt. Vernon Avenue). Depth of pipe where
it crosses the track is 8.74-leet (from base 01 rail to top of casing pipe). There are
residences adjacent to the railroad right-of-way in this area.
MP 4.81 (approximately l,200-feet south of the Hyatt School area). Depth of pipe
where it crosses the track is 7.16-feet (from base of rail to top of casing pipe). There
are no residences or other development in this area.
MP 6.70 (approximately 2,600-leet north River Crest Drive). Depth of pipe where it
crosses the track is 4.67-leet (from base 01 rail to top of casing pipe). There are no
residences in this area.
MP 7.76 (approximately l,800-feet south of Eastridge Avenue). Depth of pipe where
it crosses the track is 12.20-leet (Irom base of rail to top 01 casing pipe). There are
no residences in this area.
More specifically with regard to the comment on vibration, it should be noted that the
pipeline is already an existing condition within the rail corridor, and that freight train
92666/PVL FEIR 40 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L3·9.
L3·10.
L3-11.
L3-12.
traffic already uses the corridor for deliveries. These conditions are part of the
existing baseline conditions against which the Project's environmental effects are to
be measured. (State CEOA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) Even assuming that commuter
trains go faster than freight trains, the ultimate energy generated by a commuter train
is much less than that of a freight train due to the commuter train's shorter length and
lighter weight (Zeta Tech Report at p. 7 [even where commuter train is assumed to
exceed freight train speed by 50%, the total energy of the commuter train is still only
62.6% that of a freight train].) Thus, it is a reasonable assumption predicated upon
facts that any vibrational energy from a commuter train would likewise be far less
than that of the existing freight train traffic. This constitutes substantial evidence
supporting the conclusion that vibrational effects of the commuter trains to the
pipeline (to the extent that are any at all) will be less than significant because they
will not result in any effect greater than the existing baseline condition. (See, e.g.,
State CEOA Guidelines, § 15384 [substantial evidence includes reasonable
assumptions predicated upon facts].)
It is quite possible to do track construction work at a location where the track crosses
over the pipeline without impacting the pipeline, and that is what the project proposes
to do. The pipeline was originally built at a depth and offset to the track that is within
mandated requirements. As part of the PVL improvements, the track will not be
lowered or significantly realigned; therefore, there is no reason to believe there would
be an impact on the pipeline due to track rehabilitation activities. At locations where
construction (not track construction, but rather noise barriers) is proposed in the
vicinity of the pipeline, the pipeline will be exposed to ensure work in that area is
done in accordance with proper design standards and safety precautions in
accordance with Kinder Morgan criteria and sound engineering practice.(Final EIR p.
0.3.2-66; see also Response to Comment L3-7, above, and Final EIR Master
Response # 2 for additional Project features that prevent impacts.)
The intent of the Zeta Tech Report was to calculate the potential risk of the PVL
project to the two school locations (Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools) in direct
response to the requests and comments from RUSD and others. It was not intended
to calculate the risk along the entire pipeline alignment as the commenter implies,
although its conclusions and analysis can be generally applied to other segments of
the pipeline since the Report concludes that the effects associated with commuter
rail are generally less than those of the existing baseline freight traffic, even in areas
with steep grades and curvatures. (See Zeta Tech Report pp. 5, 8.)
The pipeline is an existing condition for the project. Exact locations, within inches, do
not change the fact that the pipeline is already located within the existing rail corridor,
as identified. The route is also described where it leaves the ROW, reenters, and
then leaves again. The Final EIR, page 0.3.1-4, Master Response #2 -Kinder
Morgan Pipeline Alignment Near Highland Elementary School provides a description
of the Kinder Morgan requirements for work near the pipeline. See also Responses
to Comment L3·7 and L3-8, above.
Exact locations for construction staging for the PVL, as with all construction staging if
left to the discretion of the construction contractor. However, the condition put on the
construction contractor is that there can be no additional environmental impacts
related to construction staging and project access. Additionally, these staging
92666/PVL FEIR 41 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L3-13.
L3-14.
L3-1S.
areas, require the approval of RCTC prior to any use for the project.Moreover, and as
the Commenter admits, the staging areas must be in the existing, disturbed ROW
and not any closer than 500 feet of an environmentally sensitive habitat. (Final EIR p.
2-49, 2-S0.) Thus, no potentially significant impacts will occur as a result of the
staging area citing. See Response to Comment L3-13, below, for a discussion of
environmentally sensitive areas.
The commenter requests that the terms "environmentally senSitive area" be defined.
An "environmentally sensitive area", is as the term implies, is a designation for areas
of environmental sensitivity. Many of these areas whether related to cultural or
biological resources, have been identified on the engineering drawing sheets so that
the project contractor can adjust proposed work and work schedules, as necessary
in these areas. As examples, the EIR identifies buffer zones around active bird nests,
limits impacts to jurisdiction waters, install exclusionary fencing for any cultural finds,
halt construction activities nearby located paleontological finds, and exclude all
activities nearby the discovery of any human remains. (E.g., Revised Draft EIR pp.
4.4-27,4.4-28, 4.S-15, 4.5-16.) Each one of these are examples of "sensitive" areas
within which construction staging areas would not be permitted.
With regard to the com menter's examples of best management practices, mitigation
measures, and Project features that prevent and mitigate for environmental impacts,
the purpose of the comment is vague. Without further clarification, RCTC cannot
provide any further response. (Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City of San Jose (1986) 181
Cal.App.3d 852 (where a general comment is made, a general response is
sufficient).) However, it should be noted that the examples given by the commenter
confirm that the Project is subject to a number of conditions and mitigation
measures, all of which help to prevent, avoid, or mitigate for impacts. Accordingly,
the com menter's examples actually support the conclusion that impacts are less than
significant.
This comment implies that a project staging area will be located within the UCR
neighborhood. The exact locations of the project staging area will be determined by
the project contractor with approval by RCTC. The constraint placed on the
contractor is that no additional environmental impacts may occur as a result of the
project staging areas. The commenter also implies that because there is no large
area available for staging in the UCR area that construction traffic will become a
burden for the area. Workers will need to travel into the area to complete the work on
the noise barriers, landscape walls, and rail related work. They do not need to travel
everyday through this area to complete work on other segments of the project. See
Response to Comment L3-13, above, for further discussion of staging area
restrictions. Moreover, it should be noted that construction staging areas will be
localized along the route. Thus, construction equipment and workers undertaking
construction activities in Perris, for example, won't be staged out of the UCR
neighborhood as the commenter implies. Therefore, the EIR's existing analySiS is
fully adequate under CEQA.
There will be very limited impact due to proposed road closures. To accomplish all of
the grade crossing improvements needed, only one road closure (each estimated at
only two days or less) will be peliormed at any given time during construction for
each grade crossing within the City of Riverside, with a clearly identified detour route
926661PVL FEIR 42 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
that will maintain accessibility to all residences and properties. (Revised Draft EIR p.
4.7-17.) Each road closure is expected to last two days or less. The EIR fully
analyzed potential construction impacts, specifically including effects to emergency
access in the UCR Neighborhood and other areas, and construction-related traffic.
(Revised EIR pp. 4.7-17 through 4.7-18 and 4.11-34 [emergency access impacts
analysis and mitigation], 4.11-33 through 4.11-42 [construction traffic analysis and
mitigation].) Ultimately, the EIR shows why all construction related impacts are less
than significant with mitigation. Additionally, the Final EIR sets for the additional
detailed information regarding emergency access issues during the construction
phase, further addresses the UCR neighborhood, and confirms that any impacts will
not be potentially significant. (Final EIR Master Response #7.)
L3-16. RCTC is not tempting to evade the requirements of CEQA or NEPA with planning
and implementation of the PVL project as the commenter states. RCTC has planned
the current stations based on the ridership numbers identified for the project. The
platforms will be 680 feet long (Draft EIR, page 2-15) to accommodate a set of four
train cars (with locomotive). Should ridership increase to the point that additional
train cars need to be added to each train, then station platforms expansions may be
proposed to allow passenger access to each car. However, no luture expansions are
currently proposed or planned, and the timing for any potential expansions that may
be merited in the future is many years away and, ultimately, unknown. Accordingly,
to try and undertake an analysis of what a future plan of potential expansion might be
is completely speculative and not part of this Project. (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15145 [CEQA does not require speculation].) See also Responses to Comment L2-4,
L3-17, and L3-18 herein, for additional discussion on this topic. Additionally, RCTC
has committed to supplemental environmental review should the PVL stations
require expansion or new ones proposed.
L3-17. The commenter implies that there are additional facilities that are part of the PVL
project that are not evaluated with this environmental impact report. RCTC has not
funded any additional facilities for the PVL Additionally, and even if RCTC wanted to
propose an expansion in the future, prior to any commitment of funds, the project is
required to be placed on the STIP list. Once on the list then RCTC can determine the
appropriate funding level lor individual proposed project. No proposed expansions
have even been placed on STIP list, much less allocated any funding for construction
as the commenter implies. Again, no future expansions are currently proposed or
planned, and the timing for any potential expansions that may be merited in the
future is many years away and, ultimately, unknown. Accordingly, to try and
undertake an analysis of what a future plan of potential expansion might be is
completely speculative and not part of this Project. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15145
[CEQA does not require speculation].) See also Responses to Comment L2-4, L3
16, and L3-18 herein, for additional discussion on this topiC. Additionally, RCTC has
committed to supplemental environmental review should the PVL stations require
expansion or new ones proposed.
L3-18. The fact that the RCTC DC Manual requires that station design must accommodate
future expansion to 850-feet with minimal impact to items constructed as part of the
base design is just sound long range planning in the event that future rail service
demands warrant such expansion. It does not indicate when or even if such
expansion will ever be implemented and it oertainly does not "commif' RCTC to any
926661PVL FEIR 43 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L3-19.
L3-20.
L3-21.
such expansion at any point in the future as the commenter incorrectly alleges.
Again, no future expansions are currently proposed or planned, and the timing for
any potential expansions that may be merited in the future is many years away and,
ultimately, unknown. Accordingly, to try and undertake an analysis of what a future
plan of potential expansion might be is completely speculative and not part of this
Project (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15145 [CEQA does not require speculation].)
See also Responses to Comment L2-4, L3-16, and L3-17 herein, for additional
discussion on this topic. Additionally, RCTC has committed to supplemental
environmental review should the PVL stations require expansion or new ones
proposed.
In regards to the commenter's limited statement that the South Perris Station is
within the 1 DO-year flood plain, the statement is correct, and the EIR fully disclosed
and analyzed all potential impacts aSSOCiated with that condition. See the Draft EIR,
page 4.8-17.
The commenter fails to understand that the SCRRA Design Criteria Manual is a
starting point for track and facility design. In many cases exceptions to the Design
Criteria Manual are proposed, discussed, and eventually approved by SCRRA during
the project design stage. These exceptions may relate to; constrained ROW, local
topography, or environmental sensitive areas. Therefore, even though the Design
Manual indicates that a maintenance road is preferable along the entire route, this
Project does not include one because 01 the above mentioned constraints. Instead,
the PVL project will simply maintain maintenance roads along the railroad track only
where they currently exist (See generally Revised Draft EIR p. 2-51 [maintaining
existing ROW has been an ongoing activity in the past].) This will minimize grading
work and impacts to the existing right-ol-way. Accordingly, and to be clear, a
maintenance road along the entire route is simply not a part of the Project and, thus,
there was no requirement to analyze one. The full impacts 01 the complete Project
were fully set forth and analyzed in the EIR as required by CEQA.
See comment response L3-12.
As stated in comment response L3--19, the PVL project does not include the
construction of a maintenance road along the entire alignment. Accordingly, the
commenter is incorrect regarding the Project description and, thus, no improper
segmentation or deferral has occurred.
926661PVL FEIR 44 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
letter 4
len Nunney
July 12, 2011
12"' July , 2011
To: Riverside County Transportation Commission
Re : Comments on Perris Valley Line Environmental Impact Reportfor the Perris Valley Line , Riverside County ,
Calrtornia , Agenda Item 10 (13th July 2011 meeting).
Fr: Friends 01 Riverside 's Hills
We w ould like to take this opportunity of further commenting on the proposed developmen t of the Perris Va ley
line. }",In response to our lastletter of 6 Jan 2011 (and our ea~ier letter of 24 May 2010), we would like to respond and
add some additional concerns .
Despite my statements in that prior letter that I had been observing the spadefoot toad populations for severa l
years in the UCR neighborhood area, the response was that there were no reported occurrences within the
MSHCP area between 2005 and 2008 ; however, this is not true since in February 2008 I (and not Friends of
Riverside 's Hills as stated in the response ) reported to the RCA the following information on breeding sites :
L4-2
This map shows the GPS locatio n s of 6 vernal pools alongside t he railway track.s (piUS two others that are set
back from the tracks) in the UC R neighborhood . Crt these 6 pools, 5 regularly contain spadefoot toad tadpoles , 2
o f w hich pr oduce metamorp hs alm ost every year. It was sent to Ka ri n Cleary-Rose (at that time heading the
MSHC P mon itori n g ) at the U S FWS and her response wa s.
"T he info rma tion you ga ve us la st t ime Is eno ug h fo r us to enter the re cord into our databas e :' (28 Feb 2008)
A photo of t he a rea of t he tw o most i mpo rta nt poo l s (ta ken 16 Marc h 2010 ) IS show n be low T he poo l at map
lo cat ion 04 7 130513758369 IS show n in the foregrou nd, T he second, more producti v e poo l , is in the area hIdde n L4-3by th e cu rv e of the track. The second pictu re shows a metamorph spadefoot toad at that second po ol take n on 14
Ap r il 201 0. I hav e photographic records of the tadpoles in thes e pools from 2004-2011. I should add t hat my
expertise as a Professor of Biology at the Uni versity of Califor ma Riv erside lNaS noted In the prev ious letter ,
9266 6/PVL FEIR 45 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETIERS
Letter 4 (cont'd)
Len Nunney
July 12, 2011
It can be seen haw close these breeding sites are to lI1e tracks, and the fact thai track replaoement is apparently
expected, and yet lI1e Supplementary Emlimnmental Assessment (SEA) and Emlironmentallmpact Report (EIR)
take no account of the possible serious damage to these breeding areas that staging or other impacts to this area
would cause -not just in the breeding season but at other limes as well (see pf'e'llitKlS letter).
other covered speaes may also be impacted. SEA 3.14-21 notes that there is available habitat f(l" burrowing owl
as well as Cali1ilmia coastal gnatcatoher where the ROW expands between MP 4.0 and MP 5.0 near Poarch
Road. These impacts have been dismissed without consideration of changes due to the increased Iraflic
(especially noise) and lO<:ation of staging areas.
Wildfires caused by sparks from InIins
Over the years there have been numercus wildland fires on or near the Box Springs Mountain that have started in
the vicinity of the SJBL. Mile the cause of any particular one of these fires is generally unknown, it is generally
considered likely that many of them haw been caused by sparks from passing freight rrains. In places the
superelevation of the fracks at tight curves in the UCR neighborhood is less than that normally called for to
balance the forces of a train going around such a curve (which also is dependent on train speed). That means
that there is extra friction as the train wheels press against the rail curve, which can produce sparks. The FEIR
Appendix C Noise and Vibration Technical Report at p. 23 says
"wayside applicators will be installed as part of project implementatioo in all areas of the corridor with short
radius curves. Wayside applicata-s apply a fi"iction control material to the top ofthe rail and the gage face to
reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal." (emphasis added)
As noted elsewhere in the record., there are a lot of very short radius (i.e., very tight) curves on the SJBL in the
vicinity of the Box Springs Mountains. Metal to metal fi"fction, i.e. wheel against rail, even "reduced", can still
produce sparks which can lead to a wildfire.
The faster speed and larger number of passenger trains, as compared to the freight trains, means increased
likelihood of such sparks, and thus a higher likelihood of train-caused wildfires. The EIR ndes the hazard of
wildland lires in the wand generally and in the vicinity of the PVL, but fails to note any relationship to the passage
of trains. or that such passages can cause such fires.
Thus SE.4. at p. 3.8-6, in an expanded version of material on DEIR p. 4.7-2, states
"Wildland Fires
VVildland fires pose a hazard to the public and environment adjacent to or intermixed W"ith urban areas. A
wildfire is any unoontrotled, non-structure lire that occurs in the wilderness, wildland, or bush. Wildfires are
common in various parts ofthe wand, occulTing in cydes. They are often considered beneficial to the
wilde mess, as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction. Wldfires
differ from other fires only by their extensive size, the
L4-3 (cont'd)
L4-4
92666/PVL FEIR 46 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
I "'Tlor 4 (cont'd)
Len Nunney
July 12, 2011
st=eed at which it spreads out from its onglnal source, its ability to change direction uneXl=Ected~y. and to
jump gaps, such as roads, nvers and fire breaks. According to the National Fire and Aviation Executive
Board"s "Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire Policy". wildfires generally
do not Involve properties; however, with extensive urbanlzatiol"1 of Wilderness. they can cause extensive
destruction of flomes and other property located; n the wildland-urban interface, a zone of trans:ticn beN/een
developed areas and undeveloped wilderness. "
I~ oa1icular there are numerous homes in the vicinity of the PVL where it passes Box Spriflds Mountain that are
at ~isk from a wilda nd fire 11 the area, ard such fires in this area have occurred frequentty in the pasr (including
one so far t'1tS year. forturately cornro;led before it had burned very many acres)
A related and very important issue that IS comp!etely ignored tty the SEA is that In !his Increasingly urbanized
area Wildfires are no longer considered benefiCial Much of the area adjacent to and uphill from the PVL In the
UCR neighborhood: area forms part of the Western Riverside Muftlple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCPj.
speoifically the Box Springs Mountains (Non~ContjgUQUS Habitat Block A of the MSHCP) and the linkage
(Proposed Constrained Linkage 7) retween Sycamore Ga:1Yon Park (Core Area D) and the Box Sprirgs which
actually crosses the tracks, Evjdence that increased wildfire is NOT beneficial to the 5UrrCll'1clng native habitat
(Rlvers!dean sage scrub ge'1eraHy referred to as coastal sage scrub) is provided in the MSHCP documentation:
'Published hterature doc..ments conversion of frequently bur~ed chaparral and coastal sage scrub to grasslal'1d
('.(eely 1990_ Zedler et al. 1983)~ MSI-<CP '1011 sec 5 p5-4, to which :t should te added that the grassland In
re~rred to IS non-native grassland,
FEIR2 p. 4.7-2 (=p233) stat ••
"'The Western Riverside County Natural Hazard Olsclosure Map (Fire Map) proVided try the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) was reviewed to determine the suscepttbtHly of the PVL
corridor to forest fire nsks and hazards (CDFFP, 2(00). According to the Fire Map, a sectio~ of t:1e PVL
corridor. east of Mt Vemon Ave:'lue to t:'le 1-215/SR-6G Interchange (near 130.:.: Spnngs Mo~ntain) is S'1own to
be :n a wl~d!and area that may contajl1 stbstantia( forest fire risks and hazards Pursuant to Section 4125 of
the PRe and rect;.lre~rts of maintenance listed in Section 4291 of the serre code, t1e O'Nner of the
prope1.y is the responsj~e pa1.y for maintaining fire fXotection services unless CDFFP has en:ered Into a
cooperatjve agreement with a local agency for this area pursuant to Section 4142 of the pqC. Th:s area of
Box Springs Maurita]:': has been incorporated into a Wldfire Management Plan, ard is under state of
California resp:mslbihty for fire protection The remainder of the PVL corridor and adjacent propEtrtles are )1
located jn de\te.loped areas not shown wnhin substantial fire risks or hazards.
The FEIR2 at P 4.7~17 ("'p248) asks and answers as follows
'WOJId the prqect ex/X)S8 people or structures fo a significant nsk of foss, injury or death fnvoomg W}tdfand
fires. including wtJem Vl/J{d(af'!ds are aq·acent to urbanize::i areas or where residences are fntermfxed with
1Nf!dfands
A sect jon of the PVL co71dor east of Mt Vernon Aven'Je :0 the i-21S/SR -€o Interchange :s shown to be In a
WI~d!and arE"-i3 that rra\o' corta;n substantia! forest fire riSks and ~azardS This area of Ebx Springs Mounta:n
Rese:ve ~as teen incorporated Into a VVl:dfjre Management pian, and is u!"1der state of cailfornia
responsibl illy for fire protection.
Evacuation plans caused to be put 1nto effect by a wildland fire may be affected dunng construction activities
because the proposed project will be temporarily closing s.treets or grade crOSSings will be temporarily c!osed
or re-routed !n this area_ Routil1e op€!ration and malmenanc:e of the PVL COrridor would not interfere wrth
dai:y operc:tlons at the grade crossings and streets aSSOCiated with these crossings. There would be no
impact wrth mitigation II; place (Mitigation measure HHM·4).'
(hHM·4 rrerely says to see HHIl..J -CEIR2 p. 0,4-10 t"" p755)" wtIich states in relevant pa:t that there will be an
Plan ~tc :denb7'y emergency evacuabon routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilnles" )
Thus, wh,ie the ElR (and SEA) mentlors the ~of wl!dfires, It fails to consider ~ofwildflres, and in
particular fails to consider the passage or MetroUnk trains as a potential cause ofwtldfirS. Us diSCUSSion
notes only that owners of property pLt at addItional hazard from Wildland fires caused by PVL trains (e 9 , from
sparks) are responsible for mamtamlng fIre protection se:vrce8. That's like blaming the w::tim. No state law
exempts from responSibility the person or entity ~a wildfire
L4-4 (cont'd)
L4-5
L4-6
92666/PVL FEIR 47 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Lel:ler 4 (cont'd)
Len Nunney
July 12, 2011
The SEA falls to analyze the actual hazards from PVL train operation, construction or maintenanee in the }
nearby areas at high wildland fire risk, nor does it consider any possible mitigation for such hazards.
L4-6 (cont'd) (HHM~4 concerns effects of PVL construction on existing emergency resf,X)nse and evacuation routes, and does
rot address reduction in causes of w;ldfires or minimizing damage from trLem. Nor do any of the other of the EIR\s
proposed mitigation n;easures.}
Collfllcl with MSHCP: Poarch Road Fencing
The main issue here is that the EIR faifs to consider the conflict bet.veen the Project's ~anned fencing (at least
400 feet on each side of the planned locked gate at the Poarch Rd grade crossing) ()(', the one hand, and the
MSHCP's Prop:>Sed Constrained linkage 7 ~defined above), centered at the Poarch Rd crossing. on the other
hand.
The FEIR Appendi)( C. Grade Crossing Enhancements, p. 2, states
''Poarch Rd grade crossirg:
Provide locked entry gates for emergency vehicles only.
Fencing along RR RON for 4GC'+ both sides of cu~rent crossing "
Appendix E of the FE:R is a Revised Habitat Assessment Report Its Table 2.2-1 at p. 2-3 (=18) IS :aoolled
MSHCP Conservation Cr1teri.a for PVL Project Applicable Criteria Cells. It lists three conservation ~Is (#
545. 635, and 721) in this area and says conservation within them 'wi!! contrtbute to assembly of Proposed L4-7Constrained Linkage T'. The next page of AppendiX Estates
Proposed Constrained Unkage 7 [is] within the study area crossing the 1~215 and SJBl line at Poarch Road
"Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is compnsed of upland Habitat In the ViCInity of Central Avenue It is the
only connection from Sycamore Canyon Park to 80x Springs Reserve. This Unkage is important for species
dispersal and would reduce the likelihood of species extinction as a result of popt,jation isolation."
Appendix C's Table 2.3-1 'PVL Proj€<Ot Applicable MSHCP COres and Linkages' at p. 2-6 (=21) says 'Proposed
COnstrained Linkage 7 Crosses SJBL Une and 1-21531 Poarch Road'.H.
It should be noted that Sycamore Canyon Park and Box Springs Reser-.re are respectively southerly and northeriy
of the Project's planned fencing. Thus the planned fencing would be a new barrier over 800 feet long dIrectly
across the Proposed Constrained linkage 7, further cutting off the already constrained wildhfe link between
Sycamore Canyon Park and 80x Springs r<eserve, a ;:ct:entiaJIy Significant environmental impact. This potential
1r:1pact c:-: wlldfife movemem would sUi! be there even if there were no MSHCP The E1R fails to considerfhis
~mpact.
As :loted in Appendix C and elsewhere in the E1R, the habitat fleaf the propjsed fencing is large1y coast sa.ge }
scrub. Such habitat is ;,ighly subject to wildland fires. The E1R also "ails to consider the impact of the fencing on L4-8
fife control efforts, induding access across the tracks. n the area,
Citrus Connection and Open Space Lot
The :;Qncem here is:he location of the southeast edge of the proposed Citrus Connection, whe--e it joins the "\
SJBl, and Its impact on the Open Space Lot at that location that was a Mitigation Measure requi:-ed by the City of
R:verside at the time of Its approval of the adjacent c:trus Business Park development. The Open Space Lot
ooing discussed has APN# 247-150.036 and can be seen on DEIR2 Fig. 2A-20 (p. 73) "Citeus COnnection Parcel
Acquisit"n" as the lot just below (and to the nght or, the RCTC-owned Lot marked 247-150-040 (the valley Street
:narkmgs!;own there t::rough the middle of the lot with APN# 247-150-038 is out of date -Vallf!oj Street is non
eXistent there and is in tile middle of Springbrook Wash}. L4-9
The EIR contains two figures showing a fainy detailed picture of the route of the Citrus Connection: DEIR2 Figure j
2.4.4 (p 53) IS a "Site Aerial" of the Citrus Connection, and Figure 2.4-5 (p 54) is a "Citrus Connection
Engineenng Site Plan", Those two fjgures appear to show that the new rail line of the Citrus Connection goes
through a bit of the northeast corner of the open space lot. Even If a more detailed figure would ShoW that the rail
line would nat actually pass through a part of the Open Space Lot. it appears from the cited Figures that it would
at least come sa close that a track embankment there (needed because the site is along the side of Sprlngbrook
92666/PVL FEIR 48 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 4 (cont'd)
Len Nunney
July 12, 2011
wash, one orthe CIty's major protected arroyos) and room for maintenance access would Intrud" into the Open } L4-9 (coord) Space Lot,
FriendS af Rlwrside'. Hills _ad with the d"""'opers orthe Citrus Business Pan.: to minlmi.lre that project's
environmOOl'llal impact, """",,ng with them to ..... that the Springbrook IlVash portton was preseMld In .n open
space lot and in particuJar p .......ding them to place the access road to the northern IoU> II the......t end oUhe
d"""lopmont (nel<! to the main railroad ine) insteed or the east end (nel<! to the SJBL) b ....U... the east end in
and near the IlVash had the best natIVe vegeCalion, We are informed that the Open SpaC!!> Lot i. now under the L4-10 stewardship of the RIVerside Land Consorv.oncy under an easement, to be loop! in • natural state,
The EIR is deilclOOl'll In Ignonng the _ce orthe Open Space Lot and the Impact af the CItrus Connedlon
passing ellher through or immediately adjacent to the Open Space Lot, with no consideration of any buffeMng,
Thank yw for your attention,
Regards,
Len Nunn'!Y
For Friends af Ri_'.Hils,
4477 Picacho Of,
Rlwrside, Ca 92507,
PS Since I have nolexe_edby 6 page Imlt here are two pholos ft'om 30" March 2005 afthe major pool
identified on the map included ."""'". one afthe pool shCM'ing the raR Une In the upper lefland the other showing
two metamorph opedeibolloads in the same pool.
L4-11
92666/PVL FEIR 49 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Response to Letter 4
Len Nunney
July 12, 2011
As an initial matter, CEOA does not require that RCTC respond to this comment letter. (See
State CEOA Guidelines, § 15088(a) (responses not required where letters are received after
close of CEOA comment period).) Moreover, it should be noted that this comment letter was not
submitted until immediately prior to close of business on July 12th, the afternoon prior to the
July 13th noticed public meeting at which the Project is to be considered. Nonetheless, RCTC is
providing these responses in order to provide a complete and accurate record.
L4-1. This comment is introductory in nature and expresses Friends of the Riverside Hills'
desire to provide additional comments. This comment does not raise specific
environmental concerns. Therefore, no further response is necessary. (See State
CEOA Guidelines, §15088 (responses should address comments on "environmental
issues").)
L4-2. Mr. Nunney, as a representative of Friends of the Riverside Hills, submitted a
comment letter on the Draft EIR on May 24, 2010. (See Final EIR, p. 0.3.3.1-196
through 0.3.3.1-199.)This previous letter did not contain a map or locational dala
(GPS points or northings and eastings) for the occurrence of Western spadefoot
toads along the railroad ROW. (See Final EIR, p. 0.3.3.1-196 through 0.3.3.1
197.)Based on Mr. Nunney's May 24,2010 comment letter, inquiries were made 10
RCA about the issues that Mr. Nunney raised. RCA did not have the information Mr.
Nunney claimed that he had submitted to RCA. (June 24, 2010 telephone call
between Stephanie Standerfer, RCA, and Blair Baker, Kleinfelder).This currenlleller
dated July 12, 2011, indicales that the information was not submitted to the RCA as
claimed, but to the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), see the reference
near the bottom of the first page to Karin Cleary-Rose, who is the USFWS
coordinator for MSHCP issues. The USFWS is not the MSHCP managing agency,
RCA is the managing agency.
A Google aerial photograph of the area between Manfield Street and Poach Road is
included in within the comment letter. The aerial photograph attempts to indicate
locations of ponds, with references to the years 2006 and 2008. Below the
photograph there is a statement that there are metomorphs every year. Further
discussion of the aerial photograph occurs in the following comment responses. It
should be noted that the information that Commenter superimposed onto the Google
aerial photograph is data from 2006 and 2008. The physical characteristics of this
area have changed since 2006 and 2008. As indicated in the Draft EIR, RCTC
acknowledges that western spadefoot toad has the potential to inhabit the San
Jacinto River area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.) Furthermore, the Draft EIR discloses that
the project proposes to replace the San Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto
River Bridge Overflow Channel. (Ibid.) As a result, there is a potential signfficant
impact to western spadefoot toad and mitigation has been imposed to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Specifically, RCTC has incorporated
mitigation measure BR-9 requiring preconstruction surveys for western spadefoot
toad 30 days prior to site disturbance to determine if western spadefoot toads are
present within the designated construction area. (Final EIR, p. 0.4-4.) If they are,
92686/PVL FEIR 50 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
the project biologist shall prepare a relocation program that shall be approved by the
RCA prior to implementation. (Ibid.)
Moreover, the Western spadefoot toad is neither federally nor state endangered or
threatened. Rather, it is a state species of special concern. (MSHCP, p. A-52.)
Regardless, however, the Western spadefoot toad is a covered species under the
MSHCP (MSHCP § 9.2 and Species Account p. A-62 €It seq.), and RCTC as a
permittee to the MSHCP and, thus, will comply with all of the MSHCP's requirements
with regard to toads, including survey requirements. (See, e.g., Mitigation Measure
BR-9.) As the MSHCP provides full and complete CEQA mitigation for all potential
impacts to covered species (MSHCP § 1.2.3), the EIR's conclusion that impacts are
less than significant (particularly with the imposition of mitigation measure SR-9) is
fully supported by the record. (See Revised Draft EIR p. 4.4-22.) With regard to the
comment on the tadpoles and reproduction, please see Response to Comment L4-3,
below.
L4-3. There is reference made to specific pools along the PVL alignment.As an initial point,
the MSHCP states that, 10)f the 145 species covered by the MSHCP, no surveys will
be required by applicants for public and private projects for 106 of these Covered
Species. Covered Species for which surveys rnay be required by applicants for
public and private Development projects include 4 birds, 3 mammals, 3 arnphibians,
3 crustaceans, 14 Narrow Endemic Plants, and 13 other sensitive plants within the
Criteria Area." (MSHCP Appendix E at p. 1: § 6.3.2.)The only covered amphibian
species for which surveys are required are the arroyo toad, the mountain yellow
legged frog, and the California red-legged frog.(MSHCP Appendix E [Species
Specific Conservation Objectives for Amphibians]: § 6.3.2.)Notably, then, the
MSHCP does not impose a strict requirement for spadefood toad surveys.
Similarly, the MSHCP's requirements for the protection of species associated with
Riparian/Riverine areas are "important to Conservation of the following listed
species ... arroyo toad, mountain yellow-legged frog, [and) California red-legged
frog .... " (MSHCP § 6.1.2.) Again, the MSHCP excludes the Western spadefoot toad
from the list ot species for which the Riparian/Riverine policies are required for
Conservation. However, and even though not included on the list of species for
which compliance is necessary for conservation, the Riparian/Riverine policy
discussion does acknowledge that benefits from policy compliance would
nonetheless accrue to spadefoot toads. Accordingly, the Project will comply with the
Riparian/Riverine policies. (Revised Draft EIR p. 4.4-25.)
The Commenter does not provide any substantial evidence in support of his claims
that tadpoles should be treated any differently than adults. Ultimately, the MSHCP
acknowledges that, "[s]urveys for adult toads are difficult ... and tadpoles detections
are often accidental.' (MSHCP p. A-76 [Species Account for Western spadefoot
toad].) Nonetheless, and to provide a complete and full analysis, a survey for
spadefoot toads was undertaken. During our survey neither western spadefoot toads
nor tadpoles were identified within this area. (Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea
Hammondil) Survey Report, p. 8.)However, because of the overall concern for
potential project related impacts to western spadefoot toads, a mitigation measure
was inciuded in the Draft EIR, mitigation measure SR-9, which indicated that pre
construction surveys are necessary and if any are identified within the construction
92666/PVL FEIR 51 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETIERS
area, a RCA approved relocation plan would be implemented.The MSHCP species
account acknowledges that Western spadefoot toad eggs normally hatch into
tadpoles with six days, with full maturation of toads taking approximately three
weeks, although in some instance maturation takes longer depending on
temperature and food conditions. (MSHCP p. A-71.jTo the extent that toads were
found during pre-construction surveys, such metamorphoses factors would be
accounted for in any relocation plan approved by the RCA.
The commenter restates his afflation with the University of California at Riverside,
and that photographic records were kept of this area, but these photographs we not
supplied previously. The commenter also states his concern for the potential impacts
to other species in the area including burrowing owl. The EIR explains that the
disturbed nature of the ROWand ongoing maintenance activities of the active rail
corridors make impacts to burrowing owls unlikely. (DEIR, p. 4.4-22.) However, there
is available nesting habitat adjacent to the existing ROWs. Thus, protocol surveys for
burrowing owl were conducted in and adjacent to the ROW. Based on those surveys,
no burrowing owls were identified. Nonetheless, since there is potential to impact
burrowing owls given the adjacent suitable burrowing owl habitat, RCTC imposed
MM BR-10 to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.(DEIR, p. 4.4-22.)
L4-4. The commenter implies that wildland fires on or near Box Springs Mountain have
started because of sparks from the passing trains on the SJBL This notion then
reaches into the statements regarding wheel squeal and the Commenter implies that
areas with wheel squeal are a fire risk because of the friction between the steel
wheels and the steel track. The commenter fails to acknowledge that the trains move
along the alignment because of friction between the steel wheels and steel rail. This
occurs throughout southern California and across the nation, and there is no
documented evidence that indicates wildland fires are more likely near railroad tracks
or at tight radius curves. Thus, the information that Commenter has provided does
not constitute substantial evidence. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a) (speculation
and unsubstantiated opinion do not constitute substantial evidence).)
A paragraph within the letter makes the faulty logic that more and faster speed trains
will increase the likelihood of sparks and therefore fires. The commenter does not
state that the commuter trains are shorter than the freight trains and therefore cause
less wheel squeal. Additionally, the project will utilize "way-side applicators" to
reduce the impact of wheel squeal on the surrounding areas.(Draft EIR, p. 4.10
36.)This project feature will improve the condition for both the freight and commuter
rail operations. Specifically, the wayside applicators apply a friction control material
to the top of the rail and the gage face to reduce the metal to metal friction that
causes wheel squeal. (Ibid.) Thus, the wayside applicator not only reduces noise
impacts but it also reduces the amount of friction on the rail and would thereby
reduce the likelihood that a spark from the rail would ignite a fire.
Additionally, the PVL project would add a minimal number of trips to the existing
SJBL. Specifically, the opening year schedules show that the PVL project would add
a mere 12 daily passenger train trips to the line. (Draft EIR, p. 2-50.) The addition of
such a minimal number of passenger train trips to the existing line is very unlikely to
create a risk of wildfire.
92666/PVL FEIR 52 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Commenter references a discussion of wildland fires from both the SEA and Draft
EIR. First, it should be noted that NEPA and CEQA are separate and distinct laws
with separate and distinct standards and processes. The SEA and the DEIR are
stand-alone documents. Nonetheless, the referenced material includes reference to
extensive destruction can occur in areas of Urban-Wildland Interface, These
statements are followed up with the statement that homes near the PVL are at a risk
of wildland fire. The commenter fails to acknowledge that the homes in the UCR
neighborhood are located within the Urban-Wildland Interface and are at greater risk
for fire because of that fact, and not that the train passes by the area.(Draft EIR, p.
4.7-2.)
L4-5, At the outset, it should be noted that commenter claims that the SEA ignores the fact
wildland fires are no longer considered beneficial in the area. As previously
explained, NEPA and CEQA are separate and distinct laws with separate and
distinct standards and processes. The SEA and the DEIR are stand-alone
documents. Thus, Commenter's attempts to use language in the SEA to discredit or
attack analysis in the DEIR are misplaced.
The Draft EIR does not state or imply that wildland fires are beneficial in this area.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-17 through 4.7-18.)The commenter acknowledges that the UCR
neighborhood is within the Urban-Wildland Interface and references the MSHCP
core area and linkage in the area.
The commenter then quotes the Draft EIR and the discussion of the Western
Riverside County Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map) which is provided by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The Fire Map indicates, as
stated in the Draft EIR, that areas adjacent to the Box Springs Mountain Reserve are
at a greater risk of fire because of the Urban-Wildland Interface.(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-2.)
L4-6. Commenter faults the EIR for failing to consider how the PVL could cause a wildland
fire. There is no evidence to suggest that normal operations of a train cause sparks
that lead to brUSh fires in the Metrolink service area, which includes landscape and
terrain similar to that found in the Box Springs area. Thus, it is speculative that
Project trains may cause significant wildland fire impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines,
§15384(a) (speculation and unsubstantiated opinion do not constitute substantial
evidence ).) Nonetheless, as part of standard maintenance of rail rights-of-ways,
dry/dead vegetation will be removed from the vicinity of the tracks to help prevent the
train from being affected by any brush fires that occur in or near the right-of-way.
To the extent that the commenter claims that the SEA is deficient because it fails to
analyze hazards from the PVL train operation, construction or maintenance in the
nearby areas at high wildland fire risk, those comments do not apply to the Draft EIR.
NEPA and CEQA are separate and distinct laws with separate and distinct standards
and processes. The SEA and the DEIR are stand-alone documents. Thus,
Com menter's attempts to use language in the SEA to discredit or attack analysis in
the DEIR are misplaced.
L4-7. The commenter incorrectly insists that there is a conflict with closing the Poarch
Road crossing and the function of Proposed Constrained Unkage 7. In fact, the
MSHCP Joint Project Review ("JPR") prepared for the PVL found the project
926661PVL FEIR 53 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
consistent with the MSHCP. (JPR, p. 1.)With regard to Proposed Constrained
Linkage 7, the JPR explains that the Linkage is constrained by existing urban
development and roadways.(Ibid.)The adjacent planned community development,
urbanized areas of the City of Riverside and the widening of the 1-215 freeway (all
completely unrelated to the PVL project) would affect bobcat movement through this
Constrained Linkage. Given the importance of the Linkage for species dispersal, the
JPR requires that the project maintain an adequate wildlife undercrossing of at least
10-20 feet wide with fencing and vegetative cover to accommodate bobcat
movement. Thus, RCTC has considered impacts that the proposed project would
have on Constrained Linkage 7 and has fully accounted for those impacts in
accordance with the MSHCP JPR Report.(JPR, pp. 1-2.)
Additionally, the fencing near the crossing at Poarch Road is intended to discourage
drivers from attempting to bypass the closed gates of the crossing itself.
(Engineering Drawing,Sheet number 90 of 2075 (90% Plans).) The fencing is of such
a configuration that bobcats can still pass this area without being blocked by this
fencing. (Engineering Drawing, Sheet number 90 of 2075 (90% Plans).)The bobcat
was the only mammal identified that uses this linkage, all the others are birds that
can fly over the 1-215. (MSHCP Conservation Area Configuration Issues
(www.rctlma.org).) Additionally, the commenter fails to identify the benefits of closing
this crossing by eliminating the daily vehicle traffic along Gemert Road, which leads
to the Poarch Road crossing.
L4-8. The commenter implies that the habitat near Poarch Road is coastal sage scrub,
when indeed it is non-native grassland. (See aerial photograph included in comment
letter.) The coastal sage scrub habitat is located north of the crossing and riparian
habitat is located south of the crOSSing. (See aerial photograph included in comment
letter.) Any emergency crews will be able to open the gates to cross at Poarch Road
should the need arise. (Draft EIR, p. 2-44.) The proposed fencing will not impact
potential firefighting efforts because it will still allow water to be sprayed on the area
as necessary.
L4-9, The commenter claims that the proposed alignment of the Citrus Connection will
impinge on an open space lot that is protected by a conservation easement. The
project will not enter into the conservation parcel located at Springbrook Wash.
Although the figures in the EIR appear to show there is encroachment into the
conservation parcel, in fact the project does not. The figures are representative only
(Engineering Drawing, Sheet number 63 of 2075, (90% Plans).) In fact, as a
requirement for purchase of the two parcels north of Springbrook Wash, RCTC will
be contributing funds to the on-going maintenance of the conservation parcel. (City
of Riverside. City Planning Commission, Final Approval, Case P06-1508, November
8, 2007.) Thus, RCTC understands the nature of the open space lot and will not
infringe upon it as part of the construction of the Citrus Connection. In terms of
access, there is a very limited easement directly adjacent to the SJBL alignment.
(Legal Description, Access Easement, June 2009.) This easement is for
maintenance only, and access is only by foot in order to maintain the culvert located
within the SJBL alignment. (Legal Description, Access Easement, June 2009.)Any
impacts resulting from this maintenance access, will be the responsibility of RCTC
and SCRRA to restore to previous condition.
926661PVL FEIR 54 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Moreover, according to the JPR, the Citrus Connection would be constructed on
property to be acquired, located north of Citrus Street and Springbrook Wash in the
City of Riverside. (JPR, p. 3-4.) The JPR concludes that the project site will not
conflict with the overall Reserve Assembly goals of the MSHCP and the increased
rail operations would not adversely affect reserve assembly or function. (JPR, p. 4.)
L4-10. As explained above in Response to Comment L4-9, the proposed PVL project will
not infringe upon the open space lot or the conservation easement. Since the Citrus
Connection will not cross through the open space lot, there will be no direct impacts
to the open space lot as a result of the PVL project. With regard to the Citrus
Connection passing immediately adjacent to the open space lot, RCTC is required to
comply with the Urban-Wildland Interface Guidelines set forth in Section 6 of the
MSHCP. (JPR, p. 5.) The Urban-Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to
address the indirect effects of locating development adjacent to conservation areas.
(WRC MSHCP, Section 6.1.4.) The Urban-Wildland Interface Guidelines include
provisions for buffering. (Ibid,) Thus, the open space lot and conservation easement
would be adequately buffered from the PVL project.
Moreover, according to the JPR, the Citrus Connection would be constructed on
property to be acquired, located north of Citrus Street and Springbrook Wash in the
City of Riverside. (JPR, p. 3-4.) The JPR concludes that the project site will not
conflict with the overall Reserve Assembly goals of the MSHCP and the increased
rail operations would not adversely affect reserve assembly or function. (JPR, p. 4.)
L4-11. This comment includes photographs from 2005 showing two spadefoot toads.
Commenter claims that the photographs were taken of a pond within the RCTC/SJBL
ROW. There are no indicating markers on the photographs that enable RCTC to
confirm that the pond was actually within the RCTC/SJBL ROW. Thus, the
information that Commenter has provided does not constitute substantial evidence,
(State CEQA Guidelines, §15384(a) (speculation and unsubstantiated opinion do not
constitute substantial evidence).)
92666IPVL FEIR 55 July2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
March Joint Powers Authority
July 12, 2011
July I Z, ZO II
Ms. EddaRooso
Riverside County Tnmsportalion Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Rlverside, CA 92502
"": RcrcPerrioVaDeyLine
Deor Ms. Rooso:
Tl!e Match Joint PQwern A_ty has _ved • notice of public hearing for lho llJ1COlIllng '.
-review of rhc: Perris Valley Line project. The March J.oint Powers: AlIthority has worked
coUabocatively with ReTe on the project over the past 8: years, .and would like to continue to
ex:pre.">S our support as this project E'tOYes forward rowards approval.
The March Joint Powers Authority is tasked to create 38,000 jobs over the next 20 to 30 years as
former portions of the March AJ.r F()!ce Base are redevel(l}ll!d. In working with Rcrc, the
March JPA has been ""Ie to dedi<ate land fortl:!e ~Moreno V.1JcylMmh Field Stalion, L5·1
and ensuring that supporting infrastructure is in place. This station will provide a key public
transit opportunity fot these 38~OOO jobs, and it will be tritical for the continued growth of the
Meridian BusiIless Park and. March LireCare project
Again, the March loint Powers Authority would like to reite:rate our fun support for the Perris
Valley Line project and hope for a favorable deciSIon un the project,
Sirn::ereIy~
~ \ •tJ.,;I.{)f~~
Executive Director
92666/PVL FEIR 56 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Response to Letter 5
March Joint Powers Authority
July 12, 2011
As an initial matter, CEQA does not require that RCTC respond to this comment letter. (See
State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088(a) [responses not required where letters are received after
close of CEQA comment period].) However, in the interest of full disclosure and for the purpose
of creating a complete administrative record, RCTC has prepared the following response.
L5-1. The March Joint Powers Authority expresses its full support for the Perris Valley Line
project. The comment does not raise enVironmental concerns. Thus, no further
response is required. (See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088 (responses should
address comments on "environmental issues").)
92666/PVL FEIR 57 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AOOITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Barney Barnett
July 12, 2011
Choice for Metrolink Station not in public's best interest! 7·9·2011
Prop~r station It)(:ation is essential for regl0nal transportation between counties and should not be
decided by only one transportation agency. 1\0 agency should be allowed to use public funds for
th~ir o,,"-u benefit and ignore the needs and requests from the public for 1 0 y\!ar5, A well placed
conunuter rail station will relieve fre.",'llY congestion, and for 10 yeaIS the public's choke has
been the HighgroVe 1o.:.tion tbat is only Y, mile from the Center St. exit ofthe I·21} freeway
where there are over 17 acres ofvacanl land for ample parking between 2 different railroads.
Highgrove is in the middle of the triangle belween San Bernardino, Riverside, and Perris, at a
natural railroad junction point and is an idealloeation for a commnter rail station.
Highgrove is 7 rail miles south of San Bernardino, 3.5 rail miles north of Riverside, 18 rail mil".
from Perris. and currently bas commuter trains 7 days a week For many years, Highgrove has
been on the Inland Empire Orange County Line Metrolink route. The Riverside County
Transportation Commission now owns] 7.22 acres of"ac.nt property at Highgrove for tbe
propos<d curve track that w~1l connect the Perris Valley Line railroad track to tbe B:.iSF track.
.-\. Metrolink statlun should be hllllt OIl the west side of RcrC's property In Highgrove that
is right nert to the 1/ 3 BNSF main tine where there are existing Metrotink train•. But
RcrC wants to use our tax money to buy additional property and bnlld a station 1 mile
away on another railroad track where there are no commuter trains! Is this reaDy true?
State and Feder.l funds should Dot b. wasted: But RCTC will use State and Federal funds on this
S232 minion dollar Perris Valley Line project on a railroad that needs to be comple",ly rebuilt
with new trade, new sidings, and a new signal system for trains because there is nO CTC signal
system for trains on the 3& mile Perris Valley Line track.
And RCTC's plan for this $232 Million Don... public transportation project will not stop llm: of
Ute existing daily conUlluter trains that now operate through Highgrove between San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties. The Colton Flyowr will allow e ....en more Metrolink trains in the future
between San Bernardino and Riverside but there is no provision in RCTe's plan, to stop anvof
these present or future commu",r trains at Highgrove.
The station at Highgrove needs no track improvements or nc\\' equipment such as engines~
cO&hes~ or crews because existing commuter trains already go through Highgroye 7 days a
week TIle Highgrove station could use the existing commutu trains rigbt now by just stopping
any ofthe trains at Higbgrove and the exact same platform (station) location could be used when
the Perris Valley Line is completely up-graded lor passenger tmin service in the future.
Oue station is all that is needed. No other property needs 10 be purchased al Marlborough Ave.
for a future :>fetrolink station. TIle physical difference between tile property at Highgrove for the
proposed curve. and the Marlberough Ave. location is • very short distance but the destinations
are different because they are on different railroads ~
Federal and State ta.x money should benefit commuters between both counties be-Calise the
revenue is derived from both counties. Transportation Agencies should make regional decisions
and not just limit destinations within their own county. Costs. efficient placenlcnt of stations, and
destination.s should be the fIrst priority of!!!!y transportation agency, but building a "'[etrolink
station on a dead end track on the Perris Valley Line at Marlborough Ave. is a waste of our tax
dollars and an arrogant position that has existed at RCTC for 10 yoarn.
In a letter dated Dec. 13,2007, the Federal Transit AdministrntiOD encouraged RCTe to reduce }
costs on the Perris Valley line. (www.highgrovehappenings.net8IldclickonITA)
L6--1
L6-2
L6-5
L6-6
L6--7
926661PVL FEIR 58 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 6 (cont' d)
Barney Barnett
July 12, 2011
Aftor !he FTA letter, on April 9, 200&, ReTe staff told their commissioners !here would be a
$4,61 million dollar savings if the proposed Metrolink route wentthrough Highgrove instead of
going OVer !he CP railroad at Marlborough Avenue, This savings would comply with the request
from ITA to reduce costs, TIle savings of almost $5 million dollars is the reason tbe route was
changed back to Highgrove where public support dates back 10 years. In 2007 the cost for the
Perris Valley Line rebuild was estimated to he $165 million dolla", but now the cost is estimated
at $232 million dollars.
)low, ReTe is currently in escrow to purchase another piece of vacant property at Marlborough
Avenue. In a letter from ReTe on June 23,2011 the only thing ReTe revealed was: "The
Mnrlborough A ''''''112 property is currently in esC/'uw. No addilional informmitm is available at
tltis timen
No cost estimates are available on how much the property will cost at Marlborough Aw, but
lffil. additional expense of the Marlborough Ave. property is un-necessary because the station
shOUld be built on the 17.22 acres ofvacant land in Highgrove that ReTC recently bought forthe
curved track to connect the two railroads. The agreed price is Eight Million, Six Hundred
Twenty Five Thousand dollars ($8,625,000.00) for the Highgrove location.
CorumItant's 13 ......OIl! questioned:
ReTe hired the consulting fum STY and they listed 13 reasons why a station carmot be built at
Highgrove. But according to llllI: consultant, Mr. William Addington, a retired civil engineer with
54 yean; experience, the Highgrov. station can be built with good engineering. His professional
opinion resulted in the 13 reasons, listed on the STY map dated Feb. 27,2009, being challenged
by R. A. "Barney" Barnetl, editor ofthe Highgrove Happenings Newspaper.
Information is available on the web site: www.hi$lllovebappeni!ll!S.getby clicking on
Mctrolink , and RCTe's 13 reasons.
Station I~oaUIOIl is our only " ..... 'em:
Not stopping any ofthe existing commuter trains at Highgrove is the brainchild of RCTe but
ReTe controls our State and Fed.raJ transporuuion tax dollars and our Measure"N'
transportation funds. Tbey are responsible for making decisions such as station locations. The
public needs to know about this inefficient use of our tax dollars from State, Federal, and other
public authorized transportation money.
2,500 future homes are plann"d I mile east of!he Highgrove station and Spring St. is a straight
line between the fitture bomes and th~ Highgrove station. Even before these ncv;,' homes are built
there at< over 30,000 residents within a 2 mile radius of the Highgrove Metrclinksik The
Spring MQuntain Ranch project is on hold due to the economy but if a station is allowed to be
built at )'-Iarlborough Ave., another future station at Highgrovo will never happen due to their
close proximity to each other.
One quote says it all: ---.
Ann Mayer? Executive Dirt;!ctor of the Rivl;,nick County Trat.1Sportation COnlluission was quoted
in the Press-Enrerprise on Feb. 15,2009: }
"IVe have to put stops ",here they willserve the mo..r peuple ".
xlarlborough Ave, is certainly not that location!!:
Rcre's lUlethJ.cal procedures: }
Written and dated documents are available to support how ReTe has used un-ethical procedures
to prevent and actually oppose a !vletrolink station at Highgrov •.
L6-7 (cont'd)
L6-8
L6-9
L6-10
L6-11
L6-12
926661PVL FEIR 59 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Letter 6 (cont'd)
Barney Barnett
July 12, 2011
EXA.\jPLES:
Resolutions of support not distributed to commissioners: l
On Aug. 16,2004, thirty (30) copies of resolutions of support for a Highgrove Metrolink station l,.. L6-13from surrounding cities and organizations were submItted to RCTC staff but these documents J
were not distributed to the (30) RCTC commissioners for 14 months,
SCAG independent study stopped by RCTC:
On April 4. 2007 S&"iBAG (San Bernardino Associated Governments) voted to wait on the }
results ofthe ind"Pendcnt study of the Highgrove location by SCAG (Southern California
Association of Governments) but on the following day: April 5, 2007. Eric Haley. former L6·14
Executive Director afRCTe went to the SCAG meeting in Los Angeles and actually stopped the
ind"Pendent study aftho Highgrove station location. (tape recording of meeting available)
Workshop reloeatell:
When RCTC received opposition at the Riverside meetings from the public, a "Perris Valley }
Line Workshop" was held in La Quinta, Ca on Sept. 15, 2006 which is 77 miles from L6·15
Riverside. (www,highgrovehappenings.netand click on La Quinta workshop)
Libraries:
Five county libraries, Riverside, Moreno Valley. W oodcrest, Perris and Highgrove received
Supplemental Environmental Assessment reports that contained many mistakes including their
diagram and plans for a Motrolink station at Palmyrita Ave. that was occupied by a new giant
507,000 sq. fl warehouse. ReTC staffdid not like me showing the commissioners a photo of
the new warehouse located at this same location. This information is very misleading and L6-16
estimates are not available about how many people thought the location at Palmyrlta Ave. would
become a Motrolink station, I wrote anarti.le in the Feb. 2011 issue ofthe Highgrove
Happenings Newspaper showing their plan for a station at Palmyrlta Ave. dated Nov. 2010 and
the photo ofthe warehouse that 1took 00 Jan. 3. 201 L (www.highgrovehawenings.netand click
on latest issues-Feb. 20ll)
Other RCTC unethical incidenls can be found at (www,highgrovehappenings.net then } L6·17
Supporting Docs, Highgrove Happenings Articles 2001 to 2009 then scrolling down to Feb. 2007
and Oct. 2007)
The station location has become a political decision that only serves commuters within Riverside }
County between Riverside and Perris while igooring 10 years ofrequests from surrounding
L6-l8neighborhoods in buth counties including the City ofGrand Terrace that still supports using the
existing commuter trains at Highgrove, <www.highgrovehappenings.netand click on Supporting
Docs and ResolutiQJ1 from Grand Terrace dated Doc.13, 200 I)
Summary:
STATIO~LOCATION IS OUR ONLY (''ONCERN! }
Do it right the fll'S! time! Build a station at Highgrove next to the BNSF maiu line that will serve
L6·l9three cities, San Bernardino, Riverside and Perris (when the Perris Valley Line is upgraded),
R A. "Barney" Bamett ~
Editor, HighgrQve Happenings Newspaper
474 Prospect Ave,
Highgrove. Ca
92507 (951) 683 4994
highgrovenews@,rQadrunner.eom
92666fPVL FEIR 60 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETIERS
Response to Letter 6
March Joint Powers Authority
July 12, 2011
As an initial matter, CEQA does not require that RCTC respond to this comment letter. (See
State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088(a) [responses not required where letters are received after
close of CEQA comment period].) Nonetheless, RCTC is providing this response in order to
provide a complete and accurate record. Moreover, it should be noted that this comment letter
was submitted immediately before close of business on July 12th, the day before the matter was
initially scheduled for RCTC's consideration.
L6-1. This comment is introductory in nature and specifies Commenter's preference for a
station at the Highgrove location. Contrary to Commenter's allegations, RCTC has
heard, reviewed, and thoroughly investigated the public's concerns and interests
regarding the Perris Valley Line Project. (See e.g., Final EIR pp. 0.3.1-1 through
0.3.4.3-208.)lndeed, RCTC has paid particular attention to Com menter's requests
and proposals throughout the environmental review process. (See e.g., Final EIR pp.
0.3.3.1-2 through 0.3.3.1-69; 0.3.3.2-3 through 0.3.3.2-4; 0.3.4.1-8 through 0.3.4.1
12; 0.3.4.3-106 through 0.3.4.3-11O.)With regard to the Highgrove station option,
RCTC has extensively analyzed the possibility of siting a S1ation at this location and,
as detailed in the Final EIR, has found that the Highgrove station would be infeasible
from a practical, technical, planning, and financial perspective. (Final EIR, pp. 2-4
through 2-9; State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1) [feaSibility of alternatives can be
determined based on factors such as site suitability, economic viability, and
availability of infrastructure.) This comment does not raise specific environmental
concerns. Therefore, no further response is necessary. {See State CEQA
Guidelines, §15088 (responses should address comments on "environmental
issues"). )
L6-2. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment LH on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIR.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
L6-3. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIR.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
L6-4. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIR.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
L6-5. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 beginning on page 0.3.3.1-64 of the Final EIR. Also,
please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which explain
why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
92666/PVL FEIR 61 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETIEAS
L6-6.
L6-?
L6-a.
L6-9.
L6-10.
L6-11.
L6-12.
L6-13.
L6-14.
L6-15.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIA. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EI A.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIA. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIR.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIA.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIR.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment Ll-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIA.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIA. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIA.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIR.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final E1A.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EI R.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIA.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
92666IPVL FEIR 62 July 2011
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
L6-16. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIA. Please refer to
Response to Comment L 1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIR
and Response to Email Comments 2 (E2-1 and E2-2) on page 0.3.3.2-4 of the Final
EIR. Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
L6-17. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIA. Please refer to
Response to Commen1 L1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIA.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
L6-18. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Response to Comment L 1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIA.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
L6-19. This comment was fully addressed and responded to in the Final EIA. Please refer to
Response to Comment L 1-1 on pages 0.3.3.1-64 through 0.3.3.1-69 of the Final EIA.
Also, please refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9 of Volume 2 of the Final EIR, which
explain why the Highgrove Station option was rejected.
92666/PVL FEIR 63 July 2Q11
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A D D I T I O N A L C O M M E N T L E T T E R S
L e t t e r 7
J i m W r i g h t s m a n ' K D C
J u l y 7 , 2 0 1 1
� � � K D C . . . "
~ . . . - . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .
J \ l l y 7 , : r o t 1
M o . & I d a R o o o o
R i v C D i d . C o u n t y T - . p o t b l r i o n C o . . , , , , i s o i o u
P . O . B o x 1 2 0 0 8
. a r . e . . i d c . C A 9 2 5 0 2
I t h a s b e e n b r o u g h t t o o . . u t _ 1 i o n t h a t t h e R c r c h a s s d ! e c f u J e d I . m e e t i n g f o r t h e a p p m o l o f t h e
m f e r e n c c d M e t t o l i n k P c t r i s V a l l e y I J n e t b a t w o u l d i n c l u d e " M C J Z O I i o k S t a l i o n I o c a b O d d i i o a I y t o
t h e N o r t h o f o u t I n t d l i < : a m o r O f f i c e D e v e l o p m e n t . . 1 4 3 5 0 M e r j d j a n P k w y ~ l o c a t e d i n t h e M : a a : h
. B u s i n a . C . . . " " d e v e l o p m . . , t . A " . o n i n t e ! J O O b O d p u t y i n 1 I I i o p r o j e c t , K O C w o u l d l i e 1 0 C O I N < : f o u r
s t t o u g " " f ' l ' < J r t f o r " P P f I " ' " I .
W h e n K D C c h " " " i n 2 ! N 7 t o d e v e l o p 0 l S O , ( l O O o f o f f i c e b u i l d i n g i n ! h e ~
" ' - l o p m m t , ! h e p m p . - i R c r c M a r c h F W d S W i o n . _ " v e t ) ' i r n p o t b I m . . . . . . . . i n o u r d e d s i o n
t o p t o c : e e d w i t h t h e p r o j e t t . T h e L E B O G o l d C a t i I i < d l ! . i v e t o i d e I n W 1 i . . . . . . . . . 1 N i k I i I I g C I l D p < o v i d e
u p t o 1 5 0 0 " . " . . j o b o p p o t t I I I l i t i e s t o ! h e C o u m r w b < D . f u l l y ~ 0 J I d I i e i e I t h e . . . . . . . . . - o f t h e
t m n . s i t & d I l t y i s c r i t i c a I I i > t h e g I U I I I t h o f t h e M m : h B " " " , , , , " , C c n t u i n ~ 0 J I d t h e o u c c e s s f u l
o c c u p a o c y o f t h e K D C b u i l d i u g i n p u ! i < : u l a t . W e C I I f t l I D . t I y a r e p m p o o i n g O D " ~ p t o j c < : t
t h a t \ 1 ! i I I " " " " 1 1 " 1 0 0 0 _ j o b s f a t : : a w . . . . . c . - . t r O D d o l u : y . . . . " , " ; " " " " U o n l i l t ! h e p o t e a l i a l _
i s ! h e p t e o e n c e o f t h e p r o p o s e d M e t t o l i n k S t a I i o o .
0 . - a g a i n . K D C w o u l d l i e I i > r e i t e m t e 0 U l I t t o u g o u p p o t t f o r I h i o i n I p o t w > t p m j o c t O D d h o p e [ o r
" f a v O l 2 b l c d . . . ; . ; o . . i n t h e ~ o f t h e M C J Z O I i o k p . . . , ; . V a l l o y L i n e �
1 i m " ' ' ' _ 1 0
V " " , P t e t i d e a t
L 7 - 1
1 1 1 5 " - - a . d . S u i l l l : 1 Q l . ~ T X l 5 2 2 S . p 2 t 4 6 9 6 1 1 G J , ' 2 1 4 m l t I J I . ~
9 2 6 6 6 1 P V L F E I R 6 4 J u l y 2 0 1 1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDITIONAL COMMENT LETTERS
Response to Letter 7
Jim Wrightsman -KDC
July 7, 2011
As an initial matter, CEQA does not require that RCTC respond to this comment letter. (See
State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088(a) [responses not required where letters are received after
close of CEQA comment period).) However, in the interest of full disclosure and for the purpose
of creating a complete administrative record, RCTC has prepared the following response.
L7-1. KDC Real Estate Development & Investments expresses its full support for the Perris
Valley Line project. The comment does not raise environmental concerns. Thus. no
further response is required. (See State CEQA Guidelines. §15088 (responses
should address comments on "environmental issues").)
92666/PVL FEIR 65 July 2011
PNblic Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 1 of 4
Home> Categories >-Politics and Government> Publtc Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Hlghgrove
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove
Sign 810g Signatures Email friends
Signatures 135 TOTAL Sign Petition
Page: 1 , 2, 3 Nowl
Name: Ardie 8ame« on May 29, 2009
Comments:
1
Sponsored links
AdChoices !>
Name: Rufus on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
Name: Kevin Dawson on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
Name: Anonymeuson Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
2
3
4
Obesity
Prevention
Or9·
The threat of
obesity. The need
for change. Help
with obesity here.
www.M~~~a~_
Name: Rufus on Jun 3, 2009
Comment$;
5
Name: Kim Quinn on Juo 3, 2009
Comments:
6
Name: Kurt Rilz on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
7
Name: Krystal Gonzales on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
8
Name: Tammy Barker on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
Name: Anonymous on Jun 3, 2009
Commeots:
10
Nam.: Cher 8rooks on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
11
Nam.: Marlyn Maldonado on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
12
13
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/highgrovemetrolink/signatures 7/2512011
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 2 of4
Name: Alyssa Rae on Jun 3, 2009
Commenhl:
Name: AnOOjlmOUS on Jun 3, 2009
Commenhl: k W(luld make IKe a lot •••ier.
14
Name: Jessica Brown on Jun 3, 2009
Comments:
15
Name: Elias Olmedo on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
16
Name: Anonymaus on Jun 4, 2009
Commenls:
17
Name: Denis Kidd on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
18
Name: Damian Gonzalez on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
19
Name: Denis Kidd on Jun 4, 2009
Commen1s:
20
Name: Clementina Magdaleno on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
21
Name: Arthur E!emal on Jun 4, 2009
Commen1s:
22
Name: Maria Gonzalez on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
23
Name: Guadalupe Urrutia on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
24
Name: Socorro Hermosillo on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
25
Name: 8oMacio Flo,"" on Jun 4, 2009
Commenls:
26
Hame: Jazmine Jimenez on Jun 4, 2009
Commen1s:
27
Name: Abigail Parkinson on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
28
Name: Nalaly Garcia on Jun 4, 2009
29
http://www.ipctitions.com/petitionlhighgrovemetrolink/signatures 7/2512011
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 3 of4
Comments:
30
Name: Cannen Can~a on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
31
Name: Connie Mejia on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
32
Name: John Kmshofl on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
33
Name: Ernel1!! Oversmilh on Jun 4, 2009
Commenls:
34
Name: Rosalia Navarro on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
35
Name: Paul Navarro on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
36
Name: Anon"""",. on Jun 4, 2009
Comments:
37
Name: Augi. Perez on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
38
Name: Usa Brazfield on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
39
Name: GUll Chavez on Jun 6, 2009
Comments: I strongly support a Melrolink Stop in Highgrovel I I I I
Name: JAMES LASBY on Jun 5, 2009
Comments: THIS ONLY MAKES SENSE, TO SINCE IT WOULD BE A MINIMAL EXPENSE AND
PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA,
41
Name: Tammy Matteson on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
42
Name: Byron Matteson on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
43
Name: Marl< Bamett on Jun 5, 2009
Comments;
44
Name: Bruce Bebow on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
45
Name: Stephanie Darwin on Jun 5, 2009
http://www.ipetitions.comipetitionlhighgrovemetrolinkisignatures 7/2512011
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 40f4
Comments:
46
Name: Ma!JI Labonte on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
47
Name; M'!JI L M.J<:h.... on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
48
Name; Mike Barnett on Jun 5, 2009
Comments: I support this petition
49
Name: Ernest Asebedo on Jun 5, 2009
Comments; 9",.t place for one
50
Name: Carolynn Crowe on Jun 5, 2009
Comments; I absolutely want this In Highgrove I have. family member who gets treatment at Kaiser
Sunset in LA we take tne train all the time we must drive to Fontana to catch it because San Bernardino
parking is always full we really need this. V.ars PlI$t I took my kids to the Beach every weekend in the
summertime it was a great experience I want this ,we need this and for future generations: what a gift to
leave them. Thanks Carolynn Crowe Reanor Grand Terrace Real Estale resident fror the past 28 yea ...
Page: 1, 2 , 3
7/25/2011http://www.ipetitions.comlpetitionlhighgrovemetrolinklsignatures
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop Tn Highgrove Page I of4
Home> Categories:> Polities and Government:> Public Petition supports Metro!ink Stop In Highgrove
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove
Sign Blog Signatures Email friends
Signatures 135 TOTAL Sign Petition
Page: 1, 2 , 3 Nowl
Name: JoAnn Johnson on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
51
Spon.o....d link.
MC_1l>
Name: Terry Gene Carlslrom on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
Name: Jim Hodder on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
52
53
Bankru~tcl1
;I!o.ttomells
A Fresh Start is
Just Around the
Comer, Contact
Us Now for Help!
wwwRSBankruptcy.COiTI
Name: William Hahn on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
54
Name: Anony"",,", on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
55
Name: Jane Block on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
56
Name: Kalhleen M, Cochran on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
57
Name: Hugh J, Grant on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
Name: SHARON PRESTON on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
59
Name: Anonymous on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
60
Neme: Ron Reyes on Jun 5, 2009
Comments~
61
Name: Lori Cartstrom on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
62
63
http://www.ipetitions.com/pctition/highgrovemetro)inklsignatures?page=2 7/2512011
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page2of4
Name: Debbie Verna on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
64
Name: Sharon Brittain on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
Name: Alan Brittain on Jun 5, 2009
Comments:
66
Name: Daniel Lindholm on Jun 6, 2009
Comments: I would like to see a communter train (Melrohnk)slation here in Highgrove for myself & the
public to use to.
67
N....e: Mark Vi.yak on Jun 6, 2009
Comments:
68
Name: Jim Danielson on Jun 6, 2009
Comment$:
69
Name: Edward E. DeMuth on Jun 6, 2009
Comments:
70
Name: Anonymous on Jun 6, 2009
Comments:
71
Name: Mr & Mrs. K""in Collier on Jun 6, 2009
Comments:
72
Name: Clarice M. Todd on Jun 6. 2009
Comments:
Name: Wayne J Young on Jun 7. 2009
Comments:
74
Name: Anonymous on Jun 8, 2009
Comments:
75
Name: Jewlie Moyers on Jun 6, 2009
Comments:
76
Name: Anonymous on Jun 6, 2009
Comments: I I AM IN DAVOR OF HIS PETITION
77
Nam,,: Rebekah Luther on Jun 6, 2009
Comment" Please o""n the Highgrove line we need n bedly. Thank You
78
Name: Tony Mize on Jun 8. 2009
Comments:
79
http://www.ipetitions.com/petitionlhighgrovemetrolinklsignatures?page=2 7/2512011
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 3 of4
Name: Rosemary on Jun 9, 2009
Comments:
80
Name: Joe Nerio on Jun 14,2009
Comments:
81
Name: Anonymous on Jun 15, 2009
Comments:
82
Name: Don Bennett on Jun 15, 2009
Comments: Good idea I
83
Name: John Stahley on Jun 15, 2009
Comments:
84
Name: Donald & Eunice Huth on Jun 18, 2009
Comments: We bad< you On Ihis and hope you succeed because it would be greal for many people and
we would use this line
85
Name: Gail Seekins on Jun 20, 2009
Comments:
86
Nam.: Adrian Reyes on Jun 24, 2009
Comments:
87
Name: Jim Starrett On Jun 24, 2009
Comments:
88
Name: Anon)'1l1ous on Jun 25, 2009
Comments:
89
Neme: David Keeling on Jun 26, 2009
Comments: The Highgrove spot con_n where the Perrls-5anJacinto line starts Is the only sensible
place to put the metrolink station. Come onl
90
Name: Louis Gaillez on Jun 25, 2009
Comments: As a Grand Terrace resident and Melro"nk rider on the IEOe line for the lasl9 yea'" the
Highgrove location s""",slhe mosllogicallo service more cuslome,.. Ilappesrs 10 me Ihat ReTe is
iocking at also the COSI for improving more slreels at Ihe Highgrove location and having Hnext 10 exisling
residential houses.
91
Name:Ken~~ronAug6,2009
Comments:
92
Name: Sandra Evans on Aug 6, 2009
Comments:
93
Name: James Phillips on Oct 19, 2009
Comments; I support a Metro link Station at Highgnove because one is badly needed for people living
east of riverside station in Highgrove and surrounding areas_ It would take a lot of cars off the highway
going to other stations and findklg parking is afiNays a probtem. i am In Favor of a metro link station on
Ihe BNSF main lines at Highgrove. I remail JamesPhilips3663BuchananSI#111Rlverside.ca 92503
http://www.ipetitions.com/petitionlhighgrovemetTolink/signatures?page=2 712512011
P.ublic Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 4 of4
94
Name: Anonymous on Ocl19, 2009
Comments: we need a metro statin '" Highgrove
95
Name: AnonymOus on 0cI2O, 2009
Comments: makes sense 10 invest the Federal Tax dollars where the USAGE is at, not in some
"BRIDGE TO NOV\IHERE" just to spend OB.ma funds,., Highgrove is the place Ihe ..alion is needed
since we have commuters here now, not some anticipated pipe dream a feN years down the roacL,
96
Name: Ralph L H.in......-tll Jr, on Od 20, 2009
Comments:
97
Name: Jonathan D, Jackson 0f1 Dec 31,2009
Comments:
96
Name: Mauricio D on May 1, 2010
Comments:
99
Name: Keith Ayers On May 16, 2010
Comments: I suppor! • Metrolink Slation in Highgrove
100
Name: Keith Ayers 0f1 May 10, 2016
Comments: I support a Metrolink Slation in Highgrolle.
Page: 1, 2 , 3
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/highgrovemetrolinklsignatures?page=2 7/25/2011
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 1 on
Home:> Categories :;.. Politics and Government> Public Pelition supports Metrolink Stop in Hjghgrove
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove
Sign Blog Signatures Email friends
Signatures 135 TOTAL
Page: 1, 2, 3
101
Name: Kathleen COchran on Aug 2, 2010
Commenls: we need this for our community.
102
Name: Rebecca LeCompte on Ju119, 2011
Commenlll: do not put the metrolink station on Marboro ST
103
Name: JoAnn Johnson on Ju119, 2011
Comments: This is such a common sense solution to the entire area surroundinQ Highgrove and Grand
Terrace.
104
Name: George Saunders on Jut 19, 2011
Comments: Logic not politics should prevait
105
Name: Betty Crossno on Jul 20, 2011
Comments: do not put the station at martborough
105
Name: Jane BIod< on Ju121, 2011
Comments:
107
Name: Don &Marlene Ritz on Jul22, 2011
Comments: We need this stop 10 be in Highgrove, not the Martborough station, We have 9 pieces 01
property in Highgrove and feel we should have some sort or ...y so on where lIle most cost effective SfOp
would he, That would NOT be Marlborough!!!!
108
Hame: R Wehunt on Ju122, 2011
Comments:
109
Name: Thomas 0, Kauffman on Ju122, 2011
Comments: AHhough I live in N, Calif, now, I onca lived in the Riverside area for 24 yea", and still have
many contacts there, During my 24 years in So. Calif. I had occasion to make my residence in Highgrove
3 times, It is a great little community, It is M or happy, caring people who d ••e""., a t",nsportation
consideration. It doesn't make sense to spend great amounts of my tax dollars when for less mOtley a
station can be built in Highgrove, I support a Metrolink Station in Hlghgrove, Somebody at RCTC needs
to wake up
110
Name: Kevin Dawson on Jul22, 2011
Comments: Tile failure 01 RCTC to put. slation at Highgrove that would allow future train. from the PVL
to go to either Riverside or San Bernardino, is an example of !he lad< of integrity or the project, But tllen
again, Ihe PVL was Hawed from the begining. RCre bought the rail line but allowed BNSF to retain the
right to run as much fright a. they want without paying for use, Certainly, when Metrolink runs on BNSF
trad< they have to pay BNSF, What 1$ good for one should be good enough for the other, The PVL is a
http://www.ipetitions.com/petitionlhighgrovemetrolink/signatures?page=3
Sign Petition
Now!
Sponsored links
AIIC_II>
Top
Bankruptcy
Attorneys
Gel Help 10
Manage Your
Debts, We Deal
wi Your
Creditors, call
Nowl
y:(ww.RSBankruptcv.rom
7/25/2011
Public Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 2 of3
ftawed proje<l just like High Speed Rail. It needs a pause and peer review before moving forwanl.
111
Name: Mr And Mrs. KiMn G Collier on Jul22, 2011
Comments: Plea .. """",sider Ihe desire of the RCTC to build. Metrolink slation al a s~e on Palmyrita
and instead build tho site wIlere tho location makes the most logistic and fiscal sense· in Highgrove.
Thank you
112
Name: Betly Crossno on Jul 22, 2011
Comments: I want the Metrolink Station to be in Highgrove
113
Nam., Denis Kidd on Ju122, 2011
Comments:
114
N......' Denis Kidd On Ju122, 2011
Comments:
115
Name: Denis KicId on Ju122, 2011
Comments: Two stations for the price of one is a good deal!
116
Name: Tammy MaII"""n on Ju122, 2011
Comments: I support a Metrolink Station in Highgrove
117
Name: Byron Malleson on Ju122, 2011
Comments: I support. Metrolink Station in Highgrove.
118
Nam.: Jim MeKee on Ju123, 2011
Comments:
119
Nama: Dale Crossno on Jut 23, 2011
Comments: I want the Metrollnk Slatiom to be in Highgrove
120
Name: EdWard E. DeMuth on Jul25, 2011
Comments:
121
Name: Adrian Reyes on Ju125, 2011
Comments: Mr. Barnett's supporting documentation makes a convincing argument that the most logical
location for tho metrolink stop should be In Highgrove.
122
Name: Terry Carlstrom on Ju125, 2011
Comments: It only makes sense to have the Metro Unk Staton on the main line between Main and
Center Streets. Why in lhe wortd would anyone want to put It on tho spur.
123
Name: Mark Reynolds on Ju125. 2011
Com men"': I agree with aU of these reasons to locate lhe Highgnove alation on the 19 acres allhe new
curve from the Perris Valley line. There's another good reason to support this location for stopping
existing trains that already pa.. through Highgrove on their way to Orange County. Commulers from
Highgnove. Grand Terrace, Cotton. lorna Linda, Redlands. parts 01 San Bemanlino, Highland, Yucaipa,
and Calimesa would nalurally boanl Ihe Orange County train at Ihe new Hlghgrove station instead of the
existing San Bemardmo station. The San Bernardino station now requires these commuters to drive north
(5.5 miles on tho the 2151he wrong way) to board in San sennan:tlno. Instead w4h a new Highgrove
station on the mainline at this 19 acre location lhase commutens can head Ihe right direction (southbound
on the 215 towan:t. Orange County) to boanl in Highgrove. This would also relieve traffic from the busy
San Bernanlino stalion. Thank You! Mark Reynolds 250 Mandarin Way Highgrove CA, 92507
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/highgrovemetrolinklsignatures?page=3 7/2512011
fublic Petition supports Metrolink Stop In Highgrove Page 3 00
124
N.me: Christine Visyak on J"125, 201 I
Comments: Taxpayers are already struggling to meet their financial needs. We dO not need extra
expenses when Ihere is a convenient and appropriate space tnat is available without having to add
addijionall'ack and safely lighls and "",ssbars. Slop spending 00' money hivioosly.
125
Name: Mark Visya. on J"125, 201 I
Comments: Irs more of a convenience for people in the area to pari<: and ride the Metrolink from the
Highgrove area. II's also more of a convenience because of the currenllocatlons of the tracks.
126
Nam..: Sylvia Russell on Ju125, 2011
Comments:
127
Name: Sylvia Russell on Ju125, 2011
Commenl$:
126
Name: Sylvia Russell on Ju125, 2011
Commen1s:
129
Name: Joe Nerio on Ju125, 2011
Commen1s: II will beHer serlle lhe people of the cornmunijy.
130
Name: Art Bemal on Ju125, 2011
Comments: we need a metrolink stop in highgrove,
131
Name: Gail Seekins on Jul 25, 2011
Comments: I would use the metrolink more often if Ihe was a closer station. I have missed the train due
10 lhe problems of limtled parking at the S8 slation. We travel often and have found the flyaway service
very good but geHing from Ihe 58 station to home i. very diffic"tt, In addttien, When the planned home
come to woestern Highgrove. it will allow the many commuters easy access to 'he metrolink.
132
Name: Lori Carlstrom on Ju125, 2011
Commen",: I think Ihis will be • good thing for all. ThiS is a very good location, Thank you
133
Name: Melanie Zimmermann on Ju125, 2011
Commen1s: I just don1 undersland why this can'l be dono. Spending money on new land when Ihey
already own a perfect spol!!! and tracks already laid.", It also would be more producfivefor all !!! and not
just for Ihe employees of the warehouses.
134
Name: Melanie Zimmermann on Ju125, 2011
Commenl$: I jusl don'l undo",tand why this can't be done, Spending money on new land when they
already own a perfect spa"!! and tracks already laid"" II also would be more productive for all I!! and not
just for the employees of the warehouses,
135
Name: David M. Zimmermann on Ju125, 2011
Commen1s: I want the stop in Highgrovel!
Page: 1, 2, 3
http://www.ipetitions.com/petitionihighgrovemetrolinklsignatures?page=3 7/25/2011
July 21, 2011
Barney Barnett, Chairman
Municipal Advisory Council
474 Prospect
Highgrove, CA 92507
Dear Barney:
The City of Grand Terrace has supported a Metrolink station at Highgrove since
December 13, 2001 and we continue to support this location. A Metrolink station is
needed at Highgrove on the west side of the property already owned by the riverside
County Transportation Commission that will serve destinations in both counties.
Sincerely,
Mayor
Road, Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295
Fax: 909·783·7629
Civic Center,
HIGHGROVE METROLINK:
PERFEcr LOCATION: (BOrn ENDS OF RCTC PROPERTY HAVB RAILROAD
TRACKS)
RcrC ALREADY OWNS PROPERTY AT BlGHGROVE
BlGHGROVE: ONE PLATFORM =3 CITIES
COLTON FLYOVER OUT TO BID (MORE FUTURE COMMUTER TRAINS POSSIBLE)
MARLBOROUGH STATION WILL NOT STOP ANY EXISTING OR FUTURE
COMMUTER TRAINS
STATION LOCATION OUR ONLY ISSUE DUE TO DESTINATIONS AND COST
BlGHGROVE STATION: EFFICIENCY & COMMON SENSE (3,224 trains per year)
( 16, 120 trains since July 15, 2006)
ABANDON MARLBOROUGH AVE. (DUE TO UNNECESSARY COSTS)
STATE AND FEDERAL MONEY INVOLVED-AND BOTH BROKE
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, CALIF. TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, STATE AND FEDERAL SENATORS, STATE ASSEMBLY, AND
MEDIA, ARE BEING NOTIFIED
COMPROMISE OFFERED: (DON'T STOP FUTURE PVL TRAINS AT fllGHGROVE
BUT BUILD IDGHGROVE STATION USING EXISTING TRAINS)
RcrC'S UNETHICAL PROCEDURES (10 YEARS OF DOCI T" "\NTATION ON WEB
SITE: www.highgrovehappenings.net)
POSSIDLE LITIGATION
E.I.R.FAULTY AND INCOMPLETE
DO NOT APPROVE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT WITH A STATION AT
MARLBOROUGH AVENUE.
SUBMIT LETTER FROM GRAND TERRACE AND PETITION (MAY 2009 TO JULY
2011)
VISIT WEB SITE: www.bighgrovehappenings.net
Metrolink station location-Do the ma.
62 trains per week 7-15-2006
X52 weeks per year
3,224 trains per year
X 5 years
16,120 Commuter trains 2006 to 2011
? Commutertrains 2001 to 2006
On July 15, 2006 Metrolink trains started going between San Bernardino and Riverside 7 days a
week. And since 2006, there have been 62 passenger trains per week that have gone through
Highgrove between these 2 major cities. This means that each year there were 3,224 commuter
trains that passed through Highgrove without stopping. Multiply that by 5 years and that
increases to 16,120 Commllter trains. Stopping time is estimated between 60 and 90 seconds
for loading/unloading passengers and would still allow existing trains to stay on schedule within
". the 5 minute on time schedule allowance.
Surrounding cities and organizations first requested a Metrolink station at Highgrove in 2001.
Add the 5 years of Metrolink ttains between 200 1 and 2006 when there were commuter ttains
only 5 days a week, and this figure skyrockets even further!
The Colton Flyover is now up for bid that will eventually increase the number ofcommuter
trains allowed between the San Bernardino and Riverside Counties but RCTe's plan for a
Metrolink station at Marlborough Ave. on the Perris Valley Line will not stop any of the existing
or future commuter trains that go between the 2 counties. And the Marlborough Ave. location
will not provide any commuter rail service between Perris and San Bernardino.
RCTC should be stopped from building a Metrolinkstation at Marlborough Avenue. The
station belongs 1 mile northward at Wghgrove using the existing aDd future trains between
the 2 ~untles!
R. A."Barney" Barnett
Editor, Highgrove Happenings Newspaper
474 Prospect Ave.
Highgrove, Ca.
92507
(951) 6834994
E-mail: highgrovenews@roadnmner.com
Web site: www.bighgrovebappenings.net
July 21,2011
Barney Barnett, Chairman
Municipal Advisory Council
474 Prosp;:ct
Highgrove, CA 92507
Dear Barney:
The City of Grand Terrace has supported a Metrolink station at Highgrove since
December 13. 2001 and we continue to support this location. A Metrolink station is
needed at Higbgrove on the west side ofthe property already owned by the riverside
County Transportation Commission that will serve destinations in both counties.
Sincerely,
Civic .Road. Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295
Fax: 909-783-7629
7miles to San Bernardino